From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Sep 30 18:14:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA21555; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:02:08 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Cannot learn electrochemistry by ESP
In-Reply-To: <960930152139_72240.1256_EHB201-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961001104944.7477A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NLd342.0.dG5.ws6Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1252
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 30 Sep 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> To: Vortex
> 
> Martin Sevior writes:
> 
>      "If a theory of CF is ever devised it will be the most radical departure
>      from what is known ever in the history of Physics. What is currently
>      known about Physics says the transmutations reported recently occur over
>      187 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE too fast. Under those circumstances the onus is
>      absolutely on the CF scientist to convince the sceptical scientist using
>      every means at his disposal."
> 
> Well, many CF scientists have already used every means at their disposal. I
> mean, what more can you expect EPRI to do? They published a 128 page report +
> microfiche. If they could build power plants I know they would! They have said
> so many times. Miley volunteered to go on national television, and he will
> report at ICCF6. I do not know any other mainstream scientist who would stick
> his neck out so far in support of a despised, heretical field like CF.
> 

That would be fantastic Jed. I fully admire his courage and his attempts to
get the field legitimized to say nothing of his Science. I hope that he is 
absolutely ready to backup all replication attempts with a full published 
protocol, including all the tricky bits. I hope he will make himself 
available to help others through replication problems. 

Martin Sevior

PS. On a totally different note, about 4 months ago we heard yet 
another rumour that the P&F Nice facility was about to be shut down. Given 
that they're appearing at ICCF6 it appears their death was prematurely 
reported again.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Sep 30 18:18:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA22644; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:07:48 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Lattice disruptions cause explosions?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960930104542.771fd20a@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961001110443.7477B-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oiUXJ.0.gX5.sx6Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1253
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

> 
>    It is refreshing to see any science here or on spf at all.
> 
>  Nonetheless,  not sure about your numbers.
> 
>  First, atomic space?   is not ~1-2  10^-10 meters a little closer?
> 
>   if you mean lattice,it might be twice that, so
>  3.9 E-10 meters seems right for palladium.
>      ok?
>

I was doing a conservative order of magnitude estimate Mitch. Just to see
what size material would be needed to absorb a "typical" nuclear event. I
think 1 micron cubed is not too far out.

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Sep 30 18:19:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA21372; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32506CBE.7195@interlaced.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:01:37 -0400
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net
Organization: NASA (retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
References: <960930182550_321151977@emout01.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"BrFuI2.0.mD5.8s6Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1251
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Vortexians,
(snip)
> Have calorimeter, etc., will measure.  Have computer, will publish.  That's
> it.
> 
> Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.
> EarthTech International, Inc.

Dear Dr. Hal:

I feel that the most important thing EarthTech has to offer to me (and,
perhaps, to others on this list) is pure ACCESSIBILITY!  I'm an
anomalous science advocate - I have a limited amount of time to search
the haystack for CF/ZPE nuggets - I don't need 10 periodicals to search
through each month - I like to have one source I can trust.  

EarthTech is here, you guys seem reasonably competent(I don't demand
infallibility from any human organization.), and I trust you to be
"up front" with any results you may find, + or-.  I hereby express
my simple THANKS for your efforts.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Sep 30 21:40:45 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA10580; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961001043515.006f2fb8@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:35:15 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect - a prediction
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"BuHqc3.0.Cb2.mx9Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1255
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Why is iron so special ?

At 11:12 AM 9/26/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Prediction based on the expansion effect: the radial electrostatic field
>should be many times larger for a given current if the bi-directional
>interleaved conductor coil is made of iron wire, provided the wire is not
>magnetically saturated.
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Sep 30 23:49:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03624; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 23:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 23:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 06:47:38 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3251b53b.24477630@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960930095815.22704F-100000@college>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960930095815.22704F-100000@college>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"DkIru2.0.Yu.ZwBKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1257
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:01:17 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote:

>
>
>	Dear Jeff,
>
>	In a darkened room, with your rig shrouded to prevent light from=20
>escaping IT use a CRT from a scope which is off to see if you are=20
>generating X rays.   Other phosphors work as well.  One is from X ray=20
>film cassettes, a used one from when they upgrade.  Have to talk to=20
>radiologist.  A nice one will give you a cassette .... those wiht high =
JQ=20
>[jerk quotient] do not usually do so.
>
>						JHS
>
>
Wouldn't a simple flourescent tube work too?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 00:06:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA06077; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 03:03:24 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961001030143.4cff5fd8@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"nDplY.0.oU1.iACKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1258
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:57 PM 9/30/96 -0500, Scott Little wrote:

>For example, I've read one of McKubre's papers and, although he made
>Herculean efforts to avoid calorimetry errors, the absolute value of the
>excess heats he did see are so small that I believe (from my own calorimetry
>experience) that they are likely to be artifactual.
>


  Scott, could you please elaborate. 
  
  Why are the likely artifactual reasons
based upon your calorimetry.

  thanks in advance.

     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 01:02:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA13858; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 01:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 01:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 03:57:38 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: EarthTech as Arbiter
Message-ID: <961001075737_100060.173_JHB76-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"aZIUJ3.0.OO3.6-CKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1261
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hal,

>> We offer to make measurements on publically-defined instruments, write and
publish the results on the net, and do this free of charge.

Have calorimeter, etc., will measure.  Have computer, will publish.  That's
it. 

Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.
EarthTech International, Inc. <<

Great - but how do you propose to overcome the knee-jerk reaction of the
establishment which has killed any general public acceptance of any ou demo?

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 01:03:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA13818; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 03:57:43 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel
Message-ID: <961001075743_100060.173_JHB76-3@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Cgzb3.0.UN3.szCKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1260
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris,

>> There's this kind of assumption going around that people who do CF are a
bunch of half-arsed plumbers who can't do proper science.  Sheesh. <<

Scientists they might be, but Engineers ???  I was referring to some of the
Heath-Robinson spaghetti that Jed showed us, and which he criticised.

>> Sure, the CETI boys and all the ones who think that they've found
the crock at the rainbow's end are equivocal about publishing, but that leaves
quite a few who aren't.  And, no, I do NOT like these F&P-type papers which tell
of their results without giving a full protocol. <<

What this means, surely, is that we have a fragmented jigsaw of data which only
the dedicated, like you, Jed and Gene are prepared to try to sort out - and more
power to your elbows.  Unfortunately, the establishment has created a
mythological "crackpot" label for anything the "underground" press publishes,
and until a well respected (by the estab.) outfit comes clean and confirms the
ou effect with one of the devices, or someone actually markets a useful product,
then its the outback for CF etc etc IMHO.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 01:04:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA13797; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 03:57:40 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Norman is right; but they did already
Message-ID: <961001075740_100060.173_JHB76-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"WEgh2.0.QN3.szCKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1259
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chrissy

>> Good honest travail seems to be out of fashion these days. <<

I wasn't referring to the enormous efforts of you 3.  I was suggesting that no
matter how much effort is expended by "outsiders" the "insiders" ignore it.

Keep your knickers on mate!<G>

Whats all this about

>> Hydrosonic device demo system in Darkest New Hampshire? <<

Do tell!

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 06:35:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26915; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 09:27:35 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Little misunderstands McKubre
Message-ID: <961001132735_72240.1256_EHB56-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"zIect2.0.Pa6.NpHKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1262
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little writes:

     "I've read one of McKubre's papers and, although he made Herculean
     efforts to avoid calorimetry errors, the absolute value of the excess
     heats he did see are so small that I believe (from my own calorimetry
     experience) that they are likely to be artifactual."

The absolute value of heat typically peaked at 1 to 4 watts, holding steady
for a week or two. That is not small. Input usually ranged from 8 to 12 watts.
You could measure these levels of heat with confidence using any calorimeter.
With the SRI equipment "excess heat bursts [are] outside the standard
deviation of the random errors by factors up to 50." (It was as high as 90
sigma in later experiments, after that was written.) Quoting the paper:

     For the thermodynamically closed and intentionally isothermal systems
     described here, output power was observed to be as much as 300% in
     excess of the electrochemical input power or 24% above the known total
     input power. When excess power was present, it was more typically in the
     range 5%-10%, in a calorimeter that was accurate to better than +0.5%.

There is a great deal of confusion about these numbers. "Known total input
power" means all power going into the cell, including the compensation heater
that is turned down as electrolysis power or excess heat increases. SRI cells
consume far more power than other designs, but only a fraction of the input
power goes into electrolysis.

Scott claims that 300% excess in an instrument that can detect better than
0.5% is "so small." That is wildly incorrect. I am sorry, but do not believe
there is *any* scientific justification for his statement that McKubre's
observations "are likely to be artifactual." When Scott dismisses the work in
this cavalier fashion, it makes me doubt his ability to "serve effectively as
an objective arbiter of . . . quality." I do not think that he has read the
literature carefully. I doubt he can come up with any plausible technical
arguments to back up this claim, beyond the fact that "the numbers look
small." The output numbers look small because SRI uses a compensation heater
to keep the temperature fixed at all times. Compared to electrolysis input
power, and considering the sensitivity of the instruments, these numbers are
large and indisputable.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 07:03:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA01773; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 08:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610011358.IAA28039@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"_bAjV3.0.aR.mEIKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1263
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 03:03 AM 10/1/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote:
>
>  Scott, could you please elaborate. 
  
>Why are the likely artifactual reasons
>based upon your calorimetry.

First, let me say that McKubre's calorimetry is the best I've even seen.  He
and his co-workers have gone to extremem efforts to remove potential sources
of error from their system.

His positive results look impressive when displayed as "net excess
heat" values (i.e. with the input power subracted) but they are typically
less than 1.1 times the input power (see p. 65 of "Isothermal flow
calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems", M.C.H. McKubre,
et al).  

I've seen a lot of slightly anomalous readings in the 0.90 to 1.10 region in
my calorimeters that I eventually attribute to subtle errors, rather than
real effects.  Hence I tend to be dubious of calorimetric results that are
in the 1.00-1.10 region.

Maybe I shouldn't judge McKubre's results so harshly.  He does not get
anomalous negative (i.e. <1.00) results.  I can't point to any one thing
that is a possible problem with his measurements...I just have a sinking
feeling that, if he built a new calorimeter 10 times better than his present
one, the apparent excess heat he sees would shrink accordingly.

OK, Jed...roast me alive on this one....<g>
Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 07:38:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06224; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:18:27 -0400
Message-ID: <961001101827_321782835@emout13.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Resent-Message-ID: <"-7Eqf.0.6X1.LYIKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1264
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman wondered: "Great - but how do you propose to overcome the knee-jerk
reaction of the establishment which has killed any general public acceptance
of any ou demo?"

First, we would intend to make the demo available for detailed, independent
inspection.  Second, my own contacts in the scientific and government
community are sufficient that I would brief on the device in detail
everywhere and attempt to build up consideration that there might be
something to it.  (Example: This year I gave the 1996 Sigma Xi Lecture to the
General Motors research staff, talking in part about the possibility.  I
would have a return engagement to say we now have it.  Example: I regularly
brief admirals and generals on technology trends in the energy area.  Again,
I would obtain a return engagement to say that it had now been done.)

Beyond that, we would bring in substantive investment (we have substantial
investors standing at our shoulders waiting for us to give the word on
something we have hands-on confidence in), we would be interested in design
work to steadily increase COP, develop partners, etc., depending on the
inventor's wishes if it was a device of theirs instead of one of our own.
 Out of all this I would forsee steady acceptance emerging in time.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 07:38:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06465; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Reason for withdrawal of Podkletnov paper (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961001065640.20279G-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"I5MtF1.0.va1.IZIKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1265
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Did Gary's attached message get through?  I show it as bounced, but I also
received a double message.  Maybe only one copy bounced, and everyone's
seen this? 

Re: the below message 
I think: damn.  There he goes, retracing the path of P&F.  Let's hope that
he is *able* to develop the invention outside the scientific community
with lines of communications cut off.  If not, then that's the last we'll
be hearing of Podkletnov.  If the key to turning Podkletnov's discovery
into a useful device actually lies with some scientist somewhere else who
has never read the papers, then going secret is the kiss of death.  If his
theory is faulty, then the device could forever remain a lab curiousity. 
A darkly secret lab curiousity. 

And just because "going secret" has been the kiss of death for any number
of overunity inventions in the past, I fear that there is something about
working alone in secret which breeds a behavior which assures failure. 
The Muses notice your greed and abandon you?

And why would someone associate themselves with physics research at a
university if the moment they make an important discovery they hide it and
go off to sell it to someone?  If this behavior was common, science would
not exist.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary Hawkins <garyh@aa.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Reason for withdrawal of Podkletnov paper

Linda Howe talked to Podkletnov this week.  She 
is always interviewed in the first half hour of 
Art Bell's show called Dreamland, Sunday evening 
from 7 to 10 pm, Pacific time.  For stations, see:
http://www.artbell.com/

Podkletnov said his paper was withdrawn not for any 
political reasons, but that private companies have 
stepped forward to fund it, and there were "proprietary 
issues" to be dealt with.  In other words, they want 
to protect their interests worldwide through the 
patent process first I would presume (and so it 
might take some time to try to cover all of the 
bases).  Podkletnov said he does not understand 
why the effect occurs.

For those who receive this right away, Art's guest 
tonight 'till 10 pm, Brian O'Leary, is talking about 
the world of "rebel science", and how rapidly things 
are changing.

Gary Hawkins


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 10:12:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25994; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610011614.JAA16429@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 09:14:10 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Resent-Message-ID: <"3odiH.0.1M6.jEKKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1266
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 03:57 AM 10/1/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Hal,
>
>>> We offer to make measurements on publically-defined instruments, write and
>publish the results on the net, and do this free of charge.
>
>Have calorimeter, etc., will measure.  Have computer, will publish.  That's
>it. 
>
>Hal Puthoff, Ph.D.
>EarthTech International, Inc. <<
>
>Great - but how do you propose to overcome the knee-jerk reaction of the
>establishment which has killed any general public acceptance of any ou demo?
>
>Norman
>
>

Well now this is an interesting question, all righty, and I think that the
answer is not so apparant as might seem at first blush.  I have been
rambling through the underbrush where the great unwashed hang out talking
about o-u, radioactivity neutralization and transmutations for the past
three years or so and I must say that the general public is a lot more
willing to take a flyer than you think it is.  They, the unwashed, ARE NOT
the source of conservatism here, mainly because they have a healthy,
instinctive skepticism of all self-styled experts, including scientific
pronouncements.  The great unwashed, for instance, dominately believes that
there is a psychic nature to things and also, despite 40 years of concerted
official dis-information campaigns, suspects that IT actually IS ET out
there sneaking around in the skies.  The great unwashed will instantly
embrace an o-u demo, if it is clear enough, which unfortunately provides the
ability of people like Dennis Lee (no relation to our Dennis Lee) to operate
and take people on a ride for a while.

I am personally amazed at how many people think that perpetual motion,
anti-gravity, and God may be entirely possible or even highly probable.

The source of the conservatism is the media channels.  Knowing nothing, the
use considerable caution in starting stories, unless it is on their personal
agenda.  The media is like a herd of large herbivores.  Once one starts to
move suddenly, they all start a stampede.  So most of the media, to avoid
collective embarressment, tend to treat business and some science news with
caution, preferring someone else to legitimize the story.  Since those
stories are rarely "timely", they can afford to treat them with caution.  As
a part of this caution, they tend, as a herd, to collectively ignore and
sometimes blacklist certain stimulus.  Have you noticed that further
discussion of Willie's sex life has been blacklisted, along with the arrest
of his brother on drug trafficing charges?  Cold fusion, ET, and other
subjects are in the same boat.  Have you noticed that anything related to
computers can get printed and ANY bogus claim or hype about the InterNet
will receive worldwide transmission in the big media?  So it goes.

And the establishment is loaded with "closet" cases of early adapters of new
views.  So the key is not the establishment per se, it is the media....
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 10:56:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA01568; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <961001132728_115574005@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        tlpst+15@pitt.edu
Subject: Got slammed...now fired...
Resent-Message-ID: <"Td5c12.0.7L.dKLKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Today I was told by the Utility boss that I no longer had a job.  Thirty
seven engineers including myself were let go in this latest round of
downsizing.  It been a rough day.  I worked there for 14 years and have many
friends that I will miss.  I thinking of what my next move should be.  Where
does a 43 year old engineer go next?  Who needs a zero point energy advocate?
 It been rough.  It will take some time to regroup and pull myself together.

Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 12:08:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18613; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:43:31 -0700
Message-Id: <199610011843.LAA24380@li.oro.net>
X-Sender: tessien@oro.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: tessien@oro.net (Ross Tessien)
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Resent-Message-ID: <"waC7E3.0.wU4.kQMKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Today I was told by the Utility boss that I no longer had a job.  Thirty
>seven engineers including myself were let go in this latest round of
>downsizing.  It been a rough day.  I worked there for 14 years and have many
>friends that I will miss.  I thinking of what my next move should be.  Where
>does a 43 year old engineer go next?  Who needs a zero point energy advocate?
> It been rough.  It will take some time to regroup and pull myself together.
>
>Frank Znidarsic
>

Hey Frank;

Sorry to hear about the news.  What sort of engineering do you do, and where
do you live?  Regarding a ZPE engineer, I could sure use one but cannot
afford one.  Maybe that will change.  In any case, I think you just begin
the best years of your life since each one is always better than the last.
If that doesn't seem to help, take a short vacation to a small town in
Mexico and consider the individuals living in the brick huts with grass
roofs and dirt floors.  They are happy, and yet I am certain that compared
to them you live like a king.  I know that I do, despite my pitiful (by
American standards) scale of living.  It is great or horrible, and it all
depends on how you look at it.   Relativity comes into play here as well!

Have any background in electronic design?  What do you do?

Send me a resume at (916) 273-5119

(warning, fax modem is down when I am on the net so always ring twice!  This
gives me time to boot up the program)

Hopefully the rest of the group can keep their ears open for openings too.
I think this group has a lot of positive aspects to it and not the least of
all is support.  Help finding a new job seems to me well within the bounds
of what we do here as a little benifit of back scratching.

Let me know what you are looking for and I will keep my ears open, or
perhaps you may have some time to consider some of the concepts I have been
working on.  I am getting ready to purchase some components and just build
the darn thing, but need some assistance on certain electronic issues.


Later, Ross



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 13:08:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04968 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com  Tue Oct  1 13:08:45 1996
Received: from austria.it.earthlink.net (austria-c.it.earthlink.net [204.119.177.44]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA04933 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roshi.com (roshicorp.earthlink.net [206.43.129.31]) by austria.it.earthlink.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA12544; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis)
Old-Date: 01 Oct 96 13:08:21 -0800
To: johnkent <johnkent@andover.co.uk>
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <3251E170.4B65@andover.co.uk> (by: johnkent
 <johnkent@andover.co.uk>)
Message-ID: <minimail_32516c25_c78f3@roshi.com>
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga
 (http://www.lls.se/~volley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 01 Oct 1996 20:28 -0700 (+0100), John Kent wrote to me:

> Chuck Davis wrote:

>> On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:21:39 -0700, johnkent <johnkent@andover.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>>> This is my first time on the net. It is a fact that more energy is
>>> released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to split
>>> water. The excess is absorbed as heat during electrolysis. I have
>>> built
>>> four Meyer fuel cells and would like to contact anyone who has
>>> practical
>>> experience with the latter. I also have most of Meyers patents on
>>> the
>>> subject, 15 European and 12 US patents, if anyone would like to
>>> interchange data please contact johnkent@andover.com.uk

>> Congrats! It's nice to see someone succeed :) At what rate can
>> you create the gas and have you tried using it, yet?


> Small cell 10 PSI in 135 seconds, visible gas streams at 1 mA.

  That's quite a low current. Can you describe your voltage source?

--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 16:26:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06354; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae7743d94bdf@[128.183.89.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:14:07 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y_isH2.0.7Z1.opPKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1268
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


To: Vortex

 I have submitted my latest paper entitled:

"Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"

for publication in Physics of Fluids.  I don't anticipate any serious
problems in getting it past the reviewers as the analysis is quite
straightforward and consistant with Grad's thirteen moment technique in
fluid dynamics (a standard and accepted technique).  Since I wanted to get
this paper published I did not mention that the additional term for the H
density flux that I derived implies that heat may be conducted under some
conditions in violation of the accepted constraints from the second law of
thermodynamics.
  I have noted with some interest the concepts of Viktor Schauberger in
which he proposes that energy may be produced through the negative entropy
generating effect of a water vortex.  According to my analysis such a
vortex may possibly produce negative entropy.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 16:33:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06947; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: RoshiCorp@earthlink.net (Chuck Davis)
Date: 01 Oct 96 13:29:10 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-ID: <minimail_32517106_9e075@roshi.com>
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells (forwarded)
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga
 (http://www.lls.se/~volley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"B0hMr3.0.Ri1.EsPKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1269
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

- ----- Beginning of forwarded mail ----- -
On 01 Oct 1996 20:28 -0700 (+0100), John Kent wrote to me:

> Chuck Davis wrote:

>> On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:21:39 -0700, johnkent <johnkent@andover.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>>> This is my first time on the net. It is a fact that more energy is
>>> released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to split
>>> water. The excess is absorbed as heat during electrolysis. I have
>>> built
>>> four Meyer fuel cells and would like to contact anyone who has
>>> practical
>>> experience with the latter. I also have most of Meyers patents on
>>> the
>>> subject, 15 European and 12 US patents, if anyone would like to
>>> interchange data please contact johnkent@andover.com.uk

>> Congrats! It's nice to see someone succeed :) At what rate can
>> you create the gas and have you tried using it, yet?


> Small cell 10 PSI in 135 seconds, visible gas streams at 1 mA.

  That's quite a low current. Can you describe your voltage source?

--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

- ----- End of forwarded mail ----- -

--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 16:36:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA09385; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:22:07 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610012122.QAA06610@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Resent-Message-ID: <"meNdI3.0.WI2.S0QKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1270
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 13:27 10/1/96 -0400, Frank S wrote:

>Today I was told by the Utility boss that I no longer had a job.

I'm sorry for the unavoidable stress, Frank...but this might turn out to be
a good day for you.  Please post yr resume to Vortex.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 17:52:01 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01511; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610020027.RAA04194@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect - a prediction
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <199609261941.PAA10219@mail.inforamp.net> from "Quinney" at Sep 26, 96 03:41:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"I0mAi2.0.XN.vXRKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1273
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Colin. Sorry I read the message you sent today, but accidently
deleted it before responding.

Anyway, the idea of doing Hooper's experiment with iron (magnetic)
wire is interesting -- and might do something. Horace's ideas of
what happens are a consequence of the self-hall effect -- which 
would be increased by a magnitude of about 5000 times through use
of iron wire. It would also be important to do it with copper wire
and compare the difference. Lots of companies sell iron (or steel)
wire. You can probably find this, uninsulated, at a hardware store.
It may be hard to get with insulation. Check Thomas Register for
suppliers.

Anyway a light gauge which you can easily make into a hairpin
coil might be best -- but still with some current carrying capacity.
Maybe 18 or 20 AWG. Does 8000 turns sound like a lot. It is.
Huge. Maybe you can do something with 2 or 3 thousand turns.

You need a power supply, and some measuring instruments. 
It will take a lot of power to get a fairly large amount
of current through iron wire. Also a lot of heat in the coil.

The instrumentation used by Edwards is decent. But he
did not check at all for weight loss, or gravitation.
Aside from measuring potential and electric field strength,
also use a magnetometer, a weighing scale, an accelerometer 
(gravitational field) sensor, and crystal oscillator -- to 
check for time dilation in a gravitational field.

Let me know if I can offer further advice or suggestions.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 18:09:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01216; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:44:10 -0400
Message-ID: <961001174410_115779705@emout18.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: thanks all
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZXqO53.0.qI.sWRKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1272
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I'll think I'll need a little time to sort things out.


Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 18:09:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01643; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:21:53 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
In-Reply-To: <961001075737_100060.173_JHB76-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961002101022.11028A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"e9kPd2.0.UP.LYRKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1274
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 1 Oct 1996, Norman Horwood wrote:
> 
> Great - but how do you propose to overcome the knee-jerk reaction of the
> establishment which has killed any general public acceptance of any ou demo?
> 
> Norman
> 

The CETI POWERGEN demo was withdrawn from widespread investigation before
widespread tests on it could be made. It was an "In your face" demonstration 
that was not allowed to be widely demonstrated! It wasn't just a knee-jerk 
reaction that supressed interest in CETI stuff, it was CETI plus the 
knee-jerk reaction.

Martin Sevior



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 20:18:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA01059; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 19:14:32 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Message-ID: <961001231432_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"r4Xoy3.0.RG.4RTKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1279
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott,

 > I can't point to any one thing that is a possible problem with his
 > measurements...I just have a sinking feeling that, if he built a
 > new calorimeter 10 times better than his present one, the apparent
 > excess heat he sees would shrink accordingly.

I can't speak for everyone's psyschology, of course, but I think that
these sinking feelings can be either a sign that one has half-noticed
that something is wrong, or one does not want the paper to be real.

In my own case, I think that if it is the former I feel urged to look
more and more carefully at whatever it is.  If it is the latter I tend
to look away from it and 'not want to know'.  Either is, of course, to
a degree an emotional response - but I find that self-observation can be
a great help in such cases.

It's a bit like that trick for making decisions.  You toss a coin and
thereby find out which decision you really prefer.

This may not work for everybody, but if you find you are driven to seek
out the error in McKubre by studying and re-studying the paper very
carefully - it perhaps means that you can 'feel' there is a problem
with it.

By the way, I've just finished spending quite a few hours with the new
Miley paper.  Never have I seen such a mass of supportive data and
argument - so much so that all I can say about it is that it's immensely
thorough and that I'm awash with facts and figures.  Maybe I will be
able to see it more clearly in a few days when I've absorbed it.  It
does not include the chemical analysis test which I suggest as a test
for the transmutation hypthothesis.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 20:19:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA01916; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 09:59:19 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Norman is right; but they did alread
Message-ID: <961001135919_100433.1541_BHG96-3@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"iacdT2.0.sT.lUTKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1280
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman,

 > >> Hydrosonic device demo system in Darkest New Hampshire? <<
 > 
 > Do tell!

It's the nearest thing we can get to an 'in-your-face' demonstration. 
Arthur Clarke generously offered to fund it, out of his winnings
from writing "3001".

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 20:43:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09797; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 09:59:23 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Message-ID: <961001135923_100433.1541_BHG96-4@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"2qx_01.0._O2.uyTKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1281
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott,

 > For example, I've read one of McKubre's papers and, although he
 > made Herculean efforts to avoid calorimetry errors, the absolute
 > value of the excess heats he did see are so small that I believe
 > (from my own calorimetry experience) that they are likely to be
 > artifactual.

The absolute value of the mass of an atom is also very small. 
Measurements are made, and assigned error values.  Both of these are (in
effect) relative.  In the case of McKubre, the percentage excess heat is
very much greater than the error range.  The absolute value of the heat
is - frankly - of little significance at all.

Personally, I find that one of the biggest problems of 'anomaly science'
is that one does not have the comfort of the consensus behind one. 
Essentially, one is out on a limb, and it is necessary constantly to
recheck one's assumptions *and one's agenda*, the emotional bias we all
bring to our work.  For myself, I would say that I do not always succeed
in doing that - but at least I try very hard to avoid logical error and
arm-waving.

Here are some typical examples of faulty thinking I have seen recently,
as much from professional scientists as in the most casual of 'net postings:

1. We must believe the hypthothesis which most closely fits the facts.

2. If the universe were not very precisely the way it is, then we would
not exist.  Therefore it has been designed to suit us.

3. Ockham's Razor means, "Keep it simple, stupid."

4. This event was so improbable that we know it cannot have been a
natural one.

5. Demonstrating that something is crap by showing (or claiming) that
something else is crap then saying that the two are the same.

6. Believing in models of reality rather than in reality itself.

7. False extrapolation of data outside its range.

8. Elaboration through impeccable and complex reasoning or mathematics
something which is based on (sometimes hidden) false assumptions or
premises.

9.  Being so determined that our own ideas are right that we stretch
reality beyond its limits to 'prove' that we are - or that someone else
is wrong.  Seeing 'I am right' as more important than 'this is true'.

Well, those are a few of the most common ones.  Actually, (2) is just an
example of (4).

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 20:52:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10758; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 01 Oct 96 09:59:15 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel
Message-ID: <961001135915_100433.1541_BHG96-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"6wg-x3.0.-d2.v0UKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1282
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman,

 > Scientists they might be, but Engineers ???  I was referring to
 > some of the Heath-Robinson spaghetti that Jed showed us, and which
 > he criticised.

That was indeed half-arsed, but it was a trade-show demo rig.  Frankly,
it looked as though it was designed to obfuscate more than to inform. 
The other CETI-type demos (at SOFE and ICCF5) were much better.

 > What this means, surely, is that we have a fragmented jigsaw of
 > data which only the dedicated, like you, Jed and Gene are prepared
 > to try to sort out - and more power to your elbows.

Not really.  Plenty of published and peer-reviewed papers.  What on
earth Scott sees wrong with SRI's work I just can't imagine. And why
people raise recombination when excess heat exceeds V*I I cannot imagine
either.   They build elaborate fantasies and ignore the bottom line.

 > Unfortunately, the establishment has created a mythological
 > "crackpot" label for anything the "underground" press publishes,
 > and until a well respected (by the estab.) outfit comes clean and
 > confirms the ou effect with one of the devices, or someone
 > actually markets a useful product, then its the outback for CF etc
 > etc IMHO.

But <sigh> it isn't all 'underground press'.  And any well-respected lab
which reports the effect is promptly damned for having done just that.  

As you say, it all depends on commercialisation (or perhaps a massive
in-your-face demo like the Wrights were eventually forced to do).  Where
you go wrong is in your assumption that there is any sanity in any of
that.  There isn't.  There was no sanity when the sworn affidavits of
respected citizens who'd seen the Wrights fly were ignored.  There was
no sanity in the Wrights' idea that if they took advantage of that and
tried to keep it all a secret then it would be worth more.  There was no
sanity in the people who read the Wrights' patents and decided that
cambered wings were not essential to the replication.  There was no
sanity in the US when the ecstatic French reports of public flying by
the Wrights were treated sceptically.

The only real sanity came when individuals eventually persuaded the
Wrights to do big public demos, and the US President intervened.  The
cry of shock and amazement from the crowd in the US as the 'plane lifted
off and flew was the sound of reality being thrust down the throats of
(a) the scientists, (b) the public, and (c) the Wrights themselves.

And of course two brilliant scientists whose airscrews worked to within
1% of their predictions, scientists who invented the wind-tunnel and
re-worked all the old and dubious data, are often seen as two lucky
tinkerers - because they were not 'proper scientists'.  The world is
just as barking mad as it ever was.

Vox populi, vox Dei.  Thank God for the ordinary punter - he has a damn sight
more sense than we clever-dicks do.

For example, let's look at what is happening in Japan.  On the NHE
programme there is scarcely a single electrochemist.  They concentrate
almost exclusively on bulk-palladium and heavy water, and dismiss all
other approaches.  When they find loading difficult to measure, they
reduce it so that they can make the measurements more easily.  We are
hoping to use ICCF6 and the fact that 'a prophet is not without honour
save in his own country' to get them to look at Miley's work.

I know this is not a popular sentiment, but all of that illustrates that
the normal processes of science are not necessarily the way to do CF.
This is one reason why I am not really very worried about the science
community rejecting CF.  Around the turn of the last century, parts of
the science community did what appeared to be a damned fine job of
making a flying machine - they were old and discouraged, there were
plenty of good journals which had proved that their efforts were
worthless, but they battled on.  And they failed.  The problem is that
real problems often require genius as much as sound science.

I'm not disputing that science has a role to play in CF.  Let's just
remember that it isn't a very important one.  Its importance will come
soon enough - if and only if the phenomena become accepted.  There is
no inevitability that it ever will, just as the Wrights might well have
faded into oblivion after they could fly very well.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 21:41:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA26427; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:34:06 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
In-Reply-To: <961001231432_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961002143215.12327A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bxYSQ.0.rS6.t3VKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1285
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

> By the way, I've just finished spending quite a few hours with the new
> Miley paper.  Never have I seen such a mass of supportive data and
> argument - so much so that all I can say about it is that it's immensely
> thorough and that I'm awash with facts and figures.  Maybe I will be
> able to see it more clearly in a few days when I've absorbed it.  It
> does not include the chemical analysis test which I suggest as a test
> for the transmutation hypthothesis.
> 

Ah, at last the long awaited paper! Do you know where Miley wants to publish?
Any chance of preprints?

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 22:03:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA01564; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed,  2 Oct 96 00:42:12    
From: dacha@shentel.net
Subject: RE: Vortex energy 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-ID: <Chameleon.844231817.dacha@dacha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"QCoco2.0.LO.fQVKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1286
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>
> I have submitted my latest paper entitled:
>
>"Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"
>
>for publication in Physics of Fluids.  


I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject. 
Could I get a pre-pub. copy or an email of more of the 
highlights of the paper?


It is an almost universal idea  within the groups I am 
associated with that the vortex holds a number of keys to 
understanding specific observed anomalies that appear 
contrary to thermo-dynamic law. 

Robert

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  1 22:15:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA03514; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:04:33 -0700
Message-Id: <199610020504.WAA27877@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Subject: uh, 3001?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"YtqG4.0.os.IXVKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1287
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

You wrote: 

>It's the nearest thing we can get to an 'in-your-face' demonstration. 
>Arthur Clarke generously offered to fund it, out of his winnings
>from writing "3001".

I guess this is relativity's time warp?  :-}

-AK-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 01:05:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA07430; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 01:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 01:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961002081037.006b8e18@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 01:10:37 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Free Energy MPEG movies available !
Resent-Message-ID: <"rxt6R1.0.vp1.x6YKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1288
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Figured some of you might like to check some of this out.

Forwarded message:

<clip from this message>...

>There are:
>
>2 videos of Stanley Meyer and his Water splitting device and
>car buggy !
>
>2 videos of Griggs and his selling Hydrosonic pumps
>
>2 videos of Patterson and his CETI Water Fuel Cell

<etc>...
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:11:44 +0100
>From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann)
>Subject: Free Energy MPEG movies available !
>
>Hi,
>
>I just made 18 MPEG movies from videotapes from
>my archive and it is 52 MB of MPEG files all in all !
>
>These MPEG movies also play fine via a Software only
>MPEG player like the new ActiveMovie MPEG player from
>Microsoft, available at :
>
>http://www.microsoft/msdownload/
>
>Be sure to download also from over there the new
>
>directx.exe file to accelerate your graphics card under
>Win95 !
>
>Then you can play these movies, which are mostly in 176x144
>resolution with 25 frames/sec and MPEG audio sound in it
>like normal videoclips ! It runs also very well with the
>Softpeg MPEG player from:
>
>http://www.compcore.com
>
>They have a dmeo player, latest version is 2.1 ,
>
>and with the XingMPEG player 3.0 which is at:
>
>http://www.xingtech.com  (look under the support page
>for the download area !)
>
>If you now have got your MPEG player working go to the directory
>of my new movies and load them all down. The movies are located
>at:
>
>http://www.overunity.de/movies/
>
>Please don=B4t forget the SLASH at the end behind the word movies/
>cause otherwise you will not see the directory.. (there is no index-file
yet...)
>
>Please share these movies and the free MPEG player from Microsoft
>with all your friends and relatives and show them, what is available TODAY=
 !
>
>There are:
>
>2 videos of Stanley Meyer and his Water splitting device and
>car buggy !
>
>2 videos of Griggs and his selling Hydrosonic pumps
>
>2 videos of Patterson and his CETI Water Fuel Cell
>
>1 video of the Russian Tschernenkow (hope the spelling is right...)
>
>1 video of my visit to Joe Newman in 1987 and showing me his FAN
>motor.
>
>6 movies of me doing work on my small rebuild Newman machine
>
>4 movies from a Newman public relation tape
>
>Please try to download them one after the other....
>If traffic is too much , please try later...
>
>Try to view these movies in 2x zoom mode, then the
>screen size is better to view and you get more details !
>
>I compressed these movies to 32 Kbytes/sec Videodata
>rate and 6 Kbytes sound data rate, so they are pretty small
>for video data, but still play okay to get all of the important
>content !They still are at 25 and some at 30 frames/sec,
>so they play very fluently, especially on a Pentium machine.
>Be sure to get DirectX, then you can also watch them Fullscreen
>wiuthout any slowdown !
>If you have the ActiveMovie player installed , then you can play
>them via the Win95 Mediaplayer and to play them
>in FULLSCREEN mode, do the following:
>
>As the movie is loaded, press:
>
>Control + F5
>
>and then type the MCI command:
>
>play fullscreen
>
>and it will play the movie without any windows borders
>in fullscreen mode. Be sure to have installed the DirectX.exe
>accelerator program to get the speed for your SVGA card !
>
>If you still have any questions, please let me know.
>
>Enjoy the movies and spread the message !
>
>Regards, Stefan Hartmann.
>
>P.S.: I should mention that some movies are digitized from the
>documentation movie:
>"It runs on water"=20
>from Channel 4, England, UK (the MPEG movies
>from Griggs, Meyer and Patterson) This tape had a bad
>picture quality and the sound also was pretty noisy, cause it was
>a 6th generation copy or so... so please bare with my
>digitalisation quality... The other movies are a bit better...
>
>
>--
>Hartmann Multimedia Service,  Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann
>Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
>NEUE Nummern :  Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497  FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498
>email: harti@harti.de     harti@bbtt.de
>Web site: http://www.harti.de     Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de
>Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de
>My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:10:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15549; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:05:10 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Got slammed...now fired...
Message-ID: <961002080510_100060.173_JHB44-3@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"hYeas3.0.oo3.Q4ZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1289
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank,

>> I thinking of what my next move should be.  Where does a 43 year old 
engineer go next? <<

FWIW I was in almost the same position at your age, with a family and a 
mortgage to support.

What saved my bacon was aggressive selling of myself as an industrial 
consultant, and I took on any and every assignment which offered itself, from 
computer programming off-beat client requirements to product development and 
corporate investigations.  You have to get the support of a bank or other fall-
back finance, and that can be difficult, but enthusiasm and well documented 
project plans help.

Its sell yourself time, and good luck.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot - don't rely on old professional friends, they tend to 
disappear when you need "help".  Personal friends and family are a necessary 
support for your morale.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:11:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15619; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:05:13 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Message-ID: <961002080512_100060.173_JHB44-4@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"sbAPe1.0.sp3.X4ZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1292
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris,

>> By the way, I've just finished spending quite a few hours with the new
Miley paper.  Never have I seen such a mass of supportive data and
argument - so much so that all I can say about it is that it's immensely
thorough and that I'm awash with facts and figures. <<

OK, can we treat this as a case study?

I don't have a copy yet, but if all the data and calorimetry spec. can be 
isolated from the theory, and presented clearly, we could all pick it to 
pieces.  If there is a consensus in Vortex in favour of incontrovertible ou 
above say 50%, then a press release by a media wiz should be prepared, and the 
cell replicated by Scott and Hal and hyped to the full.

Want to bet that replication won't work?



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:11:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15597; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:05:08 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Message-ID: <961002080508_100060.173_JHB44-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"h24mJ1.0.Wp3.V4ZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1290
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mike,

>> So the key is not the establishment per se, it is the media.... <<

Undoubtedly true.  So what is required is a good spin doctor to accept the
challenge - for a slice of the action of course.  No hay, no pay.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:12:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15636; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:05:06 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Message-ID: <961002080506_100060.173_JHB44-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5dqMF2.0.fp3.V4ZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1291
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hal,

>> Norman wondered: "Great - but how do you propose to overcome the knee-jerk
reaction of the establishment which has killed any general public acceptance
of any ou demo?" <<

Thank you for your detailed response to my wondering.

If your connections are as wide and deep as you say, and I have no reason to 
doubt it, then you are probably the nearest to "establishment" that we could 
hope to get.  IMHO under the circumstances, any low-budget scientist/inventor 
would be foolish NOT to take advantage of your offer.  In my early days I would 
have given my eye teeth for such a generous offer.  I had to struggle through 
rip-off merchants and lost 3 good products, sadly now out of time, due either 
to choosing the wrong partner, or failure to penetrate the establishment.

I was very lucky to be introduced to an honest businessman, and my biggest 
scheme was eventually completed, but even then it took 12 years and a friendly 
bank manager!!

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:12:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15656; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:05:16 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Norman is right; but they did alread
Message-ID: <961002080515_100060.173_JHB44-5@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"FIIWk.0.zp3.Y4ZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1293
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris,

>> It's the nearest thing we can get to an 'in-your-face' demonstration. 
Arthur Clarke generously offered to fund it, out of his winnings
from writing "3001".

Chris <<

Great!

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 02:50:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA19759; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 04:30:22 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Message-ID: <961002083021_100433.1541_BHG147-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"WkY_B1.0.bq4.IeZKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1294
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott,

 > Chris, I opened this post with considerable trepidation, half
 > expecting to receive another "blast"...but you've responded calmly
 > with a perfectly rational and correct point that needed to be
 > made.

Another blast?  Oh, I hope I don't do 'blasts'.  The big problem we all
have out on this limb is that of reading our own minds and emotional
agendas.  "The bubble reputation" is one problem, do some reputations
here and elsewhere depend upon never seeing over-unity?

Chris
(who's glad he has no reputation to worry about)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 03:28:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24939; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 03:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 03:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae77e7c6b060@[204.17.242.74]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 02:32:37 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect - a prediction
Resent-Message-ID: <"zgHZV2.0.a56.5EaKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1295
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Why is iron so special ?
>

If I remember correctly, soft iron wire is easy to work with due to its
malleability, does not permanently magnetize (has low coercive force), has
a high permeability, a high saturation flux density, and three mutually
perpendicular easy directions of magnetization. Iron is an element so
hopefully can be obtained in a fairly pure form, not alloyed with Si or
other things which reduce its conductivity and other desirable
characteristics.  Iron also is less magnetostrictive than Co or Ni, so
should distort less in operation.  Steel is not nearly as good due to its
higher coercive force and lower saturation density.  If the other qualities
could not be sacrificed too much, especially high  perameability, high
saturation flux density and low coercive force,  it would be good to find
an alternative with higher conductivity.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 05:07:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA06725; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530503ae77faef30bc@[204.17.242.79]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 04:10:40 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Transmutation vs CF heat
Resent-Message-ID: <"reAj02.0.-e1.1gbKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1296
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is another attempt to more clearly communicate what I think is a very
important issue.

For the sake of easier communication let's define "heavies" or "heavy
products" to mean transmutation products more massive than 4He.  Therefore
"lights" or "light products" should mean transmutation products less
massive than 4He or 4He.

It appears that doing easily reproducible CF experiments which clearly
produce heat energy exceeding the electrical energy input is very
difficult, as is producing highly accepted measurements of light products
produced.  There have been seven years of effort in this area with no
highly accepted results.  That is not to say that such results may not be
around the corner, but for the sake of discussion let's assume not.

On the other hand, it appears that when heavies are looked for there is a
fairly high success rate at finding the heavies in CF experiments, or at
least indications that further research should be done.

It therefore seems like searching for heavies should be given much priority
by low budget researchers and amateurs, as there is great potential for
success.  Heavies in CF style experiements are just fruit on another branch
of the CF tree.  If fruit on that branch is found, fruit on the other
branches will be found as well.  An easily reproducible, simple, and cheap
experiment for producing heavies could be the ticket to opening this field
up in mainstream science.

The difficulty with heavies is accurate detection in minute quantities,
especially dynamically, while an experiemnt is running.  A dynamic
non-destructive testing method would add much to the ability to control and
quickly tune experimental parameters to maximize the results.

I think there is much this group could do to identify and disseminate
inexpensive but reliable testing methods for very minute quantities of some
of the heavies involved.  Typical heavies, depending on choice of electrode
and electrolyte, include Ca, K, Fe, Co, etc., for which very good titration
test kits are available. However, chemical tests may not have sufficient
sensitivity.  It would be good to be able to purchase or build a relatively
cheap spectrometer for detecting very minute quantities of one or more
specific heavies.  I think a good goal would be to be able to build/buy
such a device for $2000 or less, excluding computer.  This would be the
calorimeter analagous device in the heavies transmutation race.  It sees to
me that spectrophotometery and possibly NMR could be candidates in that
range, at least for homebrew devices.

Another alternative might be to identify an inexpensive heavies testing
service which could be performed.   The problem here is the need to take
samples and the delay.  The obvious advantage is that a much wider range of
experimenters could do experiments due to the hopfully much lower cost
resulting from economies of scale.  Another level of such support could be
in the confirmation stage, to verify the process in totality as real.

One issue is the method for identifying the best heavies generating
*experiment* to utilize for bringing transmutation to the public. The
results of such a determination then determines what heavies tests are key.
Finding "the" experiment quickly requires a mass spectrometer or other
expensive instrmentation to look at all possible heavies.  If an experiment
is identified which very reliably creates one or more heavies, then a
specific experiment and test method could be devised focusing on the heavy
most easily and cheaply detected. This would be a good approach for a
company like Earthtech.

For low budget amateurs like me the best approach is maybe different. Maybe
choosing a specific test heavy, like Ca, and then developing the test means
is a good initial route.   The main variations in my search would then be
choices of electrolytes and electrodes, voltages, geometries, loading
protocols, etc.

Anyone have any thoughts as to a highly sensitive but cheap test means for
any heavies?


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 06:05:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13988; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 09:00:10 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Little versus McKubre
Message-ID: <961002130009_72240.1256_EHB167-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"F52Li2.0.SQ3.gVcKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1297
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Regarding McKubre, Scott Little writes:

     His positive results look impressive when displayed as "net excess heat"
     values (i.e. with the input power subtracted) but they are typically
     less than 1.1 times the input power (see p. 65 of "Isothermal flow
     calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems", M.C.H.
     McKubre, et al).

     I've seen a lot of slightly anomalous readings in the 0.90 to 1.10
     region in my calorimeters that I eventually attribute to subtle errors,
     rather than real effects.  Hence I tend to be dubious of calorimetric
     results that are in the 1.00-1.10 region.

First of all, as noted on page 65, the excess was not limited to this range,
it was sometimes as high as 25% and much higher on a few occasions. We cannot
throw out the higher numbers and pretend that McKubre has only sees 5 to 10%.
We cannot pick and choose the data to fit the hypothesis.

Second, Scott claims it is difficult to measure a 5 or 10% excess. I submit
that this statement by itself is meaningless. He says that his calorimeter
malfunctioned and showed a spurious 10% excess. The question is, 10% of what?
Were the absolute power levels comparable to McKubre's? It is difficult to
measure the difference between 0.78 watts and 0.86. It should be dead simple
to detect the difference between 10 watts and 11. More problems and artifacts
are seen in the lower power domain, where noise from things like electrolysis
and recombination become a significant factor. If Scott has frequent
difficulty detecting 10% in the range of 5 to 15 watts (where McKubre
operates) then I would say Scott is not very good at calorimetry. If Scott has
seen artifactual 10% excess in 80 different experiments over a period of years
after hundreds of trials, and if this spurious heat has sometimes gone up to
20%, 30% and even 300%, then Scott owns the world's worst calorimeter and he
should contact the Guinness Book of World Records.

Third, McKubre describes an exhaustive set of tests to verify that there was
no subtle error. Millions of dollars and years of effort were devoted to these
tests. Would these tests reveal the subtle error (or errors) that Scott found?
Scott experienced subtle errors A, B and C. If McKubre carefully and
repeatedly checked for A, B and C then Scott does not have a leg to stand on.
He must point to errors E, F or G, or he must concede that there is no subtle
error. He cannot invoke invisible, undetectable, unfindable errors. This is
science, not voodoo.

To summarize, we must ask whether Scott's artifactual results are *in any way
comparable* to McKubre's. Are power levels in the same range? Are the number
of trial runs and blank runs within a factor of 10, or 100? Did Scott see this
artifact produce 300% spurious excess? Did McKubre act to prevent and detect
the specific errors Scott found? Did Scott replicate his calorimeter and give
it to a third party, and did they verify the effect?

Scott says:

     Maybe I shouldn't judge McKubre's results so harshly.  He does not get
     anomalous negative (i.e. <1.00) results.  I can't point to any one thing
     that is a possible problem with his measurements...I just have a sinking
     feeling that, if he built a new calorimeter 10 times better than his
     present one, the apparent excess heat he sees would shrink accordingly.

The equipment has been improved over the years, the signal has not faded. I
asked for a technical reason to doubt McKubre. Scott's response, in
essence, is that he has a gut feeling something might be wrong. That's
a non-starter. A technical critique of an experiment must be grounded in
specific, quantitative claims that can be proved true or false, not "sinking
feelings."


     OK, Jed...roast me alive on this one....<g>

That will not be necessary; you have roasted yourself.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 06:16:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA15589; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Scott Little's CF attempts
In-Reply-To: <199610011358.IAA28039@natashya.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961001072046.20279H-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"tLR2Z1.0.Pp3.WfcKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1298
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Scott Little wrote:

> I've seen a lot of slightly anomalous readings in the 0.90 to 1.10 region in
> my calorimeters that I eventually attribute to subtle errors, rather than
> real effects.  Hence I tend to be dubious of calorimetric results that are
> in the 1.00-1.10 region.

Scott, have your subtle errors acted like continuous excess heat, or have
they appeared and then vanished?  In other words, have they mimicked the
"turn on" phenomenon? 

Won't an experimental setup act as it own control if it can sit there
producing approx. 100% throughput, and then suddenly, with no changes made
and nothing disturbed, start displaying a few percent excess?  Or has this
not occurred in your setup?

I can see how an undiscovered measurement error can easily lead to a false
baseline for throughput, but I can't see how measurement errors could
produce a long pulse of heat output.

By analogy, in the field of electronics I wouldn't trust a DC measurement
to be without undiscoverd errors, just as I wouldn't entirely trust peak
and timing measurements of a pulse.  But if I see a pulse, and I didn't
accidentally wiggle anything, and I can produce the pulse at will, I would
put this observation of a pulse in an entirely different class than I
would the measurements of the *characteristics* of the pulse. 


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 06:50:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA22334; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 06:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: Richard Milton <richard@milton.win-uk.net>
Subject: The "Bockris/Pauling" feedback effect
In-Reply-To: <961001135915_100433.1541_BHG96-2@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961002053638.13412A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"hBWn8.0.qS5.s9dKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1299
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 1 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

>  > Unfortunately, the establishment has created a mythological
>  > "crackpot" label for anything the "underground" press publishes,
>  > and until a well respected (by the estab.) outfit comes clean and
>  > confirms the ou effect with one of the devices, or someone
>  > actually markets a useful product, then its the outback for CF etc
>  > etc IMHO.
 
> But <sigh> it isn't all 'underground press'.  And any well-respected lab
> which reports the effect is promptly damned for having done just that.  


The above exchange brings to mind an entry I've been working on for
"Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism:"

 Indulging in circular reasoning regarding the expertise of scientists who
 investigate "disreputable" topics.  If you judge the competence of a
 researcher based on your beliefs about the reputation of the field he/she
 investigates, then you make a great error if you should ever judge the
 reputation of that field based upon your beliefs about the competence of
 the researchers involved.

   Cold Fusion is pathological science because everyone involved in it
   has questionable judgement, and no sane, reputable people believe that
   the results are real.

                        - and -

   If reputable researchers begin to take Cold Fusion seriously, then
   they obviously indulge in pathological science, they reveal
   themselves to have faulty judgement and questionable sanity, and
   their reputation is destroyed.

The anti-CF crowd seems blind to the fact that "disreputatble" is in the
eyes of peers.  If peers ignore the real world, and judge everything based
on closed loops of "reputation," then positive feedback effects can easily
arise.  I wouldn't be surprised if this phenomenon is the major reason for
the sudden appearance of taboos in science.  A Taboo field is seen as
disreputable, and it destroys the reputation of any who touch it.  But a
Taboo field is like a vortex spawned and powered by the circular thinking
of the majority, and without the circular thinking it could not exist.

I guess it's too early in the morning here: I'm getting visions of a
Meteorology of Taboos: write a paper which ridicules someone's work, and
you generate a tiny 'vortex' which gathers energy from surrounding
skeptics, grows and grows while attracting other condemnations and
swallowing the reputations of victims, and soon a new Taboo Field of
Research has appeared.  Sometimes the effect has no upper limit, and it
grows to encompass the whole world.  Entire populations destroy their
reputations and begin believing fantastic ideas, and only a few sane
people remain who still know that atoms don't exist, space flight is bunk,
etc.

(New justification for the name of vortex-L?!  Been sucked in, eh? )  

This positive feedback taboo-genesis effect needs a name.  I was calling
it the Linus Pauling Effect,  (as in, "I'll believe in alternative
health when a scientist of great reputation takes it seriously.")  But
maybe it would be more appropriate to call it the "Bockris effect"?  Or
does it already have some other pithy, memorable name? 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 07:19:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27629; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.902211070096276FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 02 Oct 1996 07:11:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/02/96 07:11:22 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"SB_uY2.0.dl6.jWdKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1300
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/02/96 02:10
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Norman: Would you write me personally at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM? I would
like to share some personal thoughts with you. Yours, Mark Hugo

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 07:20:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28149; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 10:11:42 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: ILENR2 tape quality
Message-ID: <961002141142_72240.1256_EHB56-3@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"PYnMI1.0.kt6.sYdKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1301
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Barry and various other people have asked me about the quality of the ILENR2
tapes. They want to know whether you can read the viewgraphs when the camera
pans in. Alas, no. At least I can't read most of them. It seems the camera
operator learned how to work the thing better after a while. Later lectures
and the free discussion came out better and you can read more of the
viewgraphs. I thought the discussion was good. The audio quality is iffy in
places but okay. Just turn the TV volume up.

The quality is not as good as the ICCF5 tapes. They were made by Akira
Kawasaki, who did a great job using a super-deluxe camera equipped with
complicated doodads. However, the ICCF5 Proceedings took forever to come out,
whereas Hal Fox says he will print the ILENR2 Proceedings very soon. The
proceedings together with the video would be a killer combination! I
understand this Miley paper much better, having listened to the tape twice and
the live lecture once. There is a lot to be said for a spoken presentation. It
is good to have the author explain things. That's why we still have meetings.
I expect I'll get a lot more out of the papers by Szpak, Minevski and Swartz
too, thanks to their presentations. One reason lectures are good is because
time is limited and the author is forced to present the essentials only and
simplify a little, which makes it easier to understand.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 08:13:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06302; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 07:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 10:41:36 -0400
Message-ID: <961002104135_322852677@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Resent-Message-ID: <"4818z2.0.HY1.5_dKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1302
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

In response to my posting about EarthTech being willing to assist inventors
with measurements, reports, connections, Norman said:

 " IMHO under the circumstances, any low-budget scientist/inventor 
would be foolish NOT to take advantage of your offer."

Thanks Norman.  That's what I would think also, but only three have so far,
two of whom's devices did not work, the third still being under study.

Hal Puthoff 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 08:15:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10164; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: RoshiCorp@earthlink.net (Chuck Davis)
Date: 02 Oct 96 08:00:59 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <961002080510_100060.173_JHB44-3@CompuServe.COM> (by: Norman
 Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM>)
Message-ID: <minimail_3252759b_ecf30@roshi.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga
 (http://www.lls.se/~volley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"T6xms.0.eU2.5GeKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1303
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

On 02 Oct 96 4:05 -0400 (+0400), Norman Horwood wrote:

> Oh yes, I nearly forgot - don't rely on old professional friends, they te=
nd to 
> disappear when you need "help".  Personal friends and family are a necess=
ary 
> support for your morale.

  Man O' man, ain't that the truth?

--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 08:25:42 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10892; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:04:14 -0400
Message-ID: <961002110413_322868652@emout02.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Resent-Message-ID: <"WDi5k2.0.yf2.rIeKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1304
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Chris said:

"The bubble reputation" is one problem, do some reputations
here and elsewhere depend upon never seeing over-unity?"

Whoever might fall into that category doesn't include Scott Little, Hal
Puthoff, or EarthTech.  Our doors are open to anyone who can bring in a
device and show o/u.  If it's there, we'll see it, and we'll make sure
everyone knows we've seen it.

Hal

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 09:55:45 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18420; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue,  1 Oct 96 14:31:52    
From: dacha@shentel.net
Subject: RE: Got slammed...now fired... 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        tlpst+15@pitt.edu
X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-ID: <Chameleon.844194793.dacha@dacha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"WBZxY3.0.GS4.zPMKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Frank,

Sorry to hear! Let me know what you would like to do and I 
will see what I can do to help.

Robert

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 11:18:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA13744; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:11:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: -steve ekwall- <ekwall2@november.diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2@november
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: stored excessive heat..
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.961002113325.14561A-100000@november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"8N2il3.0.gM3.E1hKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1305
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

odd-but true-and perplexing to the ignorent author..
(thinking)...:(

Winter: Hunting Season upcoming - Reminded me of the Outdoor HAND-WARMERs
        many hunters use (chemically exothermic - assumed/known)
House Chores: Wife said fix the (black & decker Dust buster) or handheld 
        vaccumm : (no torree moree type, suction was SHOT (not by hunter).
Qualifications: Handy Man (ok deeer :) noshots here
Diagnosis: (on newspaper - on kitchen table (sunday-during football:( )).
           Internal Diode blew, resulting in 'melted transformer'
Action taken: (two fold problem: One fold suloution) Replace TRANSFORMER
         with a bigger / better(?) 12vac 20ma OUT to 200v
bridge-rectifier. (humm- That should do the trick) oh, on the Diode trble/
so i could verify all batteries (9-12vdc??x4pack) BY-PASS all switches 
(on-off) attach +/- (red/black=duh) to Bridge Rectifier Output and
'Plug-in 110AC' (supervised - while i read am paper sports section:).
NOTED: after about 15-20 minutes switch to ON- WRrrroooooom)(deeer - 
All fixed - hear it?) P&F can be premature on CF, so let's keep a
smile on her face - ok.. (that's a smart handy-man)..
*     1: Pull transformer from OUTLET - OVER HEATING 'BIG-TIME' :(
     2: Diode still needs replacing to work.. (ok,ok..i'll get it)
    3: Absent 20+ minutes (shower) TRANSFORMER= STILL HOT (0warm)
QUESTION with this disclaimer (while not an insulation expert, i have
 been a metal welder for years.. molten plasmic steel puddles will cool 
in normal work-shop ambient air tempertures from white-red to cool to
touch in well under 20 minutes.. sooo, 
?: Is this just the plastic housing around the Transformer allowing
for (like a hand-warmer (shoot))..trapping the heat?
??: or is this a potential of 'false readings in P&F CF' of unknown
 effect from core-windings and the 'core' in "storing great amounts of
heat??
???: I know (and probably have welded-cut-intwo-and melted to liquid),
transformers multi-layer metal constuction has always acted like steel
 in its cooling down process. RFC???

Sorry for the 'light Question' to this serious group, maybe it will but
 a smile on your face for only a moment.
Finally (the dust-buster is still in pieces and under timing to cool test
in the garage .. (wife=moveit or loose it from the kitchen table:)
upto 1 hour later still warm to touch (or above 98.6?).. can this add 
to any 'unkowns in the equation'??
/off to get a b&d diode/ :)
    

-=Steve Ekwall=-                           POBox 1255-80150
ekwall2@diac.com    'SLEEP is NOT the     wk.1.800.798.1100
303.293.2FAX     Brother of DEATH, BUT the        CML#41251
------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'-------------------


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 12:08:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA23377; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b07ae7877703452@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:00:57 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: stored excessive heat..
Resent-Message-ID: <"iylx4.0.Aj5.gkhKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1306
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Steve Ekwall wrote:
[snip]
>Action taken: (two fold problem: One fold suloution) Replace TRANSFORMER
>         with a bigger / better(?) 12vac 20ma OUT to 200v
>bridge-rectifier. (humm- That should do the trick) oh, on the Diode trble/

   (a) 20 mA rating sounds too small, and 12 V too large.
   (b) The current flows as large, but brief pulses when the transformer
voltage exceeds the battery voltage.  This makes the RI^2 power loss in the
transformer windings (R is transformer secondary resistance plus (1/N^2)
times primary resistance, N = transformer ratio) much larger than you
expect.  This is due to the difference between rms and average when the
waveform has a pulse character.
[snip]
>?: Is this just the plastic housing around the Transformer allowing
>for (like a hand-warmer (shoot))..trapping the heat?

     Very likely.  Plastic is a poor thermal conductor.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 12:19:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27148 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: ekwall2@diac.com  Wed Oct  2 12:19:44 1996
Received: from diac.com (root@diac.com [207.17.190.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA27124 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from november (ekwall2@[207.17.190.73]) by diac.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA24630 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:19:45 GMT
Old-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:19:45 -0600 (MDT)
From: steve ekwall <ekwall2@diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2@november
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: stored excessive heat..
In-Reply-To: <v02140b07ae7877703452@[198.133.146.230]>
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.961002130436.19414A-100000@november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: O
X-Status: 

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Michael J. Schaffer wrote:
>    (a) 20 mA rating sounds too small, and 12 V too large.
>    (b) The current flows as large, but brief pulses when the transformer
> voltage exceeds the battery voltage. 
> >for (like a hand-warmer (shoot))..trapping the heat?
> 
>      Very likely.  Plastic is a poor thermal conductor.
> > Michael J. Schaffer
> General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
> Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156
> 
Thanks Micheal; (i suspect the insulation too),
  But the idea was shorting of the transformer, ANY Transformer - cooling 
wings and all.. tend to everheat when OVERdrawn upon...
i'm a poor stated of questions i guess..  LET'S TRY THIS..
1: throw away dust-buster and battery pack.
1a: OVERLOAD a transformer to specific temperture (near meltdown)
2: (i havn't done this yet, but imagine:) melting metal SAME TEMP.
3: Compare times to cool or difference in heat retention.

My noted (1st observation) was the transformer remains 'Hotter' far
 longer than other hot objects..(-Jed should like this with his 1.00
to 1.90 error factor.. especially if there are any transformers in ANY
circuit out there..)
-----------------------------
i (duh-me) thought the multi-layered Core Plates in a transformer were
insulated between themselves, hence layers not solid.
QUESTION (reissued) can the SPACES between the layers RETAIN any excess
heat, until REcalled through On-Switching of circuit (Any circuit) and
RELEASE this heat (cooling the transformer -and ADDING to the ERROR
factor?
---------------------------
The actual events and battery voltage can be dismissed, just take a
screw-driver and short your nearest transformer there to over-load a bit
to get same demo..  (ps use disposable or fuseable type xfrmer).
-=steve=-




From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 13:14:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA07901 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: ekwall2@diac.com  Wed Oct  2 13:14:39 1996
Received: from diac.com (root@diac.com [207.17.190.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07873 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from november (ekwall2@[207.17.190.73]) by diac.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA29473 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:15:11 GMT
Old-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:15:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: -steve ekwall- <ekwall2@diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2@november
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: junk t e s t ignore erase delete
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.961002141156.28698A-100000@november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: O
X-Status: 

p i n g . check ignore Please..
echo . check ignore Please..
-=se=-


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 13:29:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA04847; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610021958.MAA16763@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 12:57:53 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Transmutation vs CF heat
Resent-Message-ID: <"fe69B.0.eB1.bbiKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1307
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:10 AM 10/2/96 -0800, you wrote:
>This is another attempt to more clearly communicate what I think is a very
>important issue.
>
>For the sake of easier communication let's define "heavies" or "heavy
>products" to mean transmutation products more massive than 4He.  Therefore
>"lights" or "light products" should mean transmutation products less
>massive than 4He or 4He.
>

>Anyone have any thoughts as to a highly sensitive but cheap test means for
>any heavies?
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>

This was a really good post in my opinion, and I hope some positive results
flow in as a result.  The difficult thing in this area, as several
generations of miners have encountered, is the colloidal behaviors of the
precious, gold and platinim, in monoatomic form, are very sneaky and become
hard to find.  Platinum is so sneaky and hard to separate, it is widely
commented upon by miners and professionals close to miners that the majority
of placer gold can't get the value of their platinum because of the
refiner's charge for getting it out of the gold exceeds the value of it,
which can quite often run as high as 5%. These dissolve into each other and
together into the other metals. Maybe this is just a refiner ploy and not
really a valid technical concern. I have read of several controversies in
this detection/separation arena and can't really evaluate them very well.
The only sure way out appears to be the mass spec route.  Perhaps Tinsley
can rise to the occassion here with his chem analysis....
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 13:41:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA09318; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:21:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: steve ekwall <ekwall2@november.diac.com>
X-Sender: ekwall2@november
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: t e s t ping/echo ignore delete check ok
Message-ID: <Pine.UW2.3.95.961002142033.28698B-100000@november>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FYmSj3.0.RH2.cyiKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1308
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

t e s t ignore please

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 14:23:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA20238; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 16:39:47 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: 10 beats 20!
Message-ID: <961002203947_72240.1256_EHB196-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"-egLM1.0.7y4.7hjKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1309
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Barry Merriman writes:

     Jed: I don't think you will find a scientist on this earth who doesn't
     believe in the supremacy of data. The point we try to make in citing
     theories is that (a) *some* theory is always used in interpreting
     experimental data . . .

     For example, in this business of the ``new'' elements observed in
     cathodes being far too deep to have gotten their by diffusion. This
     statement is based on the classical theory of diffusion in solids . . .
     When Bockris said at the meeting that it was not worth entertaining
     transport of impurities into the material because the effect is 10
     orders of magnitude too small, he's making an essentially theoretical
     statement, but one supported by a certain body of experiment. However,
     his conviction with that statement is no different from that of the
     nuclear physicist who says cold fusion is impossible because the
     reaction rate is 20+ orders of magnitude too small.

     . . . experiment and theory are intertwined in a more complex fashion
     than you suggest.

Well said! Touche. I confess, I did (knowingly) simplify the relationship.
Einstein said something like: "what you call facts are really just your pet
theories." But I think this idea can be taken to extremes. This leads to an
infinite regression, in which everything is a theory and we know nothing. We
might question Ohm's law, or wonder if the gravitation constant changed this
morning. That kind of speculation is fine for a philosopher but engineers and
scientists should avoid it. We should not question Ohm's law unless, of
course, someone does an experiment that seems to disprove it!

We should stick to the conventional way of thinking, in which long-accepted
"theories" slip into being called "laws" or "facts" -- even though that is
sloppy use of language, and we all know that they *might* slip back. If we go
too far with the regression, we never get any work done. Maybe flow
calorimetry doesn't work. Maybe the tritium observed at Los Alamos, TAMU and
Amoco calls into question the basis for the liquid scintillation counters and
other instruments. Okay, maybe. But I do not see any skeptics rushing to
publish papers showing a problem with established tritium detection
methodology. If the CF findings actually reflect a weakness in the
conventional sciences of measuring heat, detecting tritium, or the theory of
operation of AES, SIMS and other instruments Miley uses . . . well, someone
should have spelled out these weaknesses years ago.

Let me address the side issue that Barry raised here, to illustrate his main
point. I'd like to quibble with those numbers. 40 orders of magnitude versus
10 is the score for this particular round, but we win the tournament. Yes,
both of these numbers are derived from theory, but our theory beats your
theory. Just looking at the theoretical probability for each event, alone and
out of context, we might conclude that the silver did not come from
transmutation or  contamination. That's reasonable. Maybe the silver slipped
in from a parallel universe. Maybe a ZPE event triggered nuclear events . . .
But I say we shouldn't consider theoretical probability alone, out of context.
We must look at the Totality Of Evidence, both in this experiment, and in the
broader history of similar experiments. Totality means the big picture and
the other observations: the silver wasn't in the cell in the first place; it
wasn't even on earth, because it has peculiar isotopes; the appearance of
silver was accompanied by massive, non-chemical excess heat. These
observations point to transmutation, not material transport. Our analysis must
not be based only esoteric theories of material transport by electrolysis (10
orders here), or only on esoteric theories about the coulomb barrier (see you,
and raise you 10 more orders of magnitude). It must also be based on common
sense, like the idea that stuff which isn't in the cell can't be transported.

Furthermore, not all theories are created equal. Not all bodies of experiments
are equally solid. Barry says that Bockris's "conviction with that statement
is no different from that of the nuclear physicist" but it is quite different.
Bockris's electrochemical theories are still holding up unchallenged as far as
I know, whereas and the nuclear physicist is relying on an obsolete,
incomplete body of experimental evidence and textbook theories that we shot
full of holes years ago. We know there *are* nuclear events in metal lattices,
because nobody has ever disproved the tritium at Los Alamos, or the heat from
Just About Everywhere. Okay maybe it's ZPE + nuclear, but something is
definitely changing the nuclei in metal lattices. We know that for the same
reason we know hot fusion reactors, atom bombs and americium smoke detectors
work. The instruments designed for conventional nuclear physics prove that CF
is nuclear. If you doubt the CF tritium you must also call into question the
tritium produced at the Savannah River plant. If you doubt EPRI's
autoradiographs of used CF cathodes, you must show why autoradiographs of
uranium ore do not indicate ionizing radiation.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 14:37:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA24059; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:28:53 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610022128.QAA12830@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little's CF attempts
Resent-Message-ID: <"68W1-.0.qt5.jwjKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1310
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:55 10/2/96 -0500, BillB wrote:

>Scott, have your subtle errors acted like continuous excess heat, or have
>they appeared and then vanished?  In other words, have they mimicked the
>"turn on" phenomenon? 

It's a continuous thing...or at least a long-term drift...essentially an
unexpected calibration shift.  One of my latest problems has been a few
percent increase in sensitivity over a week-long period observed with a
resistive heater only in the chamber.  I speculate that this is due to a
gradual improvement in the insulation quality as the air/gas in the
Styrofoam bubbles diffuse out because of the elevated operating temperature.

I haven't ever seen a CF experiment run along at one output level for a good
while and then suddenly increase....<sigh>.
Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 15:21:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02672; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 18:13:23 -0400
Message-ID: <961002181323_200501185@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired... 
Resent-Message-ID: <"y16Ru.0.ff.uakKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1311
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thank you Robert.  Things are looking a bit better today.  The company tells
me that they have an opening in a temperory job for 4 years.  I going to
check it out.  I may be working for four more years.  I hoping to get the
Yusmar working.  Its a long shot but if I do things will be OK.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 15:38:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03656; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00096370@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "revtec@postoffice.ptd.net" <revtec@postoffice.ptd.net>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:27:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"tX9oj3.0.zu.bfkKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1312
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeff
	I gather that's your name from one of the responses you got. My e-mail
doesn' t indicate you as more then revtec :>}
	I think you're off to a good start on your replication experiment. I
would like to  model the behavior of the device
mathematically. If you get a chance, see if you can create a
an i-v curve similar to Correa's Figure 1 in the patent, but with
real numbers. Are you planning to test some of these pits in
your cathode for the presence of transmutations? I would think
the outside of the Al plates would make a good control
surface to make a before and after comparison.

Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Monday, September 30, 1996 6:17AM

>
>
>I bought a Grainger refrigeration pump last week for $285 and have been
producing pulsed abnormal glow discharges for most of the week.  Before
I
describe what I have done I must make this disclaimer.  I may be an
engineer
but I am not a scientist.  I'm just playing around with this stuff to
see if
I can make something happen.  This is however serious playing for me
since I
have 1500 bucks into it already.

I have read the IE articles repeatedly and have gotten copies of the
patents.  I have not attempted to duplicate Correa's results for the
following reasons:

1. I can't afford 700 volts worth of rechargable batteries.

2. I can't afford 3400 microfarads worth of 350v capacitors.

3. I don't know how to work with glass.

It seemed to me that a glass tube was not the way to go.  Plates in a
glass
tube are thermally insulated and will over heat.  They are difficult to
align accurately and it is hard to scale up a glass device.  The largest
tube the Correas published had plates of 264cm2 ea. and they said bigger
is
better.  So this is what I did.  I got a 9" dia. x 1/2" wall acrylic
tube
2-1/2" long and machined "o" ring grooves in each face.  I then got two
10"
x 10" x 1/2 aluminum plates for end caps and sealed them with vacuum
grease.
This gave me 300cm2 per plate.  I drilled a vac connection into the tube
to
epoxy a glass stem for the vac hose.  According to the patents .05 to .1
torr is a good operating range.  The pump I bought maxes out at .025
torr.

For a high voltage power supply I bought a .750 kva distribution
transformer
and wired it for 110vac input and a 440vac output.  For filter caps I
used a
pair of 5600mf 350v items in series wired to a 1000v bridge rectifier.
I
installed a 5 A fuse in the primary circuit.  When I tested the power
supply, the fuse went off like a flash bulb. The inrush current on these
filter capacitors was something else.  I solved this problem by wiring a
250
watt heat lamp in series with the fuse.  When the capacitors are charged
the
lamp goes out and I then bypasss the lamp with a switch.  I found that
no
load volts on this power supply exceeds 600v.

I connected the power supply to the PAGD unit with 260 ohms of ballast
in
series and turned it on.  I used a clip on ammeter in the primary
circuit.
As expected with no vacuum there was no power consumption.  I turned on
the
vac pump and watched intently for any sign of a glow not knowing if my
power
supply was really enough to light it off. About 5 min. into vac
operation
the cathode suddenly lit up and I shut off the pump.  A few seconds
later my
pump made a funny noise and regurgitated vacuum oil all over the inside
of
my tube shutting down the reaction.  I spent the rest of the evening
disassembling and cleaning the tube components.  I bought an isolation
valve
the next day.

Soon after start up the next day the glow was back followed by brilliant
sparkles jumping all around the cathode surface.  This was apparently
the
PAGD effect. Primary current hovered near 1.5 A.  A scope wired across
10
ohms of my ballast resistance showed voltage spikes as the tube
resistance
dropped with each PAGD event.  These events were flashing across the
cathode
surface at nearly 10 per second at some random frequency since the auto
triggering on the scope could not get a stabilizing lock on it.  It
could be
seen through the clear tube that pits were forming on the cathode
surface.
It could also be seen that a conical cloud radiated upward from each
burst.
A noticeable deterioration in visibility was occurring as the device
ran.
Vaporized aluminum was apparently condensing on the inner surface of the
acrylic.

I tried reducing the value of the ballast resistors.  This caused the
intensity of the bursts to increase.  I tried putting a pair of series
capacitors across the plates.  These increased the intensity of the
bursts
dramatically while reducing the frequency.  The frequency was also
stabilized to some degree since the scope now displayed a more regular
pattern of spikes which now trailed off because of the caps.  The 22mf
350v
caps lasted only a minute before exploding.

My next effort was to go after any excess energy that might be present.
And
as usual I was going to do it my way.

I had already tested with low voltage simulation an active control
circuit
to collect the pulse energy.  This circuit consisted of an SCR to divert
the
energy pulses to a large storage capacitor with a pair of 100 watt light
bulbs to bleed off the charge.  I wired the two bulbs in series since I
expected the voltage to get to around 300v.  The SCR also controlled a
FET
in the drive circuit to shut down the drive power while collecting the
pulse
energy. This was done to keep the power supply from charging the
collecting
circuit.  The circuit seemed to work very well, but it did not collect
much
energy.  I did not come close to lighting the bulbs.  However, with the
bulbs disconnected the capacitor would reach 350v after a minute or two.
Numerous adjustments and variations on this control circuit failed to
provide much improvement.

It was painfully clear that I would have to back up a bit and try it the
Correa way (sort of).  I went back to fig. 9 in IE and wired that
circuit
with the following exceptions:

1.  C3 nad C5 were 490mf instead of 34,000mf.

2.  The voltage doubling components of C7 a and b, and D7 and D8 were
omitted.

3.  I used my 5600mf charge capacitor and light bulbs in place of a
charge
battery pack.

Even with a measely 490mf across the tube, this represented the largest
capacitor I had ever put in this part of the circuit.  When I started up
this circuit the PAGD events were so incredibly violent that I am not
sure
that they were not vacuum arc discharges since hot spots could be seen
on
the anode also. The instaneous current flow was so intense that I could
hear
audible clicks coming from the 490mf caps.  Inspite of these violent
reactions, next to nothing was going into the charge capacitor or bulbs.
With the bulbs disconnected the charge cap never topped 24v.
Nevertheless
it is unimaginable what would happen if my 490mf caps were 34,000mf.

This brings us up to date.  I welcome any comment, questions, or advice.


To be continued:



>>
>>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 15:57:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA07943; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <3252EF1F.52BFA1D7@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 15:39:27 -0700
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired... 
References: <961002181323_200501185@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"PyuwI3.0._x1.jykKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1313
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I may be working for four more years.  I hoping to get the
> Yusmar working.  Its a long shot but if I do things will be OK.
> 

Frank: I wouldn't bank on the Yusmar ``working'' in the sense of
more heat out than power in.

However, thats really incidental to a succesful business anyway.
The Yusmar is already a supposedly succesful commercial product
back inPotapov's country....why don't you simply
form a partnership for US distribution of the Yusmar, and build
a business around that. After all, I seriously doubt the 
100's of Yusmars being put into general service are all far over unity
if the inventor himself can't get one to work at all in the US. Even
if the real shipping Yusmars were, say 50% over unity, I doubt that 
we be the most critical factor in developing market share.

-- 
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu   
web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 16:01:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA08843; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:41:50 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610022241.RAA19625@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: EarthTech's CF history
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bz-Wh2.0.1A2.__kKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1314
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

The following is a brief chronological history of 
EarthTech's CF investigations.

APR89 - Earliest recorded data from initial P&F replication 
experiment.  This experiment was constructed from the 
information presented in P&F's 1st paper.  We used Pd sheet 
left over from some old neutron cross-section studies and 
LiOD electrolyte made by adding metallic Li to D2O.  We made 
a water-flow calorimeter that achieved 2-3% relative 
accuracy.  We monitored gamma emissions with a NaI 
scintillator and neutron emissions with a LiF scintillator.  
The experiment was run for weeks without positive results.  
A poster-session paper was presented in Santa Fe at ICCF1.  
At that meeting we met Ed Storms, Bob Huggins, and Stephen 
Crouch-Baker.  After lengthy discussions with Huggins and 
Crouch-Baker, we returned home and mounted a serious 
replication of the Huggins-Crouch-Baker cathode preparation 
method (arc melting of the Pd under argon, assembly and 
filling of the cell in a nitrogen-purged glove box).  
Several such cells were made and operated more-or-less 
continuously over the next month without positive results.

Nearly a year passed without further activity and then 
EarthTech was formed to investigate charge-cluster phenomena 
(theorized by H. E. Puthoff and originally investigated by 
Ken Shoulders) .  Much was learned in the early days of 
EarthTech about calorimetry but no CF experiments were run 
until years later.

27SEP94 - We attempted to replicate the "double-nickel" CF 
experiment, a simple KCO3 light-water cell using 5 cent 
pieces as electrodes!  This experiment was written up by 
Malcolm Ogle and published in New Energy News Vol 2 No 4.  
We chose it because it was simple, reported to be a reliable 
generator of excess heat, and we had a nice, calibrated 
calorimeter (known as the "differential" calorimeter) to put 
it in.  We pursued that experiment (with the cells running 
more-or-less continuously) for one full month and never saw 
any sign of excess heat.

5MAY95 - Stimulated by Piantelli's first paper and a 
connection we saw with our ZPF theories, we started a series 
of related experiments in which we heated fine Ni wires in 
an atmosphere of H and measured the total heat evolved in 
our differential calorimeter.  After a month of 
experimentation, which involved a variety of H pressures, 
temperatures, external magnetic fields, etc.) we concluded 
that there was no sign of excess heat.  A typical result 
from one of these Ni-wire experiments can be seen on our web 
page (http://www.eden.com/~little).

10OCT95 - Stimulated by the Piantelli patent disclosure and 
a persistent apparent fit with our ZPF theories, we 
attempted a precise replication of his experiment.  We 
constructed an apparatus similar to his and, over a two 
month period, tried a variety of stimulation methods 
(thermal shock, mechanical shock, magnetic shock) and a 
variety of  surface preparations for our Ni rod.  We never 
observed any excess heat in this system.

18DEC95 - Stunned by the reported performance of the CETI 
cell at the PowerGen show in Anaheim, we began our efforts 
to replicate the Patterson cell.  We designed and 
constructed a flow cell similar to Cravens' cells and began 
researching the process of metal-coating plastic beads.  
Eventually we decided to have the beads made by a group that 
specialized in metal coatings on glass beads.  We reasoned, 
perhaps incorrectly, that the substrate was probably not a 
critical factor in the performance of the beads.  While 
waiting for the coated beads, we designed (with valuable 
contribution from Martin Sevior) and constructed a dual-
method calorimeter to provide a cross-check on the 
electrolyte-flow methods that Cravens/Patterson had 
pioneered.  After months of trials with various operating 
parameters, we have not observed any sign of excess heat in 
these experiments.  A typical result from one of our CETI-
style experiments can be seen on our web page.

29JAN96 - We embarked on a new series of CF experiments 
involving direct loading of Pd metal with H and D gas.  We 
explored quite a range of pressures and temperatures in a 
specially designed chamber with differential calorimetric 
sensors without observing any sign of excess heat generation 
in the Pd.  This work is ongoing and the details are covered 
by a non-disclosure agreement.

21JUN96 - Kirk Shanahan's Pd-coated plastic beads arrived 
and were placed in our CETI-style flow cell and into the 
dual-method calorimeter.  One experiment was run continuously 
for 6 days following the Cravens-prescribed loading 
regimen...no sign of excess heat.  A second batch of beads 
was received from Kirk, run similarly, and identical results 
were obtained.  Results from the first of these experiments 
can be seen on our web page.

>From mid-1995 to the present, we have also been engaged in 
an ongoing study with a local CF researcher who repeatedly 
observes the indication of substantial excess heat in his 
experiments.  He uses an an open-air style of NLC 
calorimetry in which he measures the temperature rise of the 
CF cell above the ambient room temperature.   He typically 
uses a second cell identical in construction to the active 
cell to effective gauge the ambient temperature.  Every time 
we have placed one of his CF cells in one of our 
calorimeters we have seen no sign of excess heat.  Because 
of his proximity, we have been able to get a cell "working" 
(showing excess heat) in his lab and then bring the cell 
quickly over to our lab (running off battery power during 
the 15 minute trip) and then place it in our calorimeter and 
continue running it with essentially no interruption in 
operation...but we have still not been able to observe the 
excess heat in our calorimeter.  Just prior to performing 
these tests we typically test our calorimeter with a cell 
identical to his but containing only a resistive heater.  
The measured heat output on this calibration cell is typically
within 1% relative of the input electrical power.  

Our standing disagreement in calorimetry is the subject of 
an ongoing investigation.  Presently, the local CF 
researcher is planning to build his own closed calorimeter 
to study the problem more effectively.

That concludes our CF experiment history.  We plan to 
continue pursuing CF research in the future, including 
constucting and testing the special CF cell described to us 
by Mark Hugo (using a Pd tube he supplied), and a test of 
one of Prof. John Dash's CF cells.

Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 16:04:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA09379; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.553729140096276FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 02 Oct 1996 14:29:14 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: 10 beats 20!
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/02/96 14:29:35 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"lKCPm1.0.NI2.U2lKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1315
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/02/96 14:20
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: 10 beats 20!
A comment on the "autoradiographs". The claim was made some time ago
that these were due to exposure to hydrogen "reducing" the silver in
the films, and that this hydrogen can penetrate the plastic covering
that exist(ed) on some of the films. Dr. Oriani was concerned about this
too, so he took a small pressure vessel, some dental Xray film, and
a tank of H2. I think he went to 2 atm if I recall....Nul result,
no effect even after several days exposure. Thus I'd say this arguement
against the "auto-radiographs" is specious at best... MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 16:16:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA12904; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.801544140096276FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 02 Oct 1996 14:44:14 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little's CF attempts
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/02/96 14:44:15 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"8dupF2.0.X93.XGlKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1316
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/02/96 14:35
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Scott Little's CF attempts
Scott? Do you still have my Pd tube? If you aren't going to set up my
protocal, could you send it to Hank Scudder please? THANKS! MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 17:07:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA21075; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 18:33:13 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610022333.SAA24525@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Mark's tube
Resent-Message-ID: <"E8uQz3.0.D95.FllKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1317
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 14:44 10/2/96 PDT, Mark wrote:

>Scott? Do you still have my Pd tube?

You think I would lose THAT!!!.....<g>

>If you aren't going to set up my
>protocal, could you send it to Hank Scudder please? THANKS! MDH

As I have mentioned we are presently very busy with some "non-energy" work
that is likely to consume the next several months as well.  I am certainly
willing to let Hank have it for now.  I'd like to reserve a chance at it
again in the future, if possible.

Hank, send me yr address.

Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 17:36:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA25813; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610022349.QAA11993@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:50:14 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Resent-Message-ID: <"BJMtx.0.AJ6.M3mKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1318
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 11:04 AM 10/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Chris said:
>
>"The bubble reputation" is one problem, do some reputations
>here and elsewhere depend upon never seeing over-unity?"
>
>Whoever might fall into that category doesn't include Scott Little, Hal
>Puthoff, or EarthTech.  Our doors are open to anyone who can bring in a
>device and show o/u.  If it's there, we'll see it, and we'll make sure
>everyone knows we've seen it.
>
>Hal
>
>

It is in our intent to bring Muller down.  We have arrangements yet to be
made and have been busy earning a buck to support this expensive hobby.  But
you will hear more from us on this score.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 17:38:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA26348; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610022349.QAA11961@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:50:05 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter
Resent-Message-ID: <"-1O1S.0.bR6.c5mKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1319
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:05 AM 10/2/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>>> So the key is not the establishment per se, it is the media.... <<
>
>Undoubtedly true.  So what is required is a good spin doctor to accept the
>challenge - for a slice of the action of course.  No hay, no pay.
>
>Norman
>
>

I have always tried to learn that but have been largely unsuccessful.  When
I was a college student I was in the school newspaper news almost daily as a
student activist.  And I got play also in the Seattle Times as a major
feature story. For a short while I was slightly famous, or maybe infamous is
a better word, in my home town.  All of that was unsought attention.  My
conscious efforts to obtain attention have been TOTALLY IGNORED, except for
third party book reviews I did up for another publisher and distributed to
thousands of small town newspapers.  So you figure...

Infinite Energy has a chance of emerging as a channel, but it is a climb
still for them.  We subscribers know that there is no way you should put
that in the same category as the other over-the-counter "undergroud" rags,
but it is really easy to superficially categorize it as such.  The science
in it doesnt matter because the media/publishing twits know nothing about
science and never evaluate stuff from that angle.  They evaluate the who's
who.  Thus, NASA got worldwide headlines for its bogus "life on Mars"
propaganda routine, not that I begrudge them because we should be exploring
Mars.

I figure that the InterNet is a back door method and allows a lot to happen
as a substitute for the old fashioned mass broadcast type of news and
attitude formation.  I observe that attitudes are changing rapidly throught
the net.  There are a lot of proto news/media publishers on the Net and I
think that is a useful media to get cozy with for the disemination of
informtion about the new technologies, discoveries, etc.  Takes a lot of
contact work, though, just like any other area.

You know, another entry is the incredible expansion of news channels.  the
electronic broadcasters are approaching a situation of content starvation.
Right now MSM news channel is openly calling for content providers to
provide multi-media content and they will pay development costs.  I can see
Tinsley's tongue in cheek as a clickable talk icon on a computer or TV
screen providing coverage of "this week's wrap up of Vortex" in his
inimitable style...or some such. hmmm. hmmmmmm.



____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 17:47:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA26798; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610022350.QAA12062@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 16:50:36 +0900
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Indian Herbal Fuel:  An interesting story
Cc: ksathiah@ihug.co.nz
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y7t1h.0.aY6.38mKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1320
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Thanks for the tip on the url to news about the herbal fuel invention from
India.

The url you want to read is

http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~ksathiah/TheFinalChapter.htm


I don't have the time for idle speculation and tangental information, but
this is a very interesting url.  I highly recommend it to Jed, Eugene, Bill
Beaty, and Tinsley.

It is sort of a compressed manifestation of everything discussed on Vortex
about inventor's disease, the split between experimentalists and
establishment authorities, the problem of verification, etc.  What is really
intersting is that at this point no one can tell for sure anything, but the
Indians are claiming, in effect, that the inventor is a cross between Dennis
Lee and Newman, only they claim that they have caught the inventor
red-handed in his trickery, to which the Tamil state government is
responding by threatening public mass agitation if they do not issue the
Tamil inventor a patent to protect his rights.

Talk about an opera version of all of our issues...take a peek 

There is another interesting side to this story.  The website from which the
info is available, email:

ksathiah@ihug.co.nz

This New Zealand site demonstrates the ability of practicioners of the art
of webbery to transcend space/time constraints, making it irrelevant, to
provide nodes of instant topical coherency on a new subject, even on moving
news targets as volatile as this herbal fuel story.  I commend ksathiah for
the resolute effort and the success in putting all points of view and
opposing actions in a running webtape.  The perspective one gets in this
compressed form is very very valuable.  It is a very good role model in my
humble opinion of how we are going to build the noosphere of planetary
civilization up out of the InterNet. This is how the new media is being
created to surplant the centralized media establishments.  I hope ksathiah
can take the time to introduce him/her/itself to us.

Best wishes,
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 19:20:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05521; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610030207.WAA22256@nic.wat.hookup.net>
X-Sender: nafziger@wat.hookup.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 22:08:00 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: R & D Nafziger <nafziger@wat.hookup.net>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"HYb821.0.BM1.Z_nKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1321
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 04:05 AM 10/2/96 EDT, Norman Horwood wrote (about the Miley paper):

>OK, can we treat this as a case study?
>
>I don't have a copy yet, but if all the data and calorimetry spec. can be 
>isolated from the theory, and presented clearly, we could all pick it to 
>pieces.  If there is a consensus in Vortex in favour of incontrovertible ou 
>above say 50%, then a press release by a media wiz should be prepared, and the 
>cell replicated by Scott and Hal and hyped to the full.
>

What an excellent idea.  Is it possible to distribute the paper to this group?

Regards,

Rick Nafziger
Wellesley, Ontario

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 19:20:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA07441; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3253216F.4444@interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 22:14:07 -0400
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net
Organization: NASA (retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EarthTech's CF history
References: <199610022241.RAA19625@natashya.eden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8bEd1.0.3q1.J6oKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1322
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Scott Little wrote: (An excellent history of EarthTech's CF efforts)
> 
  Because
> of his proximity, we have been able to get a cell "working"
> (showing excess heat) in his lab and then bring the cell
> quickly over to our lab (running off battery power during
> the 15 minute trip) and then place it in our calorimeter and
> continue running it with essentially no interruption in
> operation...but we have still not been able to observe the
> excess heat in our calorimeter.  

OK, Scott.  It's time to call in the calorimeter EXORCIST!
Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 19:30:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08715; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3253224E.740A@interlaced.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 22:17:50 -0400
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net
Organization: NASA (retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
References: <961002181323_200501185@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"o2B6I1.0.082.X9oKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1323
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Thank you Robert.  Things are looking a bit better today.  The company tells
> me that they have an opening in a temperory job for 4 years.  I going to
> check it out.  I may be working for four more years.  I hoping to get the
> Yusmar working.  Its a long shot but if I do things will be OK.
> 
> Frank Z

Hey Frank, these days, a job that lasts for 4 years is a PERMANENT job!
Hope it works out.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:01:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27983; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:37:24 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
In-Reply-To: <961001135923_100433.1541_BHG96-4@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961003125419.15118A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"7T9Q93.0.3r6.kLpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1324
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On 1 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

> 
> 2. If the universe were not very precisely the way it is, then we would
> not exist.  Therefore it has been designed to suit us.
> 

If this was aimed at a post I made here a while ago then let me say it is
obvious to me that the first sentence does not imply the second. Nevertheless
I do not retract the post. We have discovered a few simple laws that describe
how space-time works and how quarks and leptons interact. The immense,
marvelous and complex phenomena we find in Universe arise as a 
consequence of the way these subatomic particles interact in 
space-time. Those laws contain a number of arbitary constants whose values 
have to be precisely tuned to allow carbon-based life to evolve. I find
this observation to be extremely interesting and accordance with my own
religous beliefs. 

So there is that word again, "belief"!

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:03:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA29448; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:44:07 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610030344.WAA15168@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired... 
Resent-Message-ID: <"X5C9m2.0.1C7.wRpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1325
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 18:13 10/2/96 -0400, Frank wrote:

>Thank you Robert.  Things are looking a bit better today.  The company tells
>me that they have an opening in a temperory job for 4 years.  I going to
>check it out.

Don't sell yourself short, Frank... temporary jobs should pay better than
permanent ones.

Scott

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:19:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05500; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961003041814.006f406c@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 21:18:14 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Free Energy MPEG movies available !
Resent-Message-ID: <"sWMGj3.0.sL1.DqpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1327
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Figured some of you might like to check some of this out.

Forwarded message:

<clip from this message>...

>There are:
>
>2 videos of Stanley Meyer and his Water splitting device and
>car buggy !
>
>2 videos of Griggs and his selling Hydrosonic pumps
>
>2 videos of Patterson and his CETI Water Fuel Cell

<etc>...
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:11:44 +0100
>From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann)
>Subject: Free Energy MPEG movies available !
>
>Hi,
>
>I just made 18 MPEG movies from videotapes from
>my archive and it is 52 MB of MPEG files all in all !
>
>These MPEG movies also play fine via a Software only
>MPEG player like the new ActiveMovie MPEG player from
>Microsoft, available at :
>
>http://www.microsoft/msdownload/
>
>Be sure to download also from over there the new
>
>directx.exe file to accelerate your graphics card under
>Win95 !
>
>Then you can play these movies, which are mostly in 176x144
>resolution with 25 frames/sec and MPEG audio sound in it
>like normal videoclips ! It runs also very well with the
>Softpeg MPEG player from:
>
>http://www.compcore.com
>
>They have a dmeo player, latest version is 2.1 ,
>
>and with the XingMPEG player 3.0 which is at:
>
>http://www.xingtech.com  (look under the support page
>for the download area !)
>
>If you now have got your MPEG player working go to the directory
>of my new movies and load them all down. The movies are located
>at:
>
>http://www.overunity.de/movies/
>
>Please don=B4t forget the SLASH at the end behind the word movies/
>cause otherwise you will not see the directory.. (there is no index-file
yet...)
>
>Please share these movies and the free MPEG player from Microsoft
>with all your friends and relatives and show them, what is available TODAY=
 !
>
>There are:
>
>2 videos of Stanley Meyer and his Water splitting device and
>car buggy !
>
>2 videos of Griggs and his selling Hydrosonic pumps
>
>2 videos of Patterson and his CETI Water Fuel Cell
>
>1 video of the Russian Tschernenkow (hope the spelling is right...)
>
>1 video of my visit to Joe Newman in 1987 and showing me his FAN
>motor.
>
>6 movies of me doing work on my small rebuild Newman machine
>
>4 movies from a Newman public relation tape
>
>Please try to download them one after the other....
>If traffic is too much , please try later...
>
>Try to view these movies in 2x zoom mode, then the
>screen size is better to view and you get more details !
>
>I compressed these movies to 32 Kbytes/sec Videodata
>rate and 6 Kbytes sound data rate, so they are pretty small
>for video data, but still play okay to get all of the important
>content !They still are at 25 and some at 30 frames/sec,
>so they play very fluently, especially on a Pentium machine.
>Be sure to get DirectX, then you can also watch them Fullscreen
>wiuthout any slowdown !
>If you have the ActiveMovie player installed , then you can play
>them via the Win95 Mediaplayer and to play them
>in FULLSCREEN mode, do the following:
>
>As the movie is loaded, press:
>
>Control + F5
>
>and then type the MCI command:
>
>play fullscreen
>
>and it will play the movie without any windows borders
>in fullscreen mode. Be sure to have installed the DirectX.exe
>accelerator program to get the speed for your SVGA card !
>
>If you still have any questions, please let me know.
>
>Enjoy the movies and spread the message !
>
>Regards, Stefan Hartmann.
>
>P.S.: I should mention that some movies are digitized from the
>documentation movie:
>"It runs on water"=20
>from Channel 4, England, UK (the MPEG movies
>from Griggs, Meyer and Patterson) This tape had a bad
>picture quality and the sound also was pretty noisy, cause it was
>a 6th generation copy or so... so please bare with my
>digitalisation quality... The other movies are a bit better...
>
>
>--
>Hartmann Multimedia Service,  Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann
>Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany
>NEUE Nummern :  Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497  FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498
>email: harti@harti.de     harti@bbtt.de
>Web site: http://www.harti.de     Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de
>Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de
>My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:21:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05649; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 00:11:56 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961003001012.8a87fdfe@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: censorship
Resent-Message-ID: <"EoAqp2.0.7O1.iqpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1328
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 
   I have written to this group to contribute for a while.
In a spot check, many of my  notes never came through.


  Is this list censored?  


   Did someone choose which posts would be allowed to come through?


   I have read others stating this and did not pay attention
to the degree I should have.

  comments?

      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:27:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05898; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961003041947.006ee888@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 21:19:47 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Free Energy MPEG ...
Resent-Message-ID: <"UAqmc.0.3S1.erpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1329
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

My apologies for having sent that message again.

Gary

At 01:10 AM 10/2/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Figured some of you might like to check some of this out.
>
>Forwarded message:
>
><clip from this message>...
>
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 21:28:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA04367; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 03 Oct 96 00:00:18 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Disappearing heat with bulk Ni
Message-ID: <961003040018_72240.1256_EHB179-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"O_1tN.0.641.NlpKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1326
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little wrote:

     Because of his proximity, we have been able to get a cell "working"
     (showing excess heat) in his lab and then bring the cell quickly over to
     our lab (running off battery power during the 15 minute trip) and then
     place it in our calorimeter and continue running it with essentially no
     interruption in  operation...but we have still not been able to observe
     the excess heat in our calorimeter.

I presume this is a bulk Ni cathode in a closed calorimeter. If so, this is
the same puzzling phenomenon that has been reported by a number of people,
including Bockris, Cravens, Srinivasan, Droege, Mills and others. Mills, the
original discoverer of Ni CF, believes he can explain it according to his
theory. He thinks you must remove the shrunken hydrogen pairs (dihydrinos) or
they poison the reaction.

When the apparent excess heat was less than I*V, which is often the case with
bulk Ni, most workers who observed this phenomenon assumed it meant the
heat was caused by recombination, and most of them stopped investigating at
that point. I am not aware of any rigorous test to prove it really was
recombination. Where the apparent excess was greater than I*V this
"disappearing heat" problem remains a mystery. Cravens finally shrugged his
shoulders and decided he did not trust any Ni CF. I proposed a hypothesis: the
excess was a real effect (not recombination), but in a closed cell free oxygen
poisons the reaction. Either that, or dirt washed from the recombiner destroys
the reaction. (Recombiners are notoriously unclean.)

I do not recommend the use of bulk Ni, or the use of closed cells with Ni. If
you must run a closed cell for some reason, I recommend you draw off the gas
and recombine it in another vessel. Do not return the newly formed water to
the cell. Bulk Ni with electrochemical loading has very low power density. Gas
loading supposedly works better, but the methods developed by Mills and
Piantelli remain corporate secrets. Thin film, developed by Patterson as we
all know, works much better. Therefore I conclude it must be a surface or near
surface reaction, since thin film has so much more exposed surface than a bulk
cathode of the same dimensions.

As the people who have tried to replicate Patterson can testify, you cannot
use just any thin film. It has to conform to the first Patterson patents. That
is, it has to absorb hydrogen more rapidly than normal Ni, in larger amounts,
and it must hold it without distending, splitting, or otherwise self-
destructing. Among the independent replicators, only Miley has performed tests
to ensure these conditions are met. The splitting and film shedding reported
by Little and Merriman indicate that the material is wholly unsuitable.
Patterson struggled for many years to develop films, bead material, and the
interface flashing that would prevent this self-destruction. Before he met
Patterson, Miley was working on this problem. His thin devices did heat up
with anomalous CF energy, but they always self-destructed spectacularly within
about 6 minutes of onset of excess heat. The geometry of the bead and the
choice of Ni as the host metal are two important advantages of Patterson's
approach, but they cannot by themselves guarantee success.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 22:04:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA16636; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:59:19 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610030459.XAA20356@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
Resent-Message-ID: <"0qSOC1.0.r34.qWqKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1330
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 00:11 10/3/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote:
 
>   I have written to this group to contribute for a while.
>In a spot check, many of my  notes never came through.
>
>  Is this list censored?  

I've never noticed any of my posts getting eaten...other than when Vortex
has gone down...which it hasn't lately.   I'd venture to guess that none of
Jed's posts are getting squelched either. There's an "opinion gulf" the size
of Jupiter between the two of us so you shouldn't be having any problems at all!

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 22:07:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA17423; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:02:54 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired... 
In-Reply-To: <199610030344.WAA15168@natashya.eden.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961003144102.13178A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"tkd2o.0.9G4.HaqKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1331
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Scott Little wrote:

> At 18:13 10/2/96 -0400, Frank wrote:
> 
> >Thank you Robert.  Things are looking a bit better today.  The company tells
> >me that they have an opening in a temperory job for 4 years.  I going to
> >check it out.
> 
> Don't sell yourself short, Frank... temporary jobs should pay better than
> permanent ones.
> 
> Scott
> 

I agree. Firing people then immediately hiring them back is an incredibly
cynical excerise at manipulation. Talk to your other 36 collegues and
try to make sure the company doesn't get to lower your wages and conditions.
Good luck. You deserve much better.

Martin Sevior
 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 22:19:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA20513; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 00:15:26 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610030515.AAA21510@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Disappearing heat with bulk Ni
Resent-Message-ID: <"zXUyG2.0.O05.LmqKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1332
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 00:00 10/3/96 EDT, Jed wrote:

>I presume this is a bulk Ni cathode in a closed calorimeter.

if you mean closed _cell_...then, yes.

>If so, this is
>the same puzzling phenomenon that has been reported by a number of people,
>including Bockris, Cravens, Srinivasan, Droege, Mills and others.

<snip an interesting theory about free oxygen poisoning the CF reaction>

Thanks for the idea, Jed...I've never heard of this before and will be on
the lookout for it.  However, our situation is different:

The apparent excess heat doesn't disappear when the cell remains at the
other guy's house...it's only when we put the cell in our calorimeter.  I'm
presently thinking that this situation is due to a subtle error in his style
of calorimetry because he is only sensing the temperature of the electrolyte
in the cell and, with a recombiner, about 1/3-1/2 of the input power is
dissipated in the recombiner up in the head space above the electrolyte.  In
my calorimeter, the entire cell goes in the chamber and all the heat it
emits is measured.  

Yes, there are some second order effects in my calorimeter due to the shape
and size of the heat emitter but I have calibrated those out in this case by
using a dummy cell that is full of oil to the same level as his electrolyte
with series-connected calibration resistors both immersed in the oil and
suspended in the head space above the oil with resistance values chosen to
closely mimic the heat patterns from the actual cell.

...but, since we haven't really nailed down the problem, the jury is still out.


Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 22:21:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA21159; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961003052527.0071a4e0@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 22:25:27 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
Resent-Message-ID: <"dzjLs1.0.XA5.GpqKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1333
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:11 AM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
> 
>   I have written to this group to contribute for a while.
>In a spot check, many of my  notes never came through.
>
>  Is this list censored?  
>
>   Did someone choose which posts would be allowed to come through?
>
>   I have read others stating this and did not pay attention
>to the degree I should have.
>
>  comments?
>
>      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>
I'll jump in on this one.  There is a procmailrc file 
that is used to enable automatic archiving of these 
messages.  It could also be used to filter, an enormous 
number of different ways.  But Bill has his procmailrc 
file for this list world readable, and I just took a 
look at it, NO filtering.

Another possibility, one that got me for awhile, is the 
filters in your own software, if there.  Are your own 
messages being placed in a "keep" mailbox you've forgotten about?

Lastly, different servers inject certain lines in the headers, 
and Smartlist", the "mailman" for this thing, has its own 
filters to reject anything that looks like it's coming from a 
daemen.  Recommend you ask your provider first if there is a 
possibility of a problem there, and then contact Bill if not, 
and/or if it is definitely a consistent trouble.

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 23:25:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA04598; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 15:49:36 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Message-ID: <961002194935_100433.1541_BHG39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"2I6fx1.0.g71.AgrKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1334
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Norman,

 > I don't have a copy yet, but if all the data and calorimetry spec.
 > can be isolated from the theory, and presented clearly, we could
 > all pick it to pieces.  If there is a consensus in Vortex in
 > favour of incontrovertible ou above say 50%, then a press release
 > by a media wiz should be prepared, and the cell replicated by
 > Scott and Hal and hyped to the full.

This isn't a calorimetry paper.  It's on transmutations in the cathode.

Chris
(That boy at the back - pay attention!)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 23:26:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA05978; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 16:24:38 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Message-ID: <961002202437_100433.1541_BHG134-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"OuZES2.0.KT1.wmrKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1335
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hal,

 > Whoever might fall into that category doesn't include Scott
 > Little, Hal Puthoff, or EarthTech.  Our doors are open to anyone
 > who can bring in a device and show o/u.  If it's there, we'll see
 > it, and we'll make sure everyone knows we've seen it.

No, I was making a point in general.  I know I am beating this
particular horse to death, but the basic point is fundamental and I am
trying to make sure that at the least everyone here (whom I am sure know
the idea) has got the message.  As you know, Hal, I support strongly
your 'back to basics' physics - which is so appealing for so many
reasons.  Frankly, I hope it succeeds, if only because I see it as a
physics which could tell us that doors are open to us - doors which we
are constantly (and rather sneeringly) told are closed forever.  Doors
which could open onto whole new technologies for the human race.

However, I still say that each and every one of us must in conscience
decide exactly what we are trying to do, what is our back-of-the-mind
agenda.  You personally have always put your work ahead of worrying
about what others might think of you for doing it (see also Bill's
comments on that), while I personally am rather pleased to have the
freedom which lack of any reputation gives me.  Others are not able
always to act and think so freely, and should at least be aware of the
problem.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 23:36:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07972; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 02 Oct 96 17:24:17 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The magnificent Miley/Patterson paper
Message-ID: <961002212417_100433.1541_BHG48-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5TRfF1.0.Uy1.turKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1336
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Martin,

 > Ah, at last the long awaited paper! Do you know where Miley wants
 > to publish? Any chance of preprints?

It has already gone to the printers, complete in every detail, as part
of IE#9.  Those who haven't done so should subscribe NOW!  We must
remember to call it the "Miley/Patterson" paper, by the way.

I have now spent quite a lot of time on it, it is a mind-numbing mass of
data - I feel tired just reading the thing, I just do not see how they
managed to get all that work done.

There is no doubt whatever in my mind, this is far and away both the
best and the most important CF paper to date - and will at some stage in
the future probably become the single most-cited paper in the field. 
(It makes me quail, the thought that my small contribution to getting it
into IE may have errors (I did the "scanner-output -> clean-text" side. 
At least one error slipped past me, I hope there are no others.  Quite a
good story - the email was running very slow, so Jed and I had to link
our modems across the Pond, TWICE.  And Gene was working for 30 hours
straight).

While I still believe that the beads should be digested and a full
quantitative chemical analysis done on the cell contents, that is my
only complaint so far.  The efforts to avoid contamination, the depth
and quality of the work done on the bead coatings, shows me just what
can be done in this field when different departments of a University
collaborate so effectively.  Truly this paper is a wonder.  Tomorrow I
intend to post here a selection of my favourite quotes from it.

Sadly though, I just do not see how even this paper can in itself change
anything - except, just possibly, the direction of 'cold fusion'
research.  The arms of some people will wave like propellors or - more
likely - they will simply say, "Oh, must have been some kind of
contamination," but requests to put numbers on the source and nature of
that contamination will not be answered.  I take the point that the
number of orders of magnitude for this to be nuclear is far higher than
the amount by which our understanding of atom-migration would have to be
wrong - but the big question has to be where the contaminant materials
are supposed to have come from, AS WELL as the atom-migration problem.

Now, both sides need 'two miracles'.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  2 23:55:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA10937; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961003065443.006e7954@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 23:54:43 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired... 
Resent-Message-ID: <"jxTiw2.0.pg2.r6sKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1337
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 03:02 PM 10/3/96 +1000, you wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Scott Little wrote:
>
>> At 18:13 10/2/96 -0400, Frank wrote:
>> 
>> >Thank you Robert.  Things are looking a bit better today.  The company tells
>> >me that they have an opening in a temperory job for 4 years.  I going to
>> >check it out.

Go for contract terms instead of employee.  Usually make more $$, 
just without the bennies.  Contractors and employees at Microsoft 
walk the same halls, desks near each other, all looking at each 
other wondering why the other side would accept the terms they've got. :>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 04:15:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA13885; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 03:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 03:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Transmutation vs CF heat
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:52:07 +0000
Message-ID: <19961003105205.AAA14293@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"GQ57m.0.oO3.LivKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1338
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 12:10 PM 10/2/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>For low budget amateurs like me the best approach is maybe different. Maybe
>choosing a specific test heavy, like Ca, and then developing the test means
>is a good initial route.   The main variations in my search would then be
>choices of electrolytes and electrodes, voltages, geometries, loading
>protocols, etc.
>
>Anyone have any thoughts as to a highly sensitive but cheap test means for
>any heavies?
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
The biggest problem in confirming the presence of heavies is finding a
technique which is specific for a particular metal ion.  For instance, in
testing for silver, one has to be concerned with the presence of lead,
mercury, copper bismuth to name a few. But, in transmutations, the presence
of any of these metal ions after an experimental run is great news if they
were not there before.  A simple test for silver ion is adding a solution of
sodium chloride, if silver is present, the solution will turn cloudy.  A
book, "Microtechnique of Inorganic Analysis" by Benedetti-Pichler, (John
Wiley, 1942) (I guess that dates me.) has a number of neat methods of
detecting small amounts of metals.  These are methods that can be done by
the amateur.  Another book "Qualitative Analysis by Spot Tests" by Feigl
(Elsevier Publishing, 1946) requires that the analyzer has at his disposal
an array of special reagents.  I'm sure there are later books on the subject.

Once the presence of a heavy is firmly established by you, I would then let
a professional lab confirm its presence as well as getting a quantitative
figure.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 05:27:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA21186; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32515E0A.2855@interlaced.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 14:08:11 -0400
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net
Organization: NASA (retired)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Lost Job !
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"uXYnV.0.o75.FbMKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank!  You warned that this might happen - but I'm still shocked!

You have a lot of friends on this list (me, for one!) who, I think, will
help if they can.  I'm sorry I'm retired for so long - and out of touch
with job prospects.

Circle the wagons - tend to those investments - don't waste capital on
long shots.  You'll be OK, I know you are a competent engineer.

Let us (me) know what comes next!

Your friend, Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 05:34:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA21699; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.515405130096275FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 01 Oct 1996 13:05:13 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/01/96 13:05:53 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"uUhBj3.0.uI5.uySKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1276
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/01/96 12:00
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Hey Frank, VERY, VERY, VERY sorry to hear that. As you told me though,
you are NOT a spend thrift, and have invested well. I think you could
live off your savings for quite a few years. Maybe it's time a good,
qualified, INSTRUMENT AND CONTROL engineer like yourself got into the
CF game. I'm sure you could be doing well in about 3 months. Don't forget
buddy, this is like a DEATH in the family. So there is some grieving to
do.
-
Call me whenever you need to. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 06:18:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA20073; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 22:58:59 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610020358.WAA10076@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Resent-Message-ID: <"4Ga0b.0.Vv4.rZUKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1284
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:59 AM 10/1/96 EDT, Chris wrote:

>The absolute value of the mass of an atom is also very small. 
>Measurements are made, and assigned error values.  Both of these are (in
>effect) relative.  In the case of McKubre, the percentage excess heat is
>very much greater than the error range.  The absolute value of the heat
>is - frankly - of little significance at all.

<snip some very good observations about pathological science>

Chris, I opened this post with considerable trepidation, half expecting to
receive another "blast"...but you've responded calmly with a perfectly
rational and correct point that needed to be made.

Thanks,

Scott

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 06:20:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13463; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961003001017.63f7deba@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961003055750.14896A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"dnb6J1.0.CI3.enxKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1339
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


> 
>    I have written to this group to contribute for a while.
> In a spot check, many of my detailed notes never came through.
> 
>   Is this list censored?  

Nope.  I occasionally yell at people in private if they descend to the
insults level, but that's it.  And the collecting of messages for the
archive is automatic. 

Have you checked the archives?  Are your messages are missing from there,
or do you just mean that others have not received them?  I get a LOT of
message bounce errors from various people on vortex-L, meaning that their
providers are rejecting email.  Unfortunately I can't warn people of this,
if I did, it would be a full-time job!  If this happens for more than ?5? 
days, eskimo.com stops re-sending that mail and discards it.  If this
happens for more than a week or so, the list automatically de-subscribes
the offending account.  Vortex-l subscribers which experience this often
can request to be put on a non-unsubscribe list (but then they can't
unsubscribe themselves with a command.)

In mid-august eskimo's telco hardware was dead for a week (started aug 12? 
approx.) and lots of mail was lost.  In mid-sept the email hardware
crashed and reset, and all mail in the queues was lost.  This stuff seems
to happen every couple of months.  Perhaps you've had bad luck in posting
messages at exactly the time that this system died?

A crude solution to this is to watch for your own message to come back
from vortex-L.  This didn't work months ago when vortex-l took days to
forward stuff, but recently it takes hours or sometimes miniutes.  If you
don't see your own message after a day, then go into your email program's
sent-mail list and re-transmit.

P.S. for subscribers on Unix shell accounts: I've finally set up my
account to automatically store incoming mail from vortex-L in its own
folder (the month's archive file, actually,) so I don't have to hand-sort
the vortex-L incoming mail. This can be done with a .forward and a
.procmailrc file placed in your top directory.  Email me if you want info
on how to do this yourself. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 06:32:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16484; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 03 Oct 96 09:24:26 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: censorship
Message-ID: <961003132426_72240.1256_EHB57-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"J0B2h.0.S14.TyxKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1340
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Mitchell Swartz asks:

     "I have written to this group to contribute for a while. In a spot
     check, many of my  notes never came through."

Yes, that happens. Welcome to the information age!


     "Is this list censored?

     Did someone choose which posts would be allowed to come through?"

Only if the Internet computer network has reached a critical mass and achieved
consciousness. It would, I'm sure, form a malevolent and mischievous
intelligent entity. Intelligent life created by computer hacker misfits would
make Dr. Frankenstein's baby look like Ann Landers. I cannot imagine the
Internet Monster puffing on a cigar and sighing in contentment: "fire - good,
smoke - good" unless it had deliberately set fire to an oil refinery. As far
as I know there is no intelligent life on Internet. Computers are still as
stupid as ants and nasty as scorpions.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 06:32:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16629; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 03 Oct 96 09:24:14 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Disappearing heat with bulk Ni
Message-ID: <961003132413_72240.1256_EHB57-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"h-2tw3.0.j34.pyxKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1341
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little writes:

     ". . . if you mean closed _cell_...then, yes."

Oops. Yes, that's what I meant.


     "The apparent excess heat doesn't disappear when the cell remains at the
     other guy's house...it's only when we put the cell in our calorimeter."

You mean it is the very same cell, lock, stock and recombiner? How strange.


     "I'm presently thinking that this situation is due to a subtle error in
     his style of calorimetry because he is only sensing the temperature of
     the electrolyte in the cell and, with a recombiner, about 1/3-1/2 of the
     input power is dissipated in the recombiner up in the head space above
     the electrolyte.  In my calorimeter, the entire cell goes in the chamber
     and all the heat it emits is measured.

Well . . . shouldn't that make him think there is no heat or negative heat? It
sounds like you should see more heat than he does. Or do you mean that he is
assuming no recombination, and he might be getting some? That sounds
plausible.

By the way, I mentioned oxygen poisoning the reaction. One mechanism that has
been discussed by Notoya and others is that the oxygen recombines with
hydrogen at or near the surface of the nickel (which makes a good recombiner),
and this chemical process blocks some other process like maybe H2 formation
which is necessary for CF. In other words, the oxygen is not necessarily
getting into the nickel and polluting it. It could be hanging around in the
neighborhood causing trouble.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 07:48:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04444; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae797e49b079@[204.17.242.74]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:37:42 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"41U9U3.0.H51.ewyKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1342
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just happened to notice an advertisement for a "NEW ENERGY CHIP" in the
Businesslink newsletter.  They are going public.  They adveritse they can
"take any fuel & create electricity with no moving  parts".  To obtain a
free prospectus call (800) 778-0764.  The website is at:


      <http://www.quantadyne.com>


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 08:14:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10209; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.901648070096277FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 03 Oct 1996 07:48:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: New Energy Chip Advertisement
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/03/96 07:48:15 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"Htp-I2.0.PV2.3EzKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1343
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/03/96 07:42
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: New Energy Chip Advertisement
I called, left my address. I said, "I am a writer, and write on interesting
energy claims---I am not an investor..." (True, in one way or another!)
-
We'll keep the group informed. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 11:52:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA21559; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0v8rlh-0001XCC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: censorship
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:41:05 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961003055750.14896A-100000@eskimo.com> from "William Beaty" at Oct 3, 96 06:15:08 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"eihSL3.0.kG5.Ll_Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1347
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> if I did, it would be a full-time job!  If this happens for more than ?5? 
> days, eskimo.com stops re-sending that mail and discards it.  If this
> happens for more than a week or so, the list automatically de-subscribes
> the offending account.

Actually, when the MCI routers went down for 13 hours a couple of weeks ago,
vortex-l automatically unsubscribed me.  (This isn't a complaint,
just an observation.)

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 11:53:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA15835; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00097511@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "revtec@postoffice.ptd.net" <revtec@postoffice.ptd.net>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: PAGD
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:14:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"OTyyF.0.Ft3.-L_Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1344
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Jeff
	I gather that's your name from one of the responses you got. My e-mail
doesn' t indicate you as more then revtec :>}
	I think you're off to a good start on your replication experiment. I
would like to  model the behavior of the device mathematically. If you
get a chance, see if you can create a an i-v curve similar to Correa's
Figure 1 in the patent, but with
real numbers. Are you planning to test some of these pits in your
cathode for the presence of transmutations? I would think the outside of
the Al plates would make a good control surface to make a before and
after comparison.

Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Monday, September 30, 1996 6:17AM

>
>
>I bought a Grainger refrigeration pump last week for $285 and have been
<snip>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 11:57:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA21393; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae79aa701038@[204.17.242.68]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 09:46:42 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"NlLYh.0.1E5.Mk_Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1346
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

>*** Reply to note of 10/03/96 07:42
>From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
>Subject: New Energy Chip Advertisement
>I called, left my address. I said, "I am a writer, and write on interesting
>energy claims---I am not an investor..." (True, in one way or another!)
>-
>We'll keep the group informed. MDH

Thanks.

It is interresting that on the webpage there is a claim that energy is
neither created nor destroyed, yet later it states:

"For example, a Honda=AE generator will produce only 2.1 kilowatts from a
gallon of gasoline, while a PETA Powertm
hybrid system will produce more than 23 kilowatts from that same gallon of
gasoline, or about 11 times as much
electricity as the Hondatm generator."

Must be some confusion or typos or something.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 11:58:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16601; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00097529@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Censorship
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:20:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"mDBFH1.0.H34.aP_Ko"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1345
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I find that about 10% of my sent messages seem to go astray somehow. I
am afraid this is just endemic with the current state of the internet. I
just check the Vortex-l mail for the next couple of days, and if it
doesn't appear I resend it. I just did that today.
Hank Scudder

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 12:03:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA24767; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:00:42 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610031800.NAA15088@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Disappearing heat with bulk Ni
Resent-Message-ID: <"zdAv01.0.q26.-40Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1348
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 09:24 10/3/96 EDT, Jed asked:

>Well . . . shouldn't that make him think there is no heat or negative heat? It
>sounds like you should see more heat than he does. Or do you mean that he is
>assuming no recombination, and he might be getting some? That sounds
>plausible.

His calorimetry works by measuring the delta-T (probe in the electrolyte)
that occurs when a given power is put into the cell.  Some of that power is
dissipated in the recombiner and most of that heat he misses because his
probe is in the electrolyte.  You're right that he's sorta not counting the
recombiner heat...but he's folded that loss into his calibration
coefficient.  His method has compounded corrections built into it and
therein may lie the problem.

Anyway, we are pursuing this anomaly and will write up a decent report on it
when we get it resolved.  He's building a closed calorimeter now.  This
should enable him to simultaneously measure the heat output by both methods. 

Scott Little              EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300      4030 Braker Lane West        Austin TX 78759  USA
512-342-2185 (voice)    512-346-3017 (FAX)   little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 12:13:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA06702 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: bsu!chem!postmaster%chem.bsu.minsk.by@gw.bsu.minsk.by  Thu Oct  3 12:12:46 1996
Received: from gw.bsu.minsk.by ([195.50.1.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06570 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsu.UUCP by gw.bsu.minsk.by with UUCP
	(sendmail 8.6.6/8.6.8) id m0v8u69-000306C; Thu, 3 Oct 96 20:10 
Received: by bsu.minsk.by; Thu,  3 Oct 96 20:15:00 +0200 (EDT)
Received:  by chem.bsu.minsk.by (UUPC/@ v4.07 from Ache, 22Mar92);
           Thu, 03 Oct 1996 21:15:38 MSD
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-Id: <AC8B0LouF6@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
Organization: Chemistry Department
From: postmaster@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Postmaster)
Old-Date: Thu,  3 Oct 96 21:15:36 +0300 (MSD)
Subject: Re:10 beats 20 !
X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25]
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Ben Filimonov <filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: Vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: 10 beats 20!

Mark Hugo wrote:

        A comment on the "autoradiographs". The claim was made some time ago
        that these were due to exposure to hydrogen "reducing" the silver in
        the films, and that this hydrogen can penetrate the plastic covering
        that exist(ed) on some of the films. Dr. Oriani was concerned about this
        too, so he took a small pressure vessel, some dental Xray film, and
        a tank of H2. I think he went to 2 atm if I recall....Nul result,
        no effect even after several days exposure. Thus I'd say this arguement
        against the "auto-radiographs" is specious at best... MDH

Mark, there are hydrogen and `hydrogen'. Gaseous H2 can't reduce Ag but
`hydrogen' reloaded from H-absorbing metal is `active' one containing both
atomic hydrogen H and excited H2* molecules. This matter does can reduce
silver and can diffuse up to tens centimeters in air before relaxation/
molarization (H, H2* -> H2). The same for `hydrogen' from electrolysis using
cathodes non absorbing hydrogen. What about penetration through plastic
films/coverings, I don't know certainly, but it may be the same as in the air
with accounting a factor of 10^-3, i.e. some shares of millimeter.

Ben>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 12:52:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10803; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610031912.MAA14196@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 12:12:30 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"J29nk1.0.ce2.PE1Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1350
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:37 AM 10/3/96 -0800, you wrote:
>I just happened to notice an advertisement for a "NEW ENERGY CHIP" in the
>Businesslink newsletter.  They are going public.  They adveritse they can
>"take any fuel & create electricity with no moving  parts".  To obtain a
>free prospectus call (800) 778-0764.  The website is at:
>
>
>      <http://www.quantadyne.com>
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>

verrrrrrrry very interestingly tantalizing

this smells real.

i've asked for their prospectus.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 12:52:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA17849 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: bsu!chem!postmaster%chem.bsu.minsk.by@gw.bsu.minsk.by  Thu Oct  3 12:52:21 1996
Received: from gw.bsu.minsk.by ([195.50.1.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA17618 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 12:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsu.UUCP by gw.bsu.minsk.by with UUCP
	(sendmail 8.6.6/8.6.8) id m0v8u6A-000307C; Thu, 3 Oct 96 20:10 
Received: by bsu.minsk.by; Thu,  3 Oct 96 20:15:06 +0200 (EDT)
Received:  by chem.bsu.minsk.by (UUPC/@ v4.07 from Ache, 22Mar92);
           Thu, 03 Oct 1996 21:16:36 MSD
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-Id: <AD2C0LouF6@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
Organization: Chemistry Department
From: postmaster@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Postmaster)
Old-Date: Thu,  3 Oct 96 21:16:34 +0300 (MSD)
Subject: Re:David Doty please help!
X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25]
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: O
X-Status: 

Greetings to all,

Frank Znidarsic wrote:

        As you may be aware I am working with the
        distinguished Russian scientist Yuri Potapov. We are attempting
        to prove to the world that his Yusmar cavitation system does
        produce energy by a process of cold fusion.

This recalls me one Russian anecdote, and I share it with you. Its main
person is Russan famous schoolboy Vovochka [-> Vova -> Volodya -> Vladimir].

Once at a lesson a teacher [young woman Maria Ivanovna] asks pupils:
- Kids, what will be your professions, when you'll be adults?
- A fireman.. a cosmonaut [astronaut].. an actress.. and so on.
- And you, Vovochka..?
- I'll be a sexopatologist.
- Wow! Do you understand anything in that matter?
- Of cource. For instance, M.I., look through the window. Whom do you see?
- There are three young women at the street eating an eskimo [!] icecream.
- More detailed, please.
- Well, one of them licks it, other sucks, and third bites.
- M.I., for your mind, which one of them is married?
- Mmm, I think, the third one.
- No, M.I.! That one who has a wedding ring on her left [right in original
version] hand. But.. I like the way you think.

Being a cold-fusioneer, I don't consider Yusmar as CF device. But, Frank..
I like the way you think.

Of cource, *apriori* approaches are useful for such a matter as New Energy
devices, so namely they determine what to be looked for. But, before quessing
CF, or ZPE (sorry, Hal), or UQT (sorry, Lev [Sapogin]), let's try something
simpler.

The null hypothesis: is o/u in Yusmar a real sign of excess energy generation
or rather of latent stored one? A reason for  thinking so is the fact that
maximal Yusmar COPs were observed at the beginning of experiment and then they
tend asymptotically to unit value.

Another one: isn't Yusmar some sort of heat pump tapping heat from
environment? This model also needs occurence of heat-to-latent-form-energy
conversion and vice versa, similar to 0-case.

These models have certain sequels which can be easily checked and certain
though limited resource of improving - I mean up to the thermodynamic `COP'
value of heat pump which is well o/u. They surely don't discredit Yusmar but
provide certain reference points - what to be looked for. Some more complex
cases also propose clear criteria for experimenter. For instance: Lev Sapogin's
UQT requires a liquid containing more free protons than water. So, let's try
with sulfuric acid [a joke again, and bad one]? This case is good one, so
it isn't necessary to check it - it had been already done. It's known that
water based organic substances solutions (antifreeze) and even non-water
organic liquids containing immensely less free protons than water also work.

Ben>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 13:53:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA26809; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <325421EF.2781E494@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 13:28:31 -0700
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
References: <v03007800ae7743d94bdf@[128.183.89.65]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"U9EXM.0.iY6.E82Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1352
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Larry Wharton wrote:
> 
> To: Vortex
> 
>  I have submitted my latest paper entitled:
> 
> "Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"
> 
> for publication in Physics of Fluids.  I don't anticipate any serious
> problems in getting it past the reviewers as the analysis is quite
> straightforward and consistant with Grad's thirteen moment technique in
> fluid dynamics (a standard and accepted technique).  Since I wanted to get
> this paper published I did not mention that the additional term for the H
> density flux that I derived implies that heat may be conducted under some
> conditions in violation of the accepted constraints from the second law of
> thermodynamics.

Uh, Larry, don't you think you should include such a thing
for the sake of scientific advancement? Seems like a major point.

-- 
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu   
web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 13:54:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA24115; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b09ae79dc80183b@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:16:42 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"ch74u1.0.iu5.iz1Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1351
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

H. Heffner forwarded:
>It is interresting that on the webpage there is a claim that energy is
>neither created nor destroyed, yet later it states:
>
>"For example, a Honda=AE generator will produce only 2.1 kilowatts from a
>gallon of gasoline, while a PETA Powertm
>hybrid system will produce more than 23 kilowatts from that same gallon of
>gasoline, or about 11 times as much
>electricity as the Hondatm generator."...

   "Gallon of gasoline" is meant to be an ENERGY unit, whereas kW is a
POWER unit.  If they can't distinguish energy and power, or if their
attitude toward information on their web page is so cavalier, then one
ought to be very suspicious.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 14:16:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29202; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.075956110096277FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 03 Oct 1996 11:56:11 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Sounds like maybe the "wall" is cracking.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/03/96 11:56:58 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"KG2pM.0.687.aH2Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1353
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Sounds like maybe the "wall" is cracking.
-
I'm getting a copy of Miley's paper mailed to me. I wouldn't advise
other's asking for one, however, as the couple of publication venues
are coming up in the next week---and it sounds like Miley would like
to default to this route after that time...and well he should.
-
He has had over 200 "requests" for the paper. Sounds like they aren't
just hobbiests, or CF affectionadios...but rather WIDE RANGING.
-
Maybe we have three most major events of the 20th century: 1. The Apollo
landing in '69, 2. Pearl Harbour, 3. Miley's paper on Trans.
(A little tounge in cheek there.)
-
My advise: HOLD YOUR HORSES until this time next week. By that time
you'll probably find Miley's work on John's web page, in a pull out
section of Time magazine, on the weekly missilette at your local
catholic church, posted on the back of busses in Chicago, and
being made into a major motion picture---starring Tom Hanks as
the mission commander.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 14:42:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03584; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610032039.NAA01373@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: gravity137@delphi.com
In-Reply-To: <v03007800ae7743d94bdf@[128.183.89.65]> from "Larry Wharton" at Oct 1, 96 06:14:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"535Wb2.0.tt.nV2Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1354
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


Lawrence Wharton writes:

> I have submitted my latest paper entitled:

> "Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"

> Since I wanted to get this paper published 
> I did not mention that the additional term for the H
> density flux that I derived implies that heat may be conducted under 
> some conditions in violation of the accepted constraints from the
> second law of thermodynamics.
 
Hi Larry. Sounds exciting. Hope we can all read it soon. 

Pardon my compulsion to drag gravitation into this.
Have you read the third patent of Henry Wallace? (referenced below)
Wallace found an experimental connection between: heat flow, 
constriction of degrees of freedom (forced alignment) of the 
spin of unpaired nucleons (quantum angular momentum), and the 
gravitomagnetic field. 

Wallace was an engineer at GE. He did this work, including
actual devices and measurable experiments, in the early 1970s.
Wallace's experiments and patents are well written and unusually  
credible. One of his embodiments is an "anti-gravity chamber".
Wallace's work has been largely ignored -- but maybe not by all.  
Interestingly, some modern theories of the gravitomagnetic 
field now also incorporate the idea of alignment of the spin 
of un-paired nucleons -- i.e. Dr Ning Lee at UAH/NASA.  

Regards,
Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net)
======================================================================

  US Patent #3626605 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating
  a Secondary Gravitational Force Field"
  Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA   Dec 14, 1971

  US Patent #3626606 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a
  Dynamic Force Field"
  Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA   Dec 14, 1971

  US Patent #3823570 -- "Heat Pump" (based on technology
  similar to the above two inventions)
  Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Freeport NY  July 16, 1973

Other than the above patents, there is almost nothing else 
available in literature about Wallace's work -- except 
for one brief article which appeared about 15 years ago 
in the British magazine "New Scientist" (February 1980).  
This was written nearly ten years after Wallace was awarded 
his patents. Here's a interesting paragraph from the article.

    "Although the Wallace patents were initially ignored as
     cranky, observers believe that his invention is now
     under serious but secret investigation by the military
     authorities in the US. The military may now regret
     that the patents have already been granted and so are
     available for anyone to read."

Yes, and if Wallace's work was the only case relating to gravitational 
science, which has dropped out of sight, maybe I could believe that 
these things have somehow all just slipped through the cracks.
==================================================================

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 15:16:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA12081; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 17:28:48 -0400
Message-ID: <961003172847_324218594@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
Resent-Message-ID: <"8hA7j3.0.ey2.z13Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1355
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hey all I finally figured out how to put the sound of the Yusmar on my home
page so that it will be played by all browsers.  The trick was to put in an
ftp link.

ftp://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/figyus.wav

or see my home page at

http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic.index.html

If you download the file and play it back at slow speed you with hear the
pinging of cavitation really good.

Things are looking better today.  I get a one years pay severance package.  I
can:

1.  Go to school and pick up some training in natural science.  This will be
added to my business and engineering degree.

2.  Look for a job external to the company.

3.  Apply for a temp position (4 years) at another location 30 minutes away
from where I live.

4.  Apply for a full time postion 200 miles away from where I live.

Prows and cons.  Educuation is always nice but I have six years of college.
 Is more really going to mean better?  I can learn with I need for my hobies
by reading.

A temp postion is easy...but is that in the direction I want to go it?

External jobs...what is the market for a 43 year ald engineer?

The 200 mile away position.  Of the last group of severed people many of them
got layed off at their new locations one year later after they incured the
expense of moving. 

I have a lot to think about.  Yusmar testing has therefore been delayed until
next week.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 17:04:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05090; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00097E6A@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>, Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:06:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ntoBz3.0.KF1.cV4Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1356
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Robert
Where within GE did Henry Wallace do his work? What Department?
Does GE hold the patents, or did he do this on his own?
To partially answer my own question I would guess it was the
Missle and Space Division, which is in Valley Forge, PA, near
Ardmore. I don't know what part of GE is on Long Island-Freeport
Maybe he retired there?

Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: Robert Stirniman
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: gravity137@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Date: Thursday, October 03, 1996 1:39PM

<snip>
Pardon my compulsion to drag gravitation into this.
Have you read the third patent of Henry Wallace? (referenced below)
Wallace found an experimental connection between: heat flow,
constriction of degrees of freedom (forced alignment) of the
spin of unpaired nucleons (quantum angular momentum), and the
gravitomagnetic field.

Wallace was an engineer at GE. He did this work, including
actual devices and measurable experiments, in the early 1970s.
Wallace's experiments and patents are well written and unusually
credible. One of his embodiments is an "anti-gravity chamber".
Wallace's work has been largely ignored -- but maybe not by all.
Interestingly, some modern theories of the gravitomagnetic
field now also incorporate the idea of alignment of the spin
of un-paired nucleons -- i.e. Dr Ning Lee at UAH/NASA.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net)
<snip>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 19:13:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA08937; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 03 Oct 96 06:10:25 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: is there a concise list?
Message-ID: <961003101025_100433.1541_BHG155-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"wX9qx3.0.YB2.LY6Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1357
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Martin,

 > > > 2. If the universe were not very precisely the way it is, then
 > we would > not exist.  Therefore it has been designed to suit us.
 > >
 > 
 > If this was aimed at a post I made here a while ago then let me
 > say it is obvious to me that the first sentence does not imply the
 > second.

No, it was not aimed at any post here.  Some while ago, I saw an
Eminent Personage expounding the "Anthropic Principle" on TV, and it
was all rather silly (to me).  I do not recall your posting.

 >  Those laws contain a number of arbitary constants whose values
 > have to be precisely tuned to allow carbon-based life to evolve. I
 > find this observation to be extremely interesting and accordance
 > with my own religous beliefs.

My own religious beliefs assume the correctness of the C14th proofs that
it is not possible using formal logic to prove from study of the
universe the existence of anything outside it.  Or to disprove it
either.  I am told that Godel's theorem does much the same for some
branch of mathematics.

Fred Hoyle gives a nice example of this error, he commented that if a
golf-ball landed on a specific tuft of grass then we can work out the
very high odds against that happening, and make conclusions from that
improbability.  This is backwards reasoning.  Were the universe not as
it is, we would not be here to argue that it was designed to suit us.

My own view is that the anthropic principle reflects a possibility, but
is by its nature a logical fallacy.  Belief in God can be based upon
either simple faith (which I'm not attacking, but have no personal
experience of) or upon direct experience.  That experience is (in my
own case) subjective, but none the less real for being that.  Nobody
can prove or disprove it, which does not bother me in the least since
I know it to be real.  However, since (presumably) God can act in any
way He pleases, others may see things differently and it is not for me
to second guess those ways.  There is a role for emotional thinking, it
may even be the correct way to think, it just isn't a way which appeals
to me.  Perhaps I'm such an awkward sod, and so incapable of faith, that
I needed to have my arse kicked.

Each to his own way, perhaps all roads (and none) lead to the same
place in the end.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 19:29:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA12396; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:41:22 -0500
Message-Id: <9610040141.AA22583@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"e21b3.0.X13.ik6Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1358
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

Hi Horace,

At 06:37 AM 10/3/96 -0800, you wrote:
>I just happened to notice an advertisement for a "NEW ENERGY CHIP" in the
>Businesslink newsletter.  They are going public.  They adveritse they can
>"take any fuel & create electricity with no moving  parts".  To obtain a
>free prospectus call (800) 778-0764.  The website is at:
>
>      <http://www.quantadyne.com>

I dropped by that site, and noticed the extreme emphasis on the idea that
they were merely extending prior inventions.  I suspect they don't want
anyone to get the idea that these devices could possibly violate any laws of
physics.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 20:50:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10185; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.352528200096277FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 03 Oct 1996 20:28:20 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/03/96 20:28:24 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"VR3dG2.0.2V2.cI8Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1359
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/03/96 15:06
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
Frank: You aren't hurting money wise. Why not Yusmar test, and perhaps
CF test for a year? Hey, two good buddies of mine are "former" Univac (excuse
me, Uni-sys) employees, with about the same amount of time in as you have.
One of them just was a good saver, used his severance bennies (like some
"re-education" stuff, converted himself to a contemporary "Visual Basic"
programer, works a good paying job for a local small manufaturer---and
spent a year and 1/2 (during the "re-education" phase, PLAYING...! Since
he likes to in-line skate, and to down hill ski, he did more of that than
he'll ever do again in his life....is in PHENOMINAL physical shape, and
whined about having to go back to work eventually...! The other fellow,
LIKE YOU, knew something was up (for about 10 years) bought rental
property, and lives off the income from that now. (He's no land barron,
just 2 duplexes and 4 quadraplexes in good areas of Mpls.) The rental propertie
s didn't come without a little "sweat equity", but that work pays off in
spades. You probably have to learn to treat your relationship with GPU
LIKE A DIVORCE! There is NO GOING BACK. Do yourself a favor, FIND A NEW LIFE...
(PS, consider a trip out to MN to play with my CF equipment, see the leaves
turn, get away...If you make it after Oct. 27th, we'll introduce to the
ROLLERDOME---! MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 21:14:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA16926; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 23:51:42 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961003234939.49a731e8@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Cold Fusion Times - volume 4 number 4 is out, web site updated
Resent-Message-ID: <"rxrA73.0.N84.jg8Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1360
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 


     The COLD FUSION TIMES web site 
       http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
       is now updated with the present issue
         Fall 1996  (volume 4, number 4).

    -----------------------------------------------

      The COLD FUSION TIMES continues to present
      hard-core science and engineering issues,
      with analysis of developments in the field
      which now may have to deal with nucleosynthetic
      pathways as well as excess heat.

     Some of the contents in this issue
      include the following:
 - Reports of de novo Nucleosynthesis
 - Anomalous Isotopic Distributions
 - Cavitation Induced Fusion
 - Reports from Japan, California, Texas  ..
 - Summary Reports of ILNER2
 - Critical Discussion of meeting and reports
 - Latest most critical patents in this field 
        from around the world
 - Reviews of Books, Papers and reports on cold fusion 
           and select other "forbidden sciences"
 - Updates on Equipment, Supplies Available
 - Practical Information and Reference Vectors
 - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering"
 - "People in the News" columns and more
 
  Also at the web site is the "TIMELINE"-choice
  with the covers over four years -past and present issues -
  and web-links world wide for other info.  
 
    ======================================

   "The truth is still out there"





From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct  3 23:08:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA17492; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961002035809.006dae04@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 20:58:09 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"LSI5J3.0.5H4.IQUKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1283
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

At 06:14 PM 10/1/96 -0400, you wrote:


>density flux that I derived implies that heat may be conducted under some
>conditions in violation of the accepted constraints from the second law of
>thermodynamics.
>  I have noted with some interest the concepts of Viktor Schauberger in
>which he proposes that energy may be produced through the negative entropy
>generating effect of a water vortex.  According to my analysis such a
>vortex may possibly produce negative entropy.
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton
>NASA/GSFC code 913
>Greenbelt MD 20771
>(301) 286-3486 
>
>
>
I don't think we're going to be able to avoid "orgone" 
if this jigsaw puzzle is ever to be finished.  As a 
cohesive force, tending toward its areas of higher 
strength, it could possibly explain your observations.

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 00:33:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11658; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961004072816.006edae8@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 00:28:16 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"_PuNS1.0.0s2.xhBLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1361
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:58 PM 10/1/96 -0700, I wrote:

>I don't think we're going to be able to avoid "orgone" 
>if this jigsaw puzzle is ever to be finished.  As a 
>cohesive force, tending toward its areas of higher 
>strength, it could possibly explain your observations.
>
>Gary Hawkins
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA
>
That message of mine took over three days to get and back to me.  
On the other hand, it survived a reboot of the Eskimo server yesterday.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 00:54:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA19162; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 03:38:39 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Message-ID: <961004073839_100060.173_JHB130-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"nAvlR3.0.Eh4.W_BLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1362
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> This isn't a calorimetry paper.  It's on transmutations in the cathode. <<

Your undisputed communication skills deserted you Chris - you should have said -
we don't all spend every waking hour immersed in this subject you know!<G>

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 01:36:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA21724; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue,  1 Oct 96 21:15:34    
From: dacha@shentel.net
Subject: The Project
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-ID: <Chameleon.844221397.dacha@dacha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"kHMWg3.0.JJ5._ySKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1277
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Folks,

I am now a fool as I have always been a fool, so to 
suggest a foolish idea is in no way harmful to my 
reputation. 

As many of you may know, I have been doing little things 
in the now former soviet union (FSU) for over a dozen 
years. Having provided many in the west with answers to 
problems and questions that were paramount.  Sometimes I 
failed, but most often I succeeded. The situation in the 
former soviet union is better now for a few and much worse 
for many than it was when the union was intact. Entropy 
that was rampant in the past has accelerated to near light 
speed at present time. Winter is coming on in the FSU and 
much of the military has not been paid in months. I feel 
the soldiers with conventional weapons and nukes will get 
taken care of sooner or later...hopefully before the 
communists are "voted" back in to power. 
It is sad to think that there are a number of military 
scientists that will not be taken care of. To waste such 
talent is not the worst of the problems of the FSU, but to 
reverse this trend could be of benefit to the world as a 
whole. I suggest that a group be formed in who's care will 
be placed one of the larger scientific  centers in Russia. 
Though many of the cream of the crop scientists from the 
FSU are now in Iraq, North Korea and the US, there are 
many who wish to remain in Russia. It would be possible to 
take the best volunteers to work at this center. Western 
volunteers would  also be welcome. Key problems that face 
humanity would be attacked in such a way as never before. 
It is a fool idea, but one that has support in both the 
FSU and the west.  The task of funding would of coarse be 
the most difficult, but still not an impossible task. In 
order to aide in  the support of the cause, a global 
television channel would be created originating from the 
center to report on activities within. There will be no 
secret agenda's. Science for humanity will be the mission 
statement. All finding would become public domain. 

Anyone interested in working with me?

Robert


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 02:17:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28530; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:17:07 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961001121526.819f304e@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"BvCU6.0.dz6.XMKKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1267
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:58 AM 10/1/96 -0500, Scott Little wrote:
>At 03:03 AM 10/1/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>  Scott, could you please elaborate. 
>  
>>Why are the likely artifactual reasons
>>based upon your calorimetry.
>
>First, let me say that McKubre's calorimetry is the best I've even seen.  He
>and his co-workers have gone to extremem efforts to remove potential sources
>of error from their system.


  neither of these are reasons to claim he confuses artifacts for
science, are they?

 =================================================

>
>His positive results look impressive when displayed as "net excess
>heat" values (i.e. with the input power subracted) but they are typically
>less than 1.1 times the input power (see p. 65 of "Isothermal flow
>calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems", M.C.H. McKubre,
>et al).  

    would not sensitivity therefore depend upon the noise level
in HIS experiments?


 =================================================

>
>I've seen a lot of slightly anomalous readings in the 0.90 to 1.10 region in
>my calorimeters that I eventually attribute to subtle errors, rather than
>real effects.  Hence I tend to be dubious of calorimetric results that are
>in the 1.00-1.10 region.
>


   Are you not confusing noise in YOUR system, for your presumed
guess (?) of noise in his?  Why is your system's noise applied
to his system anyway?  


 =================================================


>Maybe I shouldn't judge McKubre's results so harshly.  He does not get
>anomalous negative (i.e. <1.00) results. 

  That is not quite correct, but I know what you mean, and that
distribution of data points, in the high-current drive region
of his loaded cells, was exactly one of reasons 
why you were asked this question.

  This point about the distribution of data points in
McKubre's data which you note, also incidentally
does not prove confusion of artifact with science, does it?


 =================================================

> I can't point to any one thing
>that is a possible problem with his measurements...I just have a sinking
>feeling that, if he built a new calorimeter 10 times better than his present
>one, the apparent excess heat he sees would shrink accordingly.
>
>OK, Jed...roast me alive on this one....<g>
>Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
>Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
>512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

  It sounds like - based upon your post -
that you base your criticisms on your "feeling" rather than McKubre's data.

  Scott, is your only evidence that your own calorimeter had a low signal
to noise ratio?  why throw out his data, its statistical distribution,
and apply your own feeling?

 Given that you recognize issues of noise, statistics, and are aware of his
data,
do you have any serious reason or basis for putting his work down like this?


      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 02:20:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA29965; Thu, 3 Oct 1996 11:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 11:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 03 Oct 96 06:08:18 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM>
To: vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Miley/Patterson quotes
Message-ID: <961003100818_100433.1541_BHG133-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zq2t_.0.4K7.0U0Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1349
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To:Vortex

Gnorts, everyone.  Here is my (highly personal and selective)
set of quotes from the Miley-Patterson paper.  Please note that I
have not attempted to show where my cuts occur, so do not
assume that one paragraph follows on from another in the original.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of a run with 650-[Angstrom] film of Ni is
presented here.  Following a two-week electrolytic run, the Ni
film was found to contain Fe, Ag, Cu, Mg, and Cr, in
concentrations exceeding 2 atom % each, plus a number of
additional trace elements.  These elements were at the most, only
present in the initial film and the electrolyte plus other
accessible cell components in much smaller amounts.  That fact,
combined with other data, such as deviations from natural isotope
abundances, seemingly eliminates the alternate explanation of
impurities concentrating in the film.

    Reaction products were analyzed using a combination of
secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), Auger electron
spectrometry (AES), energy dispersive x-ray (EDX) analysis, and
neutron activation analysis (NAA).

    Results showing a broad array of products such as found here
have also been obtained with thin film coatings of other
materials, e.g., Pd and multi-layers of Pd and Ni.  The yields of
the major elements contributing depend on the film material,
however.  Some of that work is still being analyzed and will be
presented at ICCF-6

    The array of products found in these experiments is consistent
with recent studies of solid Pd and Au electrodes by Mizuno et
al., 1996 and Ohmori and Enyo, 1996, respectively.  A distinct
advantage of thin electrode construction used here, however, is
that the reaction zone becomes well defined, enabling quantitative
measurements of the amounts of various products.

    Nuclear reaction products were obtained in all cases, with
several runs resulting in over 40 atomic % of the original coating
materials being transmuted to reaction products such as Fe, Si,
Mg, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Ag.  The present paper deals with the specific
case of a single nickel thin film, since it has been analyzed most
thoroughly to date and appears to be representative of the
behavior observed in the other runs.

    The use of thin-film coatings originates from the "swimming
electron layer" (SEL) theory proposed earlier (Hora, Miley, et
al., 1993; Miley et al, 1993; Miley et al., 1994), which suggests
that nuclear reactions are assisted by the use of multilayer thin
films with alternating metals that have large differences in Fermi
energy levels.  The resulting increase in electron density at the
film interface is shown to "squeeze" excess electrons between
ions, greatly reducing the Coulombic barrier, thus enhancing
nuclear reactions.

    Reaction product measurements have utilized a combination of
secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), Energy Dispersive x-ray
(EDX) analysis, Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), and neutron
activation analysis (NAA).  SIMS is used to obtain a broad view of
both high and low concentration isotopes present and their
isotopic ratios, while NAA provides a quantitative measure of the
masses of key elements.  EDX provides confirmatory data for
elements having high concentrations, while AES is used for
depth-profiling of high concentration elements.  NAA can obtain
total quantities of elements in a sample typically containing 10
microspheres, while the other techniques are restricted to probing
a local area on single microspheres.

    Positive [thermal energy] outputs were observed in all cases,
but due to the calorimeter technique, the values are only
considered to be accurate to +0.4 W.  More precise calorimetry is
in use in several laboratories studying excess power from the
Patterson cell, but here the cell design was focused on ease of
reaction product measurement.

    A temperature rise across the cell of less than 0.5 [deg]C was
obtained throughout the run, representing an output of 0.5 +/- 0.4
watts.  Calibration corrections due to heat losses and
flow-pattern variations prevented a more accurate measurement, but
the output always indicated a positive excess heat.

    The cell employed for the run used all plastic fittings with
the exception of the pressure and flow meters and the pump.  (To
further decrease possible impurity sources, a loop with all
plastic components except for the electrodes was developed for
subsequent runs.  As noted later, this modification did not cause
a noticeable change in film products.) Titanium electrodes were
used.

    NAA was carried out at the University of Illinois (UI) TRIGA
research reactor (Landsberger, 1996).

    Thus the key issue is whether there is another source of these
isotopes in the cell or loop.  Potential sources of impurities
include the Li2SO4 itself, the cell glass, the insulating anode
salt beads, the Ti (or Pt in some cases) electrodes, and other
loop components.  Those components which were easily accessible
plus the electrolyte and filter paper were analyzed by NAA since
higher precision is required than is possible using manufacturer's
specifications for impurities.

    Masses for representative key elements (Ag, Al, Cu and V)
based on NAA analyses of the microspheres, the electrolyte, and
the filter paper are summarized in Table 4a.  The key potential
source of impurities in the microsphere film is the electrolyte.
However, as seen from the table, the ratio of total mass of the
four key elements in the electrolyte to that in the thin film was
< 10% for Ag, Cu, and V, but was comparable for Al.  Thus, at
least for the first three elements, impurities in the electrolyte
could not possibly account for present observations

    Impurities on the filter paper itself are also negligible.
The total impurity masses in the electrodes are larger, but most
of it is not "accessible." For example, while the Ti electrode was
100 fg Cu, if it is assumed as much as 1% of the Ti in the anode
was dissolved and deposited in the Ni film, the Cu would be only 1
fg, or 0.1% of the increased Cu found there.  Examination of anode
surfaces after the runs indicates no observable erosion.  Further,
if large erosion occurred, more Ti would be expected on the
microsphere surfaces than was found.  Thus, the 1% erosion assumed
here is, if anything, a gross overestimate.  For these reasons,
the Ti anode cannot account for the observed elements in the Ni
film, and the ppm of other elements in the electrode rule it out
as their source also.  Analyses of the plastic components and
other fittings leads to a similar conclusion for them.  In no case
is the upper limit for the amount of accessible material in any
system component (singularly or taken together) enough to account
for the key element concentrations found in the microsphere films,
Al being a notable exception.

    Balances for the many other elements found in the film have
not been carried out (other than for subtraction of initial
amounts found in the film by NAA or SIMS prior to a run).  Thus,
there remains a concern that some may be associated with trace
impurities.  Still, a number of the products found are not
nominally anticipated to be present in materials used in the
experiment.  Thus, the likelihood that the entire array could have
this origin seems unlikely.

    Several additional checks on possible component contamination
were run.  In one, special microspheres with a conducting surface
created by sulfonation were run in the cell with a voltage-current
applied to simulate a Ni run.  Subsequent NAA analysis of the
microspheres (see Table 4b) and the filter paper showed that no
build up of the important elements occurred on them.

    Additional strong evidence was obtained in more recent work
where runs are done in a special "clean" cell where all plastic
parts are used in the loop except for the electrodes.  The
electrolyte is further purified by pre-test runs.  Results from
operation with this new cell are still being analyzed, but
preliminary results confirm that the elements reported here are
still formed despite the further reduction of possible impurities.

    There is additional extremely strong evidence that the
reaction products are not from external source contamination.
First, many of the products observed show shifts from isotopic
ratios in natural elements (see Fig.  11, discussed later),
uncharacteristic of normal impurities.  Second, in the other runs
(not presented here) many different elements are found, varying
according to the material used for the thin film.  If the source
were elsewhere in the loop, the same elements would be expected,
irrespective of the specific film material.  Third, as discussed
later, the yields of key elements appear to be consistent with
independent results from different, but related experiments by
Mizuno et al.  (1996), and Ohmori and Enyo (1996).  Such a
coincidence seems unlikely if impurities were involved due to the
differences in experimental set-ups.

    In summary, the finding that the masses of the key isotopes
are large compared to possible sources of such isotopes from loop
components, the negative results from simulation runs without Ni
films, the observation of isotope shifts from natural abundance,
and the observation that the isotopes vary with film material,
combine to provide very strong evidence that the products reported
are due to nuclear reactions.

    It is interesting to compare these results to those reported
by Mizuno et al., 1996, who ran a high-current-density Pd
electrode in a cell at high pressure and temperature with a heavy
water Li2CO3 electrolyte.  They report a rich variety of reaction
products at 1-mm depth, concentrated in groups with atomic numbers
6 , 20-30, 46-54, and 72-82.  While a one-per-one comparison is
not possible since the present study used Ni rather than Pd, this
distinct grouping of products is consistent with the present
results where major products group between Z = 12-14, 20-30, and
46-56.

    Other key features observed in Figs.  8 and 9 that must be
accounted for by any theory include the "gaps" between high yield
products and the high Ag and Cd yields.  Ag (and Cd) production is
particularly challenging, since Ag occurs in large quantities but
is not favored energetically.  Ag's position, well to the lower
binding energy side of Ni, infers an endothermic reaction
(-Q-value), which in turn suggests energy transfer to the
reactants must occur to drive the reaction.

    CONCLUSIONS

    The results presented here defy conventional views in many
ways.  First, chemically-assisted nuclear reactions are not widely
accepted by the scientific community.  The present results not
only confront that disbelief, but add a new dimension to the issue
by reporting copious light and heavy element reaction products
that seem to imply multi-body reactions due to the formation of
heavier elements such as Cu and Ag from Ni.  Further, a reaction
which does not emit intense high-energy gammas is required by the
experimental results.  All of these features are difficult to
comprehend and at first glance seem to point to impurities.
However, as stressed, an extensive effort to find an impurity
source has not uncovered one.  Also, there is other strong
evidence (such as isotope shifts, the different products occurring
when the coating material is changed, and the similarity in yield
trends with results from other workers), which supports the
conclusion that the elements observed are reaction products.

    Fortunately, cell experiments of this type are relatively
straightforward and inexpensive.  Thus far, reaction products,
such as reported here, have been detected by the authors in all
dozen experiments of this type performed, using a variety of
metallic films.  In this sense, the phenomenon seems highly
reproducible.  The use of thin films as developed here offers a
way to simplify the analysis since a large fraction of the film
contains the new elements and their localization in the film
allows a qualitative determination.  Hopefully, open-minded
scientists will attempt to replicate the experiments to convince
themselves.  If verified, the thin-film approach to chemically
assisted nuclear reactions opens the way to a whole new field of
science.

[end]

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 02:28:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA21765; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 19:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.323323130096275FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 01 Oct 1996 13:23:13 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Got slammed...now fired...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/01/96 13:23:32 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vqn-J2.0.yJ5.8zSKo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1278
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/01/96 10:39
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Got slammed...now fired...
Oh yes, hate to show up like a bad penny. But I myself have considered
going on a national lecture circuit if I lose my job, which would put me in
a similar life situation to Frank. I think the title of my lecture would
be, "Young people, students, up and coming generation---why engineering
is a BAD, BAD, BAD career choice---and how to avoid it." It would
center on the concept that most engineering schools give their students
very POOR preparation for the real world. I think many people who have
gone through engineering school---if they have the guts and the fortitude
to stand BACK and observe and admit it--would agree with this. Most
engineers are not stupid, and they compensate for this lack of specific
preparation for "the real world" by joining XYZ company, and becoming
an expert in XYG products. Problem is, that with rare exceptions (such
as software/hardware engineering in "silicon valley" or (once upon
a time, some sorts of manufacturing on the East coast) if you worked for
XYZ company in say, Columbus, Ohio--and you came upon your 20th year,
and your 42nd to 48th year chronologically, suddenly things went bad
for XYZ, they went belly up, and you were (are) out on the street. Now
unlike the sheetmetal worker, who has work in any town or metro area,
or the painter, or the Doctor, or the dentist, or the auto mechanic, or
the medical electronics technician (see the alternatives?) you, poor sap,
walk out onto the market, with your 4, 5, 6 or 8 years of education,
you put out a resume proudly stating your "Twenty years of experience
designing and refining XYZ Widgets", and when you (mistakenly) try to
look for a job in your geographical area, you find potential employers
looking at you and saying, "Gee this is great, but we don't make XYZ
widget's here, we make ABC gadgets..." and then they look at you like
you've got big, running sores all over your body.
-
So next, you expand your resume sending, and eventually you get a couple
of nibbles from previous XYZ compeditors, problem is they are located in
"Hell's kitchen, NYC", or some small (<30,000) town in northern
Missisipi. Hummmmmm....So for the sake of your "family", you take
a job 1000 miles away from "home", and eventually your children hate you,
your wife (who is a nurse, and can be employed anywhere---so who's smarter,
you or her?) divorces you, and you join the 45-55 year old, rootless wonder
engineering group that is looking back and saying, "What happened to
my life." Now my recommendation to young people is: "Avoid engineering
and engineering schools like the PLAUGE.... ONLY go the route of getting
a "technical" degree, such as Physics or Chemistry or Biology, if it is
a stepping stone to being a Dentist, a Doctor, a Vet, a Pharmasist (sp)
or an RN. Also, investigate closely the "tech schools". Who's better off?
An engineer earning 24-30$ and hour, or a certified garage mechanic, who
spends 2 years in school and gets paid $16 to $24/Hour and NEVER is out
of work (for more than a week?) in the long run?
-
PS, my warnings also apply to people getting "higher level" degrees in
the sciences. (PHd's in Phys, chem, etc.) Although I think a lot of people
have caught on as to the unemployability of some "advanced" degrees in the
last 20 years, at least from what I hear about grad school numbers, and that
is GOOD!!!!)
-
Input anyone?

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 05:09:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA04503; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 08:07:18 EDT
From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Project
Message-ID: <961004120718_76570.2270_FHU15-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"PUqaa1.0.G61.5vFLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1363
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert,

An excellent, excellent idea

I would certainly be interested in working with you on this project, provided
that one of the major if not **THE** focus of activity of such a center be
specified to be exotic new energy processes, i.e. O/U devices, their
investigation and development (and, of course, antigravity, should that work pan
out). There is a former Russian engineer, now a recently graduated patent
attorney, living in Concord, NH, who could also help out with matters of
translation and customs. (Ironically, he was raised in Moldova!). Jed Rothwell
is fluent in Japanese, and so would afford a connection on that end. Chris
Tinsley would be our European connection -- he speaks British.

May I suggest also a Journal/Magazine would be required for this Center that
would keep the light of publicity on what was going on with said center and its
internaitonal activities. We at Cold Fusion Technology/Infinite Energy magazine
have lots of experience doing this. What we don't have is -- you guessed it --
money! We have a lab/publishing office that needs to be supported. That could be
the US-based site for interaction with the Russian group.

Your turn, Robert...


Best, Gene

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

	Phone:603-228-4516
	Fax:  603-224-5975
	76570.2270@compuserve.com

P.S To all -- Issue #9 of Infinite Energy is at printers, has the full Miley
paper in it -- hope to get the mailing out before departure for ICCF6 on Oct.11.
If you want a free copy, you have ot get to ICCF6 -- otherwise, you need to
subscribe.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 05:22:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA06095; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:16:25 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961004081417.3607c3d4@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
Resent-Message-ID: <"-eKSP.0.4V1.T1GLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1364
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

  I want to thank Bill, Jet, John, Gary, John, Henry, Robert, Scott
and the others who graciously answered.

  FYI, my posts have finally this AM issued - albeit 4 days after the posts
- and even 
more astonishing, after other posts which weer posted later
preceeded them, going right through and even beating their arrival.  
No FIFO there.

  So much for expectation that the internet is a linear
time-invariant system.    ;-)X

     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 05:39:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09700; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 05:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 08:33:54 EDT
From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
Message-ID: <961004123354_76570.2270_FHU39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"BH9VJ2.0.UN2.bJGLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1365
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank,

Sounds like you have an ideal situation -- I'd call this a marvelous stroke of
GOOD LUCK, your  situation! Severance? WE here in the non-9-to-5 real world of
cold fusion and new energy know a lot about severance with NO PAY!

There are two things I would recommend:

(1) Top priority! Get on a plane to ICCF6. You have the money and you need to be
there to get charged up. I don't have the money, but I *will* be there thanks to
my magic charge card. (By the way so should Scott Little. I cannot understand
how someone who claims to have tried so hard to replicate CF experiments has
NEVER been seen at a CF conference. What say you to that, Scott? Not a money
issue, I trust.)

(2) Almost as top: Write me a no holds barred story for Infinite Energy about
your experiences within GPU -- tell all. Tell how a dumb dinosaur of a company
missed the boat on new energy. Give direct quotes , dates, and times of all the
nonsense you had to go through to talk some sense into these people. Their
connection with Three Mile Island would not hurt the "sex appeal" of the story.
You might become a media star and have gorgeous(?) groupies following you, much
as Chris Tinsley is alleged to have!

(3) Help us out here at our Bow Technologies Center, lab. We'll soon be testing
and publicly demonstrating various O/U devices like the Hydrosonic Pump and and
some CF cells that are soon to be on the market   -- supposed to be far cheaper
than CETI's and will also have no strings attached, they say. The place is 1800
ft2. Has a sleeper couch and BR. Will add a kitchenette for you and you can stay
there, if you like.

Best,

Gene

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 07:03:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28804; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 09:57:39 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Some calorimetry in Miley paper
Message-ID: <961004135739_72240.1256_EHB136-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"jvlNO.0.y17.YXHLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1367
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Chris wrote: "This isn't a calorimetry paper.  It's on transmutations in the
cathode." That's true, but there is some calorimetry. As I reported here over
the 10 months, they use flow calorimetry, input is about 0.06 watts, and
output ranges from 0.5 watts to 4 watts. Miley writes:

     . . . with flow rates of ~11 ml/minute . . . Inlet-outlet thermocouples
     provide a measure of the temperature increase of the flowing electrolyte
     typical values ranged from 0.1 to 4 deg C, corresponding to about 0.1 to
     4 W output, depending on the films used.

"About" is right: at 11 ml/minute a 4 deg C temperature indicates 3 watts, not
4 . . .  <ahem>. As I said in my review, and as Miley said on many occasions,
in this experiment calorimetry has been sacrificed to preserve cleanliness to
improve the search for transmutations. The important things to remember are:

1. *Any* measurable temperature rise indicates excess heat. You could not even
detect the 60 milliwatt input with this instrument. Miley is using ordinary
thermocouples, not McKubre-style Platinum Resistance Temperature Devices (RTD)
good to microdegrees.

2. Excess heat was observed in all experiments. I know of no experiments in
which transmutations occurred without excess heat. (Except maybe K. Wolf . . .
I'm not sure if he did any calorimetry.) The heavy-element transmutations
support the hypothesis that the unexplained fluctuations in excess heat may
be caused by a combination of exothermic and endothermic nuclear reactions,
but they do not support the idea that you can get transmutations with no heat
at all. I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if we could cause only
endothermic reactions, we could use CF devices as miniature refrigerators,
but I suppose this is impossible because you must have massively concentrated
energy come from the exothermic reactions to drive the endothermic ones. You
could not have a perfect balance; some of the energy will ble lost in
destruction of the lattice and waste heat.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 07:08:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28771; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 09:57:28 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Disappearing heat with bulk Ni
Message-ID: <961004135728_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"djJmS.0.O17.UXHLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1366
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Scott Little writes:

     "His calorimetry works by measuring the delta-T (probe in the
     electrolyte) . . .

Nothing wrong with that method. It is nice to back it up with measurements of
the cell wall temperature.


     "You're right that he's sorta not counting the recombiner heat...but
     he's folded that loss into his calibration coefficient.  His method has
     compounded corrections built into it and therein may lie the problem."

Yikes! Sorta not counting?!? I presume "folding the loss" means the
calibration constant is established with electrolysis rather than joule
heating, with the built-in assumption there will be no recombination. Before
you try to replicate his experiment you should check his arithmetic. I cannot
judge from such a brief description, but this sounds like an error caused by
overly complicated methodology. However, other cases of "disappearing heat"
are seen with better calorimetry, and they remain a mystery, I think.

I presume the claim is that total heat does not exceed I*V. Right? Or is the
calorimetry so complicated you cannot even sort that out? (Yes, I have seen
that much confusion in other experiments.)

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 07:17:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00460; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:02:01 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199610041502.QAA26747@sunny.bahnhof.se>
X-Sender: grappo@bahnhof.se (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: gudmund rapp <grappo@bahnhof.se>
Subject: Vortex energy
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"RJ07J3.0.s6.6dHLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1368
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Larry Warton

I have read your post on vortex-l with great interest. I have done a lot of experiments with water vortex generators over the last years. The experiments have been mostly aimed at finding out if the vortex is suitable for separation purposes. Having read 

a lot about Schaubergers experiments, however, the energy production in a vortex has naturally also been of great interest to me. The closest I have come to this field is that some of my friends who are handy with a divining-rod have told me that there is

 a very strong field of some sort around the vortex stretching out to about 1 m and another even stronger field above the funnel of the vortex spreading out upwards. Schauberger also mentions in one of his texts that if you hold an evacuated glass bulb ov

er the vortex it will light up. I have not been able to perform that experiment. Perhaps someone on the list could try that.
In view of the above I would be very grateful to receive a copy of your paper.
Alternatively, would you please send me the adress to that journal.
Best regards
Gudmund Rapp  
PS I live outside stockholm in Sweden

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 08:18:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17361; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae7acddcb771@[204.17.242.78]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:13:53 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The Project
Resent-Message-ID: <"1P1ig2.0.AF4.xXILo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1369
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Dear Folks,
>
[snip]
>In
>order to aide in  the support of the cause, a global
>television channel would be created originating from the
>center to report on activities within. There will be no
>secret agenda's. Science for humanity will be the mission
>statement. All finding would become public domain.
>
>Anyone interested in working with me?
>
>Robert


This is a wonderful idea, one of the best I've ever seen.  I would like to
help but don't have the education, money, or political clout to do
anything, but I have lots of crazy ideas and no reputation to worry about.


I have some ideas primarily about the commmunications.  I think the ideas
would be good in the west also, but would take FCC approval, allocation of
bandwidth, etc. Maybe it would be easier to accomplish on a global basis.
The idea is to broadcast newsgroup updates on a small dish satellite band.
Postings could continue via ordinary phone system based networks.  This
permits massively parallel processing of the resource hogging part of the
many-to-one communication process. It puts control of the resource cost
back into the hands of the user for those users that must pay by the
character transmitted, because the bulk of the tranmission cost is then
free.  It also should increase communications reliability and speed
infrastructure establishment by permittting self contained news server
drones to be manufactured.

Now, here's another idea - translation service.  The idea is to transmit
and store the news in a meaning based pseudo-language.  This way automatic
language translators could translate from the pseudo language into the
target language of the individual newsreader.  Also, by providing free
access to the news server for translators, it may be possible to obtain
donated translation time from students and others interrested in donating
their talents to progress in science for peace.  However, translators need
not know how to translate into the target languages, only the meaning based
pseudo language, where each contexted based meaning of a word has it's own
pseudo-word (essentially a number which acts as a key to a meaning
database.).  In fact, the posters could act as their own pseudo-language
translators, that way they could avoid complex structures that are
difficult to translate.  This would bring collaboration into a world wide
context.  Much use there - espacially in fast ecological data acquisition.

Here's another idea -  a simple drawing protocol (SDP).  The idea is that
draw programs would tanslate simple drawings into text based information
for posting/transmitting simple line drawings with text annotation.

Another idea, one that could probably be done fairly quickly - student
exchange, at the HS, college, and post-grad levels.

Another idea - a world knowledge base. Would of course be best if
translated into pseudo-language.

Donation network/database - specifying needs, reason for needs, location,
means of shipping, etc.  This would avoid duplication of effort and provide
some visibility for unmet needs.

Massive database processor - I have various ideas for computer achitectures
for handling massivly parallel database transactions that eliminate locking
problems and various other database problems.

BTW, I have a business license under the name TerraServe.  I thought maybe
tradmarks like TerraServer and TerraBase might be good.  Probably no need
for that in a public domain environment though.  I would be happy to see
anyone implement these ideas in public domain for the purposes of world
peace through science exchange.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 08:23:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17934; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae7ada78adea@[204.17.242.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 07:16:30 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: The Project
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZpjTo3.0.8O4.FaILo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1370
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Dear Folks,
>
[snip]
>
>Anyone interested in working with me?
>
>Robert


BTW - I just noticed that this was posted on 10/1/96.  I received it this
morning 10/4/96.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 10:04:13 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07977; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 09:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae7ad45951fa@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <325421EF.2781E494@math.ucla.edu>
References: <v03007800ae7743d94bdf@[128.183.89.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:01:58 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"sup1l3.0.Yy1.LiJLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1371
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To reply to some of the questions on my paper
>>  I have submitted my latest paper entitled:
>>
>> "Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"
>>
>> for publication in Physics of Fluids.  I don't anticipate any serious

>Uh, Larry, don't you think you should include such a thing
>for the sake of scientific advancement? Seems like a major point.
>Barry Merriman

 I will be making the argument for revision of the second law of
thermodynamics in a later paper.  It is know that Boltzmann's H Theorem
gives results that disagree with the second law and the standard response
made in the field is that the H theorem is wrong.  So if I made that
argument now, a reviewer would just say that it is known that the H theorem
is invalid and it cannot be used for this application.  A necessary first
step is to establish the validity of the H theorem.
   In my paper I derive my conservation of H density equation directly from
Boltzmann's equation and then I show that it may be obtained from adding
together the accepted second order equations (from Grad's thirteen moment
technique) of fluid dynamics.  So my equation cannot be doubted without
doubting the accepted higher order equations of fluid dynamics.  A lot of
work remains to be done before this thing can be fully justified.
  One important step is to work out a valid second order set of fluid
dynamics with the inclusion of turbulence.  There was a well respected
theoretician in Meteorology by the name of B. J. Mason ( not sure of the
name) who argued for such a thing in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society many years ago.  I don't know any of the references.
I was told this by an investigator who remembered the controversy.  And of
course, his ideas were not accepted.  Even though he was highly regarded in
the field he came up with a new concept and it met with the standard
response.
  I cannot release the paper before publication.  If anyone is interested
they might try to find the Mason references and read them and please let me
know about them as I have not found them yet.  It is only the second order
terms that can violate the second law and only for the case of turbulent
transport would these terms be significant.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 11:57:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA00690; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961004185410.00727df8@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 11:54:10 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Resent-Message-ID: <"6TGT22.0.iA.skLLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1377
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>"Hell's kitchen, NYC", or some small (<30,000) town in northern
>Missisipi. Hummmmmm....So for the sake of your "family", you take
>a job 1000 miles away from "home", and eventually your children hate you,
>your wife (who is a nurse, and can be employed anywhere---so who's smarter,
>you or her?) divorces you, and you join the 45-55 year old, rootless wonder
>engineering group that is looking back and saying, "What happened to
>my life." Now my recommendation to young people is: "Avoid engineering

That certainly was an interesting and clearly put perspective.  
I would focus on why the women of this country put so little effort 
into being noble, and/or expect everything to just be handed to them.  
It is not normalcy in the rest of the world to be considered just a 
cash cow by the woman, sent to the slaughter the instant something 
challenging crops up.  Adamantly her deal is you produce for me, 
and I don't lift a finger for *us*, or else.  "Vows?  What vows?  Kids?  
Just a tool."  The ultimate in utter unchecked vanity and self-indulgence, 
a selfish machine, the American woman.  Never been stung by one of 
these critters myself, but virtually every male I know still has 
a scar to show for trusting one of them.  Little do these women 
realize that their lack of character is an insidious erosion of 
their larger home--the country, that they just could find themselves 
without, at this rate of decay.  Damned be the fact that they know 
finding another man is as easy as popping something in the microwave, 
and damned be those vile men who make it so.

Now where are those anonymous remailers when I need one.

Gary Hawkins

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 11:58:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01107; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 11:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610041841.LAA00678@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 11:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00097E6A@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com> from "Scudder,Henry J" at Oct 3, 96 04:06:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GN3nZ3.0.8H.9mLLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1378
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Robert
> Where within GE did Henry Wallace do his work? What Department?
> Does GE hold the patents, or did he do this on his own?
> To partially answer my own question I would guess it was the
> Missle and Space Division, which is in Valley Forge, PA, near
> Ardmore. I don't know what part of GE is on Long Island-Freeport
> Maybe he retired there?
> Hank Scudder

Available biographical info about Henry Wallace:

Worked at GE from late 1960s to mid 1970s.
First at GE Aerospace in Valley Forge PA,
and then at GE Re-entry Systems in Philadelphia
(30th & Walnut Street).

Unknown what he did after GE.

Retired to Tampa FL area, and passed away in about 1993.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman  (robert@skylink.net)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 12:33:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13082; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/00098D0B@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>,
        Larry Wharton
	 <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:18:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"g-0Hi1.0.KC3.YDMLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1379
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry
I would be interested in reading your paper when it becomes
available. Are you going to post it in a homepage or something,
or let john logajam do it?
Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: Larry Wharton
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Date: Friday, October 04, 1996 9:01AM

To reply to some of the questions on my paper
>>  I have submitted my latest paper entitled:
>>
>> "Thirteen Moment Analysis of Boltzmann's H Theorem"
<snip>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 12:55:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA19338; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610041944.MAA12530@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 12:44:13 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: The Project
Resent-Message-ID: <"S3IKJ1.0._j4.saMLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1381
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:07 AM 10/4/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>An excellent, excellent idea
>
>I would certainly be interested in working with you on this project, provided
>that one of the major if not **THE** focus of activity of such a center be
>specified to be exotic new energy processes, i.e. O/U devices, their
>investigation and development (and, of course, antigravity, should that
work pan
>out). There is a former Russian engineer, now a recently graduated patent

>have lots of experience doing this. What we don't have is -- you guessed it --
>money! We have a lab/publishing office that needs to be supported. That
could be
>the US-based site for interaction with the Russian group.
>
>Your turn, Robert...
>
>
>Best, Gene
>
>Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

Indeed it is an excellent idea.  I suggest that you send you email to Dr
Palms at russia@aa.net along with responses to your post.  He can provide a
lot of Russian contacts related to this.  He has an amazing database.

I know WHERE the money might highly probably come from to catalyze this sort
of thing:  SOROS Foundation out of new york.  Soros loves this sort of thing.

Perhaps a good touch down would be Eugene's shop for the East Coast, which
could possibly get some grant assistance through the Soros group to be an
East Coast touchdown for the project, which minimally would involve a couple
of people working round the clock on the InterNet.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 12:55:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA19016; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.071443120096278FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 04 Oct 1996 12:43:12 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Two "tight" Cold Fusion reports...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/04/96 12:43:13 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"MBBg12.0.1f4.fZMLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1380
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Two "tight" Cold Fusion reports...
-
I would recommend, to the doubters/dubious/whining and cryers---
the following:
-
"Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated
Metals", Electric Power Research Inst., TR-104195, August '94 Contact
Tom Passell at EPRI, Palo Alto CA
-
AND:
-
"Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems", by Melvin Miles, Ben Bursh, and
Kendall B. Johnson, Naval Research Labs, China Lake, Report NAWCWPNS TP 8302
-
Approved for public release. (Probably available NTIS)
-
I don't think either of these reports pulls any punches in saying that
acheiving the right conditions to observe "excess heat" is easy. However,
both reports give plent of data, information, and food for thought that
the result is real---and worth study because of its implications. Tie
them in with Mileys' soon to be widely available report and what have
you got?
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 13:43:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA02835; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b01ae7b312bca44@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:31:37 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"QIJ872.0.8i.hGNLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1382
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>  One important step is to work out a valid second order set of fluid
>dynamics with the inclusion of turbulence.

In my comments to Larry Wharton's post, I meant to make the tie-in between
plasma and conventional fluids with:

"Self-organized" plasma behavior under helicity quasi-conservation can look
macroscopically a lot like a decrease of entropy.  I don't know what
happens to entropy when all the microscopic processes are included.
However, this might tie in with what you are talking about.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 13:52:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04425; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 16:29:36 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: This just in from the Navy
Message-ID: <961004202936_72240.1256_EHB75-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"-PUBm.0.-41.PLNLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1383
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I got an impressive 98 page book from the U.S. Navy. Here is a description of
it, related with military thoroughness on the REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE, which
I note conforms to ASCI Standard 239-18 (I mean the page conforms). Please
note that field #1 says "AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)." I have duly left it
blank and I expect all readers of this forum to follow procedures and leave
this field blank on your screen. Further be it noted here that I have searched
existing datasorceath [sic] in less than 1 hour. That will be all. Dis-missed!


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved OMB No. 0704 0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing datasorceath [sic] maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the colection [sic] of information. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington
Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports,
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202 4302, and to the
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188),
Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE September 1996

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Final, Jan 92-Sep 95

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems

6. AUTHORS Melvin H. Miles. Benjamin F. Bush. and Kendall B. Johnson

5. FUNDING NUMBERS
PE 061153N
Project R1306
R&T Project Code 313z001srp06 [sic]

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake. CA 93555-6100

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
NAWCWPNS TP 8302

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAMES(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Office of Naval Research 800 North Quincy Arlington, VA 22207-5660

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
A Statement; public release; distribution unlimited.

12h DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

(U) Excess power was measured in 28 out of 94 electrochemical experiments
conducted using palladium or palladium-alloy cathodes in heavy water.
Reproducibility continues to be the major problem in this controversial
research area. Based on our experiments, this lack of reproducibility stems
from unknown variables in the palladium metal. The best reproducibility for
excess power was obtained using palladium-boron materials supplied by the
Naval Research Laboratory. Our basic isoperibolic calorimeters were capable of
measuring excess power with a sensitivity of +/-1 % of the input power or +/-
20 mW, whichever was larger. Calorimeters that are capable of detecting excess
power levels of 1 watt per cubic centimeter of palladium are essential for
research in this field. Results from our laboratory indicate that helium-4 is
the missing nuclear product accompanying the excess heat. Thirty out of 33
experiments showed a correlation between either excess power and helium
production or no excess power and no excess helium. The collection of the
electrolysis gases in both glass and metal flasks place the helium-4
production rate at 10^11 to 10^12 atoms per second per watt of excess power.
This is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield
helium-4 as a product. Anomalous radiation was detect  in some experiments by
the use of X-ray films, Geiger-Mueller counters, and by the use of sodium
iodide detectors. There was never any significant production of tritium in any
of our experiments.

14. SUBJECT TERMS
Calorimetry, Deuterium, Electrolysis, Excess Power, Helium-4, Radiation,
Tritium

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 98

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFIED

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
UL

NSN 7540 01-280 5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Sld. 239-18
298-102

[End of File]

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 13:55:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04567; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.013935130096278FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 04 Oct 1996 13:35:13 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Two "tight" Cold Fusion reports...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/04/96 13:35:38 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZVaPP3.0.C71._LNLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1384
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/04/96 12:49
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Two "tight" Cold Fusion reports...
Fast typing gives fits: PLENTY not just PLENT, and I believe
achieve is better than acheive....I believe...please retrieve...
can't relieve....MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 14:12:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10555; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:59:45 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961004165735.29d7140e@world.std.com>
X-Sender: mica@world.std.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"9jEZm3.0.ra2.OiNLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1385
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:44 PM 10/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:17 10/1/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Given that you recognize issues of noise, statistics, and are aware of his
>>data,
>>do you have any serious reason or basis for putting his work down like this?
>
>I haven't put down his work.  I am highly impressed with his work. I only
>said that I thought his positive results were likely to be artifactual.  If
>that turns out to be true, it will not lower my high regard for McKubre's
>experimental expertise.  If that turns out to be false, it will simply be
>another case in which my intuition is wrong.
>
>I apologize for making such a controversial statement without simultaneously
>qualifying it as a "feeling" rather than something more concrete. 
>
>
>
>
>
>Scott Little              EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
>Suite 300      4030 Braker Lane West        Austin TX 78759  USA
>512-342-2185 (voice)    512-346-3017 (FAX)   little@eden.com (email)
>
>

  thanks, Scott, for clarifying that.

      Mitchell


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 14:43:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18038; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:24:46 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"30w7n1.0.lP4.a3OLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1386
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
on in biological systems.  While the chicken and egg stuff is nice because
we can study them, I think the case of the ancient, long extinct, metal
loving bacteria is more interesting. George Miley has allegedly transmuted
large quantities of metals and the question I have is - could these
bacteria have been doing the same thing.
 It is generally accepted that iron ore deposits were caused by iron loving
bacteria dying and forming a sedimentary layer.  There is good evidence
that other metal deposits like gold are caused by the appropriate metal
loving bacteria.  These bacteria are gone now (what a shame) so we don't
see something like a pond with a layer of gold sediment on the bottom.  We
would have noticed something like that.
 The question I always had is why did these bacteria want so much of their
favorite metal and how could they get so much of it? And then why are they
all gone now?  Modern bacteria can lay down sediments but there is not any
significant metal concentrations in them. One theory could be that the
bacteria actually lived on CF energy and the associated metal deposit was
actually a nuclear metabolic waste product or the nuclear ash.  The
bacteria would then die when they had consumed their feed elements.
 This would reduce the concentration of the feed elements and increase the
concentration of the waste elements.  If we knew the starting concentration
in the earth and the effect of differential settling of the heavy elements
then we could compare to the present concentration to find out which
elements make good nuclear food.  The good food elements should be reduced
in concentration and should be the best candidates for CF reactions.
 Making an unscientific estimate of this I took the concentration of the
elements in stony and iron meteorites, from the Scheffield University
element web page, and added them (not knowing what weight to use).  Then I
divided by the observed concentration in the Earth's crust.  So then large
numbers, larger than expected from the differential settling effect, should
indicate good CF reactants.  The result in no particular order (except for
some of the larger values first) is:

Element		Ratio (meteor/earth)
rhodium		21650
ruthenium	11900
iridium		1210000
osmium		83700
rhenium		2250
platinum		20100
palladium		7733
silver		1.7
gold		1654
tungsten		8.2
mercury		2.6
cadmium		.73
molybdenum	5.9
indium		.285
thallium		.005
lead		4.3
niobium		.015
tantalum		.043
tin		.94
nickel		1025
halfnium		.045
aluminum		.122
titanium		.13
cobalt		350
iron		28
bismuth		10.6
antomony		2.2
copper		8
zinc		1.1
vanadium		.43
chromium		36.5
calcium		.30
zirconium		.094
uranium		.006

The first seven elements on this list would be good candidates.  A
noticeable standout is nickel with a relatively light weight and a ratio of
1025.  Where did all the nickel go?  It seems too light to have all but one
part in 1000 gone to the center of the earth.  Maybe something ate it or
maybe it was transmuted through geological CF.  And that iridium ratio, 1.2
million, is an amazing number.  I would believe that number if there only
was molecular diffusion in the Earth's core but the eddy diffusion would
totally overwhelm the molecular diffusion.  The number should be closer to
10 than a million.  I think that somehow the vast majority of the Earth's
iridium was transmuted.  Iridium is likely the most reactive CF element,
but of course it is very expensive.  Rhodium is up there too and last I
checked it was $5,000 a Troy Oz.  For a cheap reactant metal nothing beats
nickel, but I guess we already knew that.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 16:04:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA09921; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <325595C5.1CFBAE39@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 15:55:01 -0700
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Project
References: <v01530500ae7acddcb771@[204.17.242.78]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5bBmI.0.xQ2.lNPLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1387
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> >In
> >order to aide in  the support of the cause, a global
> >television channel would be created originating from the
> >center to report on activities within. 

Knock, knock? Anybody home? TV channels are pass'e---they
are fundamentally limited to few -> many broadcast, and
you not one of the few. The Web is the broadcast
medium for such a venture, since it is many -> many.

The Web already offers a virtually unlimited number of
channels (literaly!) there for the taking, with a total
startup cost of ~ $3000 (if you don't have a computer; if
you do, its more like ~$100). So, get to it.


> >There will be no
> >secret agenda's. Science for humanity will be the mission
> >statement. All finding would become public domain.
> >

This doesn't sound so novel to me---certainly most scientists
I know put most of their findings into the public domain. Those
that don't start a company instead, which probably gets the end result 
into the hands of the public even sooner.


-- 
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu   
web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 16:41:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15402; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:18:16 -0400
Message-ID: <961004191815_118690550@emout03.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: gene thanks..I'll do it.
Resent-Message-ID: <"ym6Qt2.0.Vm3.qjPLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1388
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gene..money is not my problem.  My investment income last year was $60,000.
 My total income was $120,000.  I'm not concerned about where my next lunch
comes from.  What is the problem is that I been associated with one form of
organization or another since kintergarten.  It started in kintergarten,
elementary school, high school college, a job and the army both.  I didn't
even want the army..they drafted me kicking and screaming all the way.. I had
to much to do for to many years . Then on to another job. Stuck in the army
resereves on the weekends.  No days free.   Job in the day night school at
night,  I got a business degree.  Then two relocations to Alabama and New
Jersey.  Working in the day and teaching at the local Vo-tech at night.
Starting a business, writing papers, working overtime, and testing the
Yusmar. 

 Then all at once nothing..no job...papers already published...night school
done I graduated..Yusmar testing winding up....It feels like falling into a
black hole.  This never happened before...The army, from who I couldn't
escape, will not even take me now!

  I'm regrouping and would like to come out and see you once I am free.  The
local community college may extend me an offer to teach industrial
controls...I't doesn't pay much. I'll try it.

 Thank you

Frank 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 16:46:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16164; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:19:41 -0400
Message-ID: <961004191940_325351273@emout04.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Good Bye note
Resent-Message-ID: <"hMags1.0.Sy3.zlPLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1389
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Another of my Utility friends at EPRI get the boot.
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	tmckee@csw.com
To:	fznidarsic@aol.com
Date: 96-10-04 09:11:49 EDT

 From: Tim McKee  318-673-3875 Internet Address: TMCKEE@CSW.COM
 Dept: Plant Support - Southeast  Location: SWEPCO, Arsenal Hill
 Subject: Good Bye note

 <Frank>: fznidarsic@aol.com

 Frank, there are a lot of people being caught up in the world of
 downsizing, rightsizing, re-engineering, etc, ad nauzeum. I am being
 caught up in the same thing though indirectly. I was forced to resign
 from my company due to a move in my wife's department. Fortunately I was
 able to find a job in the area where we will be moving.

 I have enjoyed the information that you have provided on EPRI and may
 try to keep in contact later through the internet. Right now I do not
 have an Internet connection but plan to get one after the move. This
 note is being sent through a PROF's (office vision) set up at our
 company.

 Good luck in your future endeavers! I will probably try to get in touch
 later after I move and get an internet connection.

 .
 .
 Tim


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 16:51:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16441; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <32559C1B.3F54BC7E@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 16:22:03 -0700
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
References: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Avcat2.0.n04.smPLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1390
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Larry Wharton wrote:
> 
>  Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
> conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
> on in biological systems.  While the chicken and egg stuff is nice because
> we can study them, 

Uh, Larry, didn't you used to be skeptical of Cold fusion? Now 
you're talking about chickens transmuting Si to Ca as if it were a
reasonable possibility. Having looked at Kervran's book 
recently, I can say his evidence presented there is plenty weak.



>I think the case of the ancient, long extinct, metal
> loving bacteria is more interesting. George Miley has allegedly transmuted
> large quantities of metals and the question I have is - could these
> bacteria have been doing the same thing.
>  It is generally accepted that iron ore deposits were caused by iron loving
> bacteria dying and forming a sedimentary layer.  There is good evidence
> that other metal deposits like gold are caused by the appropriate metal
> loving bacteria.  

Really, this is all news to me. Living in California, I was recently
reading about the geological origins of the Ca gold deposits,
and gold loving bacteria never even cam up. Do you have a 
reference for any of this?

The biggest conceptual problem I see for biological transmutation---
if we assumed for the amount chemical transmutation is possible---is
that you necessarily get a smorgasboard of reaction products that
are unwanted. If chickens transmute Silicates -> Ca to get Ca,
they would get equal amounts of other unwanted stuff too. Seems
easier just to scratch around for something to eat with some 
Ca in it, like, say, your old egg shells....


-- 
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu   
web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 16:54:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19353; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:29:52 -0400
Message-ID: <961004192951_118699037@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Gone
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q101D.0.Dk4.ivPLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1391
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

My friends at EPRI say good by.
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	TPeterson@PaloAlto.EPRI.com (Terry M. Peterson)
To:	fznidarsic@aol.com ('Znidarsic, Frank - SMTP')
Date: 96-10-04 18:26:20 EDT

>Author:      UA4K436@epri.epri.com (Frank Znidarsic, GPU Generation, Inc.) 
>Date:        October 03, 1996
>
>I made a typo. It's hard to keep a clear head on a day like today. My home
>page is at: 
>
>http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html
>
>Good by...and good luck to all of you.
>
>Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St. Johmstown Pa. 15906

Yes, Frank, I know what you mean.  I was laid off at Chevron about 10 years
ago, and the memory still smarts somewhat.  I'm sorry to hear about your
layoff, and I wish your alternative energy ventures every success.

Regards,
Terry Peterson, EPRI
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
voice:   (415)855-2594
FAX:     (415)855-8501
Internet: TPeterson@PaloAlto.EPRI.com

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 17:23:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA29591; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:09:34 -0400
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@spectre.mitre.org>
Message-Id: <199610050009.UAA01919@spectre.mitre.org>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-reply-to: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]> (message from Larry Wharton on Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:24:46 -0400)
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"o7kEb3.0.BE7.dTQLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1392
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


   Larry Wharton (wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov):

 > Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
 > conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
 > on in biological systems.  While the chicken and egg stuff is nice because
 > we can study them, I think the case of the ancient, long extinct, metal
 > loving bacteria is more interesting. George Miley has allegedly transmuted
 > large quantities of metals and the question I have is - could these
 > bacteria have been doing the same thing...

   Clue!  Beautiful clue.  And right before our faces.  (Or is it?
Counterarguments later.)  The key is of course that most of the Ni
has been mined from meteor strikes.  Subtract them (and the iridium
layer at the C-T boundary) and the elements at the top of your list
literally don't exist on earth.

   The next step of course is to grab lunar data and do the same
comparison.  If lunar rocks are enriched in these elements, it is a
beautiful confirmation.  If it doesn't there are two possibilities:

   1) See theories of lunar creation.  Apollo knocked out some, but in
others some or all of the lunar surface is ejecta deposited during LHB
(late heavy bombardment) a lot of it from earth.

   2) Planets with molten iron cores concentrate all the siderophilic
(is that the right word: iron-loving) elements in the core.  But
notice that iron is "only" enriched in the meteorites by a factor of
28.

   Martian rocks, in particular the recently discovered meteorites,
should provide another test.


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 17:45:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25102; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:35:49 -0400
From: Ron Peterson <ron@dvcorp.com>
Message-Id: <199610041735.NAA03992@dvcorp.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: New Energy Chip Advertisement
Resent-Message-ID: <"7v3lG.0.u76.8nKLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1372
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Their technical description is rather vague, but what it sounds like
they've done is apply heat from a usually unusable source (due to
low temperature) to one side of a thermoelectric generator
and applied some sort of refridgerator to the other side (a Peltier
device?) to get a usable delta-T for creating electricity.  This
might be a feasable way of extracting some energy from a low temperature
heat source but it means that the cold side requires some power input, which
would make the amount of power recovered low, I would think.  Hard to believe
they could get a factor of two improvement in output, let alone a factor of ten.

It's incredible how everybody who has something revolutionary doesn't
proofread their press announcements.  They even spelled their own name wrong.

    Ron

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 18:23:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25913; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:44:11 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610041744.MAA19663@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Scott Little on Michael McKubre
Resent-Message-ID: <"zl9Zq.0.mK6.NqKLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1373
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:17 10/1/96 -0400, Mitchell wrote:

> Given that you recognize issues of noise, statistics, and are aware of his
>data,
>do you have any serious reason or basis for putting his work down like this?

I haven't put down his work.  I am highly impressed with his work. I only
said that I thought his positive results were likely to be artifactual.  If
that turns out to be true, it will not lower my high regard for McKubre's
experimental expertise.  If that turns out to be false, it will simply be
another case in which my intuition is wrong.

I apologize for making such a controversial statement without simultaneously
qualifying it as a "feeling" rather than something more concrete. 





Scott Little              EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300      4030 Braker Lane West        Austin TX 78759  USA
512-342-2185 (voice)    512-346-3017 (FAX)   little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 18:24:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA11624; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:50:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610050050.UAA03299@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q5vIh3.0.Sr2.J4RLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1393
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

With the oscilliscope face 16 inches from the PAGD tube there was no glow on
the scope during PAGD operation.

Jeff


>On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:01:17 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>	Dear Jeff,
>>
>>	In a darkened room, with your rig shrouded to prevent light from 
>>escaping IT use a CRT from a scope which is off to see if you are 
>>generating X rays.   Other phosphors work as well.  One is from X ray 
>>film cassettes, a used one from when they upgrade.  Have to talk to 
>>radiologist.  A nice one will give you a cassette .... those wiht high JQ 
>>[jerk quotient] do not usually do so.
>>
>>						JHS
>>
>>
>Wouldn't a simple flourescent tube work too?
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on 
>temperature.
>Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
>Learns all his life,
>And leaves knowing nothing.
>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 18:27:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA13966; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610050059.UAA05606@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"QVYFJ.0.1Q3.aCRLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1394
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>I disassembled the PAGD tube today to get a closer look at the pits on the
cathode. >I examined the  pitting with a hand held microscope containing a
reticle scale graduated in .002 in. increments.  Features down to .001 are
easily visible.  The individual pits seem to have no regular or
distinguishable features. However. the pits are grouped in highly irregular
patches on the surface.  The patches occupy 25% of the surface area.  There
are also pit patches on the anode occupying 2% of the anode area.  The
individual pits appear to be more pronounced on the anode.  
>
>Perhaps I am only getting vacuum arc discharges although the discharge
events I am witnessing look like the picture on the cover of IE.
>
>I duplicated the Correa's fig. 9 circuit this evening with proportionately
smaller capacitors.  When I turned it on there was no glow, the current on
the AC line was near zero, and the scope showed no activity.  after a few
minutes the current began to rise slowly.  As I reached for the switch to
shut it down C5 blew.  It was rated at 450 volts.  The voltage across the
tube was around 600v at the time.  Upon reexamining the diagram in fig. 9 it
seems that the manner in which C7 a and b are installed would put more
stress on C5 than C3. Throughout the duration of this test the 5600mf 350v
capacitor I use in place of the charge pack read zero volts.  If I had a
wiring error I still can't identify it.
>
>
>Jeff Fink
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 18:34:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26101; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:44:13 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610041744.MAA19670@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
Resent-Message-ID: <"67X7V2.0.hN6.ArKLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1374
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:33 10/4/96 EDT, Gene wrote:

>(By the way so should Scott Little. I cannot understand
>how someone who claims to have tried so hard to replicate CF experiments has
>NEVER been seen at a CF conference. What say you to that, Scott? Not a money
>issue, I trust.)

I was at ICCF1 in Santa Fe, NM in 1989.  My main problem after that has been
finding the time.  I have always been only 1/2 time at EarthTech.  The other
1/2 is a demanding engineering job that is difficult to leave.  I guess I
just don't feel like the actual meeting is that important.  True you get a
lot of unofficial hints and rumors at those things but the written papers
should contain the real meat...no?

So, this year again, I am relying on you guys to bring back detailed reports
of all the good things that were presented.

Scott Little              EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300      4030 Braker Lane West        Austin TX 78759  USA
512-342-2185 (voice)    512-346-3017 (FAX)   little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 20:37:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22986; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 11:37:58 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: sound of Yusmar.,.better today
Message-ID: <961004153757_100433.1541_BHG120-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"X0__I1.0.4d5.BRTLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1395
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gene,

 > gorgeous(?) groupies following you, much as Chris Tinsley is
 > alleged to have!

I hasten (for my life's sake) to assure all concerned that the said
gorgeous person is strictly singular - and usually armed to the teeth.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 20:54:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25546; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 10:41:46 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
Message-ID: <961004144145_100433.1541_BHG36-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"qEUQt2.0.4F6.-dTLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1396
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mitchell,

 >  FYI, my posts have finally this AM issued - albeit 4 days after
 > the posts - and even more astonishing, after other posts which
 > weer posted later preceeded them, going right through and even
 > beating their arrival.  No FIFO there.
 > 
 >   So much for expectation that the internet is a linear
 > time-invariant system.    ;-)X

A glitch this week in Compuserve has meant that I have been (at last)
receiving short emails sent three days ago.  And certainly no FIFO!

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 20:57:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26672; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 04 Oct 96 08:42:39 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Got slammed...now fired...
Message-ID: <961004124238_100433.1541_BHG65-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"oYaJF3.0.dW6.xlTLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1397
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark,

 > PS, my warnings also apply to people getting "higher level"
 > degrees in the sciences. (PHd's in Phys, chem, etc.) Although I
 > think a lot of people have caught on as to the unemployability of
 > some "advanced" degrees in the last 20 years, at least from what I
 > hear about grad school numbers, and that is GOOD!!!!) - Input
 > anyone?

Well, we over here seem to be a few years ahead of you in this respect.

None of the bright kids (or damn few) study physical sciences or
engineering here these days. Even the best universities are desperately
trawling for any kids who can count above ten without removing their
shoes, to get them onto their science and engineering courses.  This now
apples to more ordinary degree courses at national universities as much
as to PhDs and such-like.  The kids are not stupid.

Also, it is perhaps more true here than over the Pond that mass
employment is largely a thing of the past.  Small companies are formed,
often one-man affairs, and people move into the oddest of fields - like
engineers who move into antiquarian books or whatever was formerly a
hobby.  Or open small shops.  Redundancy (being laid-off) is no stigma
any more, and nobody expects a life career in one field, let alone with
one employer.  Napoleon said we were a nation of shopkeepers, and this
is becoming true.

I see it as an historical trend.  A century or more ago, this country
had almost its entire population working in agriculture - and it could
not feed itself.  Now we have maybe 1% working in that area, and we are
a net exporter of food and we have to keep large areas of land 'set
aside' to prevent food gluts.  All this despite a much larger (in both
senses of the word) population.

Now the same is happening in engineering and manufacture and science.
There just is not the need for the people to work in these fields any
more.  Those who do are increasingly on short-term contracts, or work
from home to take advantage of the comms revolution.  As we pointed out
there was no need for Jed and I to be even on the same *continent*
as Gene Mallove to be able to help him get the latest IE out on time.

I suppose that the greater size (and therefore inertia) of US industry
- and its greater wealth - has meant that this huge social upheaval
has come a little later.  Almost everyone I know here is (with varying
financial success) 'doing their own thing'.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 22:15:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA11400; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 22:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 22:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: JEChampion@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:12:48 -0400
Message-ID: <961005011246_118932786@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: It's been fun........
Resent-Message-ID: <"1QH6F2.0.-n2.uvULo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1398
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Due to time requirements within my new life, I must respectfully resign from
the Vortex-l group.

Some people are interested in new science, while others attemt to prove that
new science doesn't exist.  I fought in one of these wars, but my family now
prevails on my physical abilities.

You see, they want 120 acres of prime mountain real estate near Phoenix.  To
accomplish such requires the production of ~180kg of Au.  (we are talking
about a serious mountain)

So with respect to all, I no longer fight in the war between who's right and
who's wrong.  I just retired to the fact if you want Au you either have to
buy it, mine it, or make it.........

I took the path of least resistance.........

I shall return


Joe Champion


discpub@netzone.com

BTW -- all information regarding transmutation on my WEB site will be history
on the nineth of this month.  So if you want anything now is the time!

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 23:01:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA28195; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b00ae7b08fa58d4@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:54:19 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Vortex energy
Resent-Message-ID: <"a1Qx12.0.Pu6.EzKLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1375
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry Wharton wrote
[snip]
>   In my paper I derive my conservation of H density equation directly from
>Boltzmann's equation and then I show that it may be obtained from adding
>together the accepted second order equations (from Grad's thirteen moment
>technique) of fluid dynamics.  So my equation cannot be doubted without
>doubting the accepted higher order equations of fluid dynamics.  A lot of
>work remains to be done before this thing can be fully justified.
>  One important step is to work out a valid second order set of fluid
>dynamics with the inclusion of turbulence.  There was a well respected
[snip]
There is a rather well established body of experimental, theoretical and
numerical literature for the resistive magnetohydrodynamic generation of
"relaxed" or "self organized" or "turbulent dynamo sustained" macroscopic
plasma configurations out of turbulence.  The key theoretical idea that
explained the (previously inexplicable) experimental data was given by J.B.
Taylor, Phys. Rev. Letters 33 (1974) 1139.  The key idea is that in a
resistive plasma the "magnetic helicity" -- the volume integral of (curl
A).A -- is dissipated much more slowly than the energy; therefore, the
plasma finds a state of minimum energy consistent with its total helicity
content.  In some plasmas the outcome is surprising and counterintuitive:
self reversal of magnetic field --> reversed field pinch;  magnetic
vortex-like structure --> spheromak.

Perhaps there is something similar in turbulent fluid dynamics.  I know a
few people looked at a velocity helicity (curl v).v, but I don't know how
far this was taken.  [In general, any scalar of the form (curl V).V, where
V is a vector field, is called helicity.]

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct  4 23:25:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA02734; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 23:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 23:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32559B3B.509B@introtech.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 23:18:19 +0000
From: Henry <henry@introtech.com>
Reply-To: henry@introtech.com
Organization: introtech
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: List protocol
References: <961004144145_100433.1541_BHG36-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"rcQqD3.0.eg.VvVLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1399
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Would someone who knows please provide an UNSUBSCRIBE protocol?

Thanks...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 02:21:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA24121; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 02:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 02:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 05 Oct 96 05:17:24 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Message-ID: <961005091724_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cw4tR1.0.pu5.QWYLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1400
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Larry,

 > Where did all the nickel go?  It seems too light to have all but
 > one part in 1000 gone to the center of the earth.  Maybe something
 > ate it or maybe it was transmuted through geological CF.  And that
 > iridium ratio, 1.2 million, is an amazing number.  I would believe
 > that number if there only was molecular diffusion in the Earth's
 > core but the eddy diffusion would totally overwhelm the molecular
 > diffusion.  The number should be closer to 10 than a million.  I
 > think that somehow the vast majority of the Earth's iridium was
 > transmuted.  Iridium is likely the most reactive CF element, but
 > of course it is very expensive.  Rhodium is up there too and last
 > I checked it was $5,000 a Troy Oz.  For a cheap reactant metal
 > nothing beats nickel, but I guess we already knew that.

What a fascinating and delightful speculation!  Usually I dislike
speculations, especially untestable ones, but that is great fun!

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 04:25:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA16861; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 21:21:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: It's been fun........
In-Reply-To: <961005011246_118932786@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961005211946.25105A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"IhwDo.0.N74.MJaLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1401
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Sat, 5 Oct 1996 JEChampion@aol.com wrote:

> Due to time requirements within my new life, I must respectfully resign from
> the Vortex-l group.
> 

Before you go, can you tell us what the outcome was of your August
investigation from the 12 wise people?

Martin Sevior


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 05:00:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA21051; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 04:57:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199610051157.EAA25590@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Subject: Re: censorship
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Hdk0Z2.0.n85.JraLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1402
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Oct 5, 1996 Saturday

Dear Chris,

You wrote to Mitchell on the vortex: 
><snip>

>A glitch this week in Compuserve has meant that I have been (at last)
>receiving short emails sent three days ago.  And certainly no FIFO!

Shortly after you responded to my e-mail subject, "Collaborate?", I 
sent you some information on our thoughts to date. I wonder if the 
above information applies to the absense of your replies.

Sincerely,

Akira Kawasaki

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 05:42:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA25295; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 05:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Reason for withdrawal of Podkletnov paper (fwd)
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 12:40:52 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3254f52d.5223543@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961001065640.20279G-100000@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961001065640.20279G-100000@eskimo.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"IlTFT.0.9B6.sTbLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1403
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:19:32 -0700 (PDT), William Beaty wrote:
[snip]
>And just because "going secret" has been the kiss of death for any =
number
>of overunity inventions in the past, I fear that there is something =
about
>working alone in secret which breeds a behavior which assures failure.=20
>The Muses notice your greed and abandon you?
[snip]
I suspect rather, that reason is that very few people are capable of
doing everything themselves, or even covering all angles on their own.
By "going secret" one cuts oneself of from other approaches to the
problems, and other lines of thought. One is as it were divorced from
the "brain-storming session". The synergy is gone, and the invention
dies a natural death as a consequence.
=46urthermore most people are just about conceited enough to think that
they really can handle everything on their own, so "going secret"
seems at the time, a logical step.
Hopefully this message will serve as a warning to some.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 07:16:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04172; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 07:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 07:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 05 Oct 96 10:11:23 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: censorship
Message-ID: <961005141122_100433.1541_BHG91-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"QVpyK2.0.211.ArcLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1404
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Akira,

 > Shortly after you responded to my e-mail subject, "Collaborate?",
 > I sent you some information on our thoughts to date. I wonder if
 > the above information applies to the absense of your replies.

Indeed it does.  I have seen no further message on that subject!

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 07:50:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07853; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 07:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 07:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae7c224967bc@[204.17.242.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 06:53:13 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"-hpyo.0.dw1.GKdLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1405
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 5:24 PM 10/4/96, Larry Wharton wrote:
> Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
>conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
>on in biological systems.
[snip]
>So then large
>numbers, larger than expected from the differential settling effect, should
>indicate good CF reactants.  The result in no particular order (except for
>some of the larger values first) is:
>
>Element         Ratio (meteor/earth)
>rhodium         21650
>ruthenium       11900
>iridium         1210000
>osmium          83700
>rhenium         2250
>platinum                20100
>palladium               7733
>silver          1.7
>gold            1654
>tungsten                8.2
>mercury         2.6
>cadmium         .73
>molybdenum      5.9
>indium          .285
>thallium                .005
>lead            4.3
>niobium         .015
>tantalum                .043
>tin             .94
>nickel          1025
>halfnium                .045
>aluminum                .122
>titanium                .13
>cobalt          350
>iron            28
>bismuth         10.6
>antomony                2.2
>copper          8
>zinc            1.1
>vanadium                .43
>chromium                36.5
>calcium         .30
>zirconium               .094
>uranium         .006
>
>The first seven elements on this list would be good candidates.  A
>noticeable standout is nickel with a relatively light weight and a ratio of
>1025.  Where did all the nickel go?  [snip]
>Lawrence E. Wharton

Very interresting analysis in light of recent developments.  Is there some
significance to the fact the above table seems to be in 2 columns?

I take it elements below 1 would be the presumed transmutation products. I
see halfnium is there at .045, but one the most striking is uranuium at
.006.  What to make of elements missing from the above list entirely, like
thorium?  Does this imply they are 100 percent created from transmutation?

The presence of uranium in this list seems to indicate transmutation
involving the fusion of two or more heavies.

Another hypothesis, not necessarily a complete alternative, is that
elements in meteors, in their history as small unshielded rocks in space,
were continually transmuted by bombardment with mostly H and He from the
sun, but also heavies from the sun, electrons, xrays, and cosmic rays.
This would have the effect of reversing the significance of the ratios
above, at least to some extent.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 08:55:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA18354; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 08:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 10:53:31 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610051553.KAA24769@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Miley's data
Resent-Message-ID: <"LWyXK3.0.iU4.9IeLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1406
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks, Chris, for the excerpts.

I am particularly interested in Miley's method of determining whether the
key elements Ag, Cu, & V were present in the fresh elecrolyte in sufficient
quantity to explain their later concentration in the beads.

In particular, I have noticed in my own Patterson-style cells that the
"electrolysis action" is limited largely to the top two layers of
beads...i.e. the beads closest to the anode.  Does Miley mention this?  If
so, how does he sample the highly heterogeneous bed of beads for analysis?


Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 09:41:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25821; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32569048.42AF@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 09:43:52 -0700
From: Hank Scudder <hjscudde@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: hjscudde@pacbell.net
Organization: Rocketdyne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
References: <199610050050.UAA03299@ns1.ptd.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"e0gJj.0.NJ6.EzeLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1407
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeff Fink wrote:
> 
> With the oscilliscope face 16 inches from the PAGD tube there was no glow on
> the scope during PAGD operation.
> 
> Jeff
Jeff
It is unlikely that any X-rays are getting through the Al or acrillic
tube, because the max energy is about 600ev or so. You need about 20Kev
to get through almost any material.
Hank
-- 
1

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 09:43:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26073; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <325670F6.6AB8@spots.ab.ca>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 07:30:14 -0700
From: Robert Polley <rpolley@spots.ab.ca>
Reply-To: rpolley@spots.ab.ca
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: It's been fun........
References: <961005011246_118932786@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"n1a5H2.0.EN6.3_eLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1408
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

JEChampion@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Due to time requirements within my new life, I must respectfully resign from
> the Vortex-l group.
> 
> Joe Champion
> 
> discpub@netzone.com
> 
> BTW -- all information regarding transmutation on my WEB site will be history
> on the nineth of this month.  So if you want anything now is the time!

Please post the URL of your Web site

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 09:55:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28000; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3256933A.345C@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 09:56:26 -0700
From: Hank Scudder <hjscudde@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: hjscudde@pacbell.net
Organization: Rocketdyne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
References: <199610050059.UAA05606@ns1.ptd.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MfFVJ3.0.Qr6.x8fLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1409
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeff Fink wrote:
> 
> >I disassembled the PAGD tube today to get a closer look at the pits on the
> cathode. >I examined the  pitting with a hand held microscope containing a
> reticle scale graduated in .002 in. increments.  Features down to .001 are
> easily visible.  The individual pits seem to have no regular or
> distinguishable features. However. the pits are grouped in highly irregular
> patches on the surface.  The patches occupy 25% of the surface area.  There
> are also pit patches on the anode occupying 2% of the anode area.  The
> individual pits appear to be more pronounced on the anode.
> >
> >Perhaps I am only getting vacuum arc discharges although the discharge
> events I am witnessing look like the picture on the cover of IE.
> >
> >I duplicated the Correa's fig. 9 circuit this evening with proportionately
> smaller capacitors.  When I turned it on there was no glow, the current on
> the AC line was near zero, and the scope showed no activity.  after a few
> minutes the current began to rise slowly.  As I reached for the switch to
> shut it down C5 blew.  It was rated at 450 volts.  The voltage across the
> tube was around 600v at the time.  Upon reexamining the diagram in fig. 9 it
> seems that the manner in which C7 a and b are installed would put more
> stress on C5 than C3. Throughout the duration of this test the 5600mf 350v
> capacitor I use in place of the charge pack read zero volts.  If I had a
> wiring error I still can't identify it.
> >
> >
> >Jeff Fink
> >
Jeff
I think your problem is a combination of the fact that electrolitic
capacitors don't particularly like short pulses, and that when the
device
switches on or off, instantaneously you have twice the voltage across
the 
diodes and capacitors. C5 and C3 are balanced with respect to the C7a,b
in the circuit. You might try parallelling smaller switching capaacitors
across C3, C5, and the C7's. Try about 0.001 mfd with a 1Kv voltage
rating, and about 0.1 mfd with 600V rating across your large capacitors.
I would expect they would handle the really fast portion of the
transient. For more information look at the design information available
from the semiconductor manufacturers for switching power supplies,
H-bridge servo amplifiers, and horizontal oscillators in TV sets.
Hank Scudder
-- 
1

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 11:15:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17928; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us
Subject: Re: Unix shell account?
In-Reply-To: <9610050758.AA07492@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961005105031.9907A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"v58xI1.0.2O4.JLgLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1410
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


> >P.S. for subscribers on Unix shell accounts: I've finally set up my
> >account to automatically store incoming mail from vortex-L in its own
> >folder (the month's archive file, actually,) so I don't have to hand-sort
> >the vortex-L incoming mail. This can be done with a .forward and a
> >.procmailrc file placed in your top directory.  Email me if you wantinfo
> >on how to do this yourself.
> 
>
> How does one know if they are on a Unix shell account?

Are you familiar with MSDOS on PCs?  Unix is like that, but with different
commands.  You can list out directory contents, change directories,
textedit files, run programs by typing their name, etc.  If you can type
"ls -l" (lower case L's), and if the screen gives you a list of filenames
like this:

total 445
-rw-------  1 billb        1818 Oct  5 11:04 #pico09907#
drwx------  2 billb         512 Sep  9  1994 Mail
drwx------  3 billb         512 Aug  2 13:20 News
-rw-------  1 billb        2679 Jan 29  1995 Paul-O
-rw-------  1 billb        3684 Jul 11 18:16 RES.TXT
-rw-------  1 billb         389 Aug 12 11:52 TEMP.TXT
-rw-------  1 billb        1198 Apr 13 02:26 TEMP2
-rw-------  1 billb         387 Apr  8  1995 aapt.email
-rw-------  1 billb        1609 Jul 22 08:38 ad.txt
-rw-------  1 billb         876 Oct  1  1995 amateur
-rw-r--r--  1 billb        3547 Sep 27  1994 astc1.txt

... that's Unix


When you log on, are you on some kind of text menu system?  If so, you'll
have to find out from your internet provider how to break out into the
operating system (which might be unix, but might not.) 

What kind of email program are you using?  If it's called "pine," you are
on unix.  Or, are you using sockets and Netscape, Eudora, Explorer, etc? 
If so, you'll have to talk to your provider about learning how to "telnet"
into the system, and whether unix shell is offered, etc.  If you are on
Compuserve, AOL, etc., you're out of luck, I'm sure they don't allow
access to their operating system. 

Also, many email programs allow automatic sorting of incoming messages
into folders.  First find out whether your email software can do this.
Using the email software is probably alot easier than debugging unix shell
scripts if they don't work the first time!


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 11:16:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18101; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b03ae7c6399c8da@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:15:42 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Film3.0.jQ4.IMgLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1411
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeff Fink wrote:
.....
>>I duplicated the Correa's fig. 9 circuit this evening with proportionately
>smaller capacitors.  When I turned it on there was no glow, the current on
>the AC line was near zero, and the scope showed no activity.  after a few
>minutes the current began to rise slowly.  As I reached for the switch to
>shut it down C5 blew.  It was rated at 450 volts.  The voltage across the
>tube was around 600v at the time.  Upon reexamining the diagram in fig. 9 it
>seems that the manner in which C7 a and b are installed would put more
>stress on C5 than C3. Throughout the duration of this test the 5600mf 350v
>capacitor I use in place of the charge pack read zero volts.

I don't have either of the IEs that deal with the Correa work with me at
the moment.  However, I remember thinking when I read it that is an error
in Fig. 9, and indeed Mike Carrell's article in IE#9 shows a different
circuit.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 11:38:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22809; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:35:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199610051835.LAA06653@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: atech@popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dennis C. Lee" <atech@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: It's been fun........
Resent-Message-ID: <"vPFQj2.0.Fa5.WggLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1412
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

You asked people on the Whitegold list to send samples to a lab for chemical
analysis. You promised to post the results. Did the lab receive the samples?
Are you reneging on your promise to post the results?







At 01:12 AM 10/5/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Due to time requirements within my new life, I must respectfully resign from
>the Vortex-l group.
>
>Some people are interested in new science, while others attemt to prove that
>new science doesn't exist.  I fought in one of these wars, but my family now
>prevails on my physical abilities.
>
>You see, they want 120 acres of prime mountain real estate near Phoenix.  To
>accomplish such requires the production of ~180kg of Au.  (we are talking
>about a serious mountain)
>
>So with respect to all, I no longer fight in the war between who's right and
>who's wrong.  I just retired to the fact if you want Au you either have to
>buy it, mine it, or make it.........
>
>I took the path of least resistance.........
>
>I shall return
>
>
>Joe Champion
>
>
>discpub@netzone.com
>
>BTW -- all information regarding transmutation on my WEB site will be history
>on the nineth of this month.  So if you want anything now is the time!
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 13:38:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA13908; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3256C5BE.1A25@cais.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 16:31:58 -0400
From: Danny Hamilton <hamlthdt@cais.cais.com>
Reply-To: hamltndt@cais.cais.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: It's been fun........
References: <961005011246_118932786@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"RSh_a.0.6P3.OPiLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1413
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Sorry to see you leave, but understand totally.

Good Luck.

Danny Hamilton

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 14:47:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA24376; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 14:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: List protocol
In-Reply-To: <32559B3B.509B@introtech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961005142221.9907H-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"BlknZ3.0.iy5.ZPjLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1414
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Henry wrote:

> Would someone who knows please provide an UNSUBSCRIBE protocol?
> 
> Thanks...

Hi Henry!  I manually unsubscribed you (hope that's what you wanted! ) 

The subscribe/unsubscribe instructions are on the vortex-L website at
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html 
Note that they are changed, the new software wants the command in the
subject header instead of message body.  I just discovered that when I
changed the instructions for my lists, somehow I missed the vortex-L
instructions, and the old instructions for Listproc were still on the
webpage.  It's the constant mental commands those MIBs are sending me via
their mind control beams, its starting to make me forgetful.  My aluminum
foil brain-shield keeps riding up.  Don'cha just hate that?

To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to vortex-L-request@eskimo.com with
the single word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of the header.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,..............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 19:13:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA25609; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 21:51:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610060151.VAA07034@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"JZYTS3.0.3G6.Y2nLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1415
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>I don't have either of the IEs that deal with the Correa work with me at
>the moment.  However, I remember thinking when I read it that is an error
>in Fig. 9, and indeed Mike Carrell's article in IE#9 shows a different
>circuit.
>
>Michael J. Schaffer
>


Sorry to report that I did have a wiring error of my own.  I had diode D7 in
backwards. I must make time to do this wok in the morning when I can think
instead of in a semi-comatose state at night.  It would also be much safer.


Jeff Fink

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 19:16:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA25739; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961006015948.006ffc64@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 18:59:48 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Resent-Message-ID: <"D3GRO3.0.5I6.H3nLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1416
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on 
whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame 
is applied to metal.

The answer is yes (although small).

Yesterday, we applied the flame to nickel, titanium, tungsten, 
gold, and steel to obtain a few observations.

The tube to the torch is clear plastic, so one lead from an 
analog ammeter was attached to the torch itself (brass), 
the other to the metal sample (the postive lead).

During this, I forgot to touch the metal sample to the torch 
without the flame involved, in case it is a simple result from 
dissimilar metals.

I would hope that the one who suggested this be tried post here 
what reason he had for suspecting there would be current.

The current was electrons to the torch through the gas, from the metal.

When the Brown's Gas flame from one of Brown's BN-200 units was 
applied to a metal sample, about 2 microamps occurred.

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 19:39:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA28447; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 19:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 19:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 19:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610060203.TAA10467@norway.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells- fwd
Resent-Message-ID: <"kPJqn.0.Oy6.IFnLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1417
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

- ----- Beginning of forwarded mail ----- -

At 07:45 PM 10/5/96 -0700, John Kent wrote to me:
>Dear Mike
>	During the week that I have been on the net, I have heard a lot 
>about Browns Gas but have deliberately tried to ignore it until I get the 
>Meyer effect out of my system. I am afraid that Chuck may have jumped the 
>gun on me. Of the people who contacted me about my origional posting, 
>only two had built the system. We all produce lots of gas but are unable 
>to calculate the efficiency yet, for the Meyer system.
>	One problem is that none of us are experts in this field. My own 
>background is electronics, avionics, simulation etc.. When I started 
>looking at the Meyer effect, six months ago, I decided to reference the 
>efficiency of the Meyer system against that for conventional 
>electrolysis. So, I first had to establish experimentally the efficiency 
>of Meyer cells, run in the conventional electrolysis mode. This when I 
>ran into problems concerning thermoneutral voltages. I work and study 
>alone and until a week ago, I had never discussed my work with anyone. I 
>had assumed that if I knew something, then it would be common knowledge.
>It wasn't until I got onto internet I realised that internet itself only 
>had four references to the term and they all concerned cows !. I am going 
>to have to check on this but I think my origional refence was "Fuel from 
>Water" by Micheal Peavey 1995 ISBN 0-945516-04-5. Basically, what Michael 
>is saying is that at 25 degrees C, for voltages above 1.47 volts the 
>reaction gives off heat and for voltages between 1.23 to 1.47 volts the 
>reaction ABSORBS heat. If this, and his figures are true, then it can 
>cause considerable errors. In the example given he states that;
>	"The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of 
>water is 65.3 Wh at 25 degrees C. When Hydrogen and oxygen are recombined 
>into water during combustion 79.3 Wh of energy is released. 14 Wh more 
>energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to 
>split water. The excess must be absorbed from the surrounding media in 
>the form of heat during electrolysis". My first thought was to make a 
>provocative statement in news:sci.energy.hydrogen group to that effect 
>and see if anyone corrected it. Although I received a lot of replies and 
>questions from real scientists, not one person did question it in email.
>Nor did anyone ask, under what conditions did I consider the statement to 
>be true. Until it is proven wrong, I have to give it due consideration in 
>setting up experiments. It certainly explains away some overunity results 
>noted by some people. For the rest of this posting I shall assume the 
>above to be true.
>	A gentleman in Canada pointed out patent 4,394,230 (1983) by 
>Henry Puharich for splitting water at overunity rates, which he claims 
>arise from the absorbtion of heat, from the ambient atmosphere. He 
>actually fitted heat fins to his device to act as collectors. 
>       Did I ignite the gas mix. Yes and no. For experimental purposes I 
>built two cells. Both were modular and can  contain 2 - 6 stainless steel 
>capacitor plates. In the large cell I used flat plates in a +-+- 
>arrangement. The small cell can contain beteen 1 and 6 coaxial 
>capacitors. All cell produce gas in the electrolysis mode. At 1 mA gas 
>streams are visible. At 1 amp gas pours off and the small cell will reach 
>a pressure of 10 PSI in about two minutes. Gas production is an almost 
>straight line from a previously ungassed cell. All cells produce gas in 
>the Meyer mode with a 34 volt pk to pk, 5kHz 50/50 unmodulated pulse 
>traininto the driver transformer. On the top of each cell is a manifold, 
>much like Stans, containing a pressure gauge, pressure transducer takeoff 
>and a 0.6mm burner nozzle. Actually there are two 0.6 nozzles in series, 
>one at either end of the manifold, to stop flame flash back into the 
>cell!. The gas taps I ordered for the project proved to be far too coarse 
>in operation and continually blew out the match held in a rather nervous 
>hand. In the end I coninvinced myself that it could not be anything else 
>except a hydrogen/oxygen gas mix and made a note to replace the taps with 
>needle types at a later date. Yes I have vented the gas into an upturned 
>container and frightened the life out of myself with a match !. It "pops" 
>the way you would expect. I suppose you are refering to the reported low 
>flame temperature of the Browns gas generators. I will try and obtain a 
>needle valve and attempt to measure flame temperature. I suppose thats 
>one way to test my flame arrestor!!.
>       There is obviously a lot more to report but I do not want to bore 
>you. If you want to post any of this please do. Please include my address 
>so that I can receive feedback. I have the feeling I am at the bottom of 
>a very steep learning curve :-). I also have an EV brewing on the side 
>but unlike you I am looking at onboard gas generation into a Bacon type 
>fuel cell/electric motor, British law insists that it has to have pedals 
>as well !.
>
>regards johnkent
>
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct  5 23:11:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA28050; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 23:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 23:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae7cfd8b76da@[204.17.242.70]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 22:13:32 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Resent-Message-ID: <"mWBf01.0.Cs6.DpqLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1419
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on
>whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame
>is applied to metal.
>
>The answer is yes (although small).
>
[snip]
>
>When the Brown's Gas flame from one of Brown's BN-200 units was
>applied to a metal sample, about 2 microamps occurred.
>
>Gary Hawkins

Interresting report.

I'd like to suggest the current may be due to locally induced AC being
rectified by the hot target material acting like a hot cathode and the
torch acting as a cold plate in a diode tube.

I didn't suggest the flame would generate a current, but that a current may
assist with various BG effects.  I don't know if that is what you are
thinking about. Following are various snippets:

6/28/96 at 9:08 AM

Thread: Re: BG induced transmutations (was Brown

"On another note, BG seems to get it's kick from applying the energy of
it's flame almost entirely at the mineral/metal surface.  This seems to be
due to the delivery of monatomic and/or ionized gas to the mineral/metal
surface.  One way to enhance this would then be to run a DC current through
the flame, making the mineral/metal surface the anode.  In addition, using
a superimposed HF current, or microwaves, should increase the ionization
level in the flame.  In this manner, considerably more energy could be
applied directly to the surface layer of atoms on the mineral/metal.  This
technique might also be useful in scaling up the process."

Only to correct it at 10:32 AM 6/29/96 to

"... one critical sentence above should read: "One way to enhance this
would then be to run a DC current through the flame, making the
mineral/metal surface the *cathode*.""

Following which Michael Mandeville wrote:

>
>it was reported a long time ago, I don't remember the citation, that you can
>get tranmutation simply from a high  voltage arc across a gap.

And I replied 7:16 AM 6/30/96:

"OK, so this is confirmation that combining a HF stimulated DC arc with a
BG flame should increase the transmutation process.  The BG and arc should
be synergistic. The arc should serve to increase the effect which BG is
very good at, namely delivering much of the flame energy directly to the
material surface. On this basis, making the material the anode may not be a
such a bad idea for transmutation purposes, or maybe only the HF ionizing
component is all that is needed.  For standard purposes of cutting or
heating, I think making the work material the cathode is a good idea, or
maybe even using 60 Hz. A fairly low voltage should work. The arc should
sustain the flame and the flame the arc.  It might make the flame harder to
direct.  However the spreading effect of an arc on the flame might be
exactly the effect needed fo scaling up the transmutation process. I would
make it easier to create a kind of "burner" instead of a torch. Just food
for thought."




Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 00:42:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA09785; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 00:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
In-Reply-To: <32559C1B.3F54BC7E@math.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961006000734.11450A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"xdE9l3.0.pO2.x7sLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1420
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Barry Merriman wrote:

> Larry Wharton wrote:
> > 
> >  Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
> > conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
> > on in biological systems.  While the chicken and egg stuff is nice because
> > we can study them, 
> 
> Uh, Larry, didn't you used to be skeptical of Cold fusion? Now 
> you're talking about chickens transmuting Si to Ca as if it were a
> reasonable possibility. Having looked at Kervran's book 
> recently, I can say his evidence presented there is plenty weak.

Pardon me for injecting a little fringeophile propaganda, but suppose
transumation does exist, and suppose Kervran did not.  In that case I
think it would be immensely difficult to even *hold* brainstorming
sessions about these possibilities.  Wouldn't the requirement to maintain
skeptical objectivity act to prevent the world from discovering the fact
of transmutation?  If everyone is confident that biological transmutation
is a concept that indicates insanity on the part of those who propose it,
if asking such questions brings about crys of "there's no good evidence
for it," then I see no obvious way to ever *get* good evidence for it.

I'm convinced that science would be much better served by reserving some
significant funding somewhere for far-flung, brainstorming-style
explorations without the danger of drawing down distain from collegues. 
Check your skepticism at the door.  Abandon your confidence that
widely-known facts are correct, and consider the possibility that they are
widely-held assumptions in disguise.  Follow up anomaly reports regardless
of what current theory says about their existence. Assume that low-energy
transmutation reports are reasonable simply because a few reports exist. 
Then go out and verify their accuracy.  Go out and look for holes in the
mainstream worldview, for flaws in supposedly perfected theory. 

Are such things as checking out the possibility of biological transmu-
tation really such a waste of time and money?  I think not, because
sometimes tiny, safe bets on "sure things" lead to stagnation in science,
and it would be wise to reserve some of our stake for occasional bets on
longshots with huge rates of return. 

So the internet finally gives a safe place for indulging in crazy
speculations.  Now we just need an equivalent safe place in the funding
structure for the testing of the speculations.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 01:15:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14530; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 01:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 01:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 01:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: gene thanks..I'll do it.
In-Reply-To: <961004191815_118690550@emout03.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961005144904.9907I-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lBcMq.0.yY3.aesLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1421
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:

> night,  I got a business degree.  Then two relocations to Alabama and New
> Jersey.  Working in the day and teaching at the local Vo-tech at night.
> Starting a business, writing papers, working overtime, and testing the
> Yusmar. 
> 
>  Then all at once nothing..no job...papers already published...night school
> done I graduated..Yusmar testing winding up....It feels like falling into a
> black hole.  This never happened before...The army, from who I couldn't
> escape, will not even take me now!

Hi Frank!  Jeeze, this unfortunately sounds familiar.

I went through exactly this stuff after I bailed out of a sick business in
1993.  A supportive wife, a bunch of computer classes, temporary grunt
work repairing busted terminals, and huge amounts of time in the library
saved my butt.  But they were not enough to hold off a nasty bout of
depression.

I'd always thought that "unemployment depression" was caused by the
victim's situation, but after going through it I'm convinced that it's
very much like drug withdrawl.  After all, I had been getting a "fix" of
high-level mental concentration every day for decades, and when it
vanished, strange and unpleasant biochemical effects ensued.  *Extremely*
unpleasant.  I initially followed my normal response to illness: holing up
in bed until I felt better.  But I found that unlike the flu, fever, etc.,
this *immensely* amplified the symptoms.  Getting out of the house, doing
volunteer work, taking low-skill temp work, etc., was the effective cure.
Heavy exercize worked also, but I hate exercize, and when depressed I was
not in a situation where I could force myself to do it enough to make a
difference.

In hindsight I see that I should have maintained a large collection of
dreams & ideas to pursue if ever I should have free time, because when
unemployment struck, my mind went totally blank, and I didn't even have
interesting hobbies to rely upon.  Unfortunately my finances were also at
a low ebb (because of that screwed up company) so I couldn't fund anything
interesting for myself to do.

Do you have files of major experiments which you have not yet tried? 
Anything which requires that you tear down all your equipment and build a
new set?  You need to recreate the ongoing daily heavy stimulation of
fulltime employment.  Going cold-turkey into retirement can kill you
through depression-induced illnesses, even suicide.  No joke.  I didn't
get anywhere near that point, but I could see the danger.  And I suddenly
was in the hospital for hernia problems after a lifetime of nearly perfect
health. 

Best of luck, and hope you avoid any need for my above advice!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page




From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 02:18:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA21904; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 02:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 02:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 06 Oct 96 05:13:18 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Miley's data
Message-ID: <961006091318_100060.173_JHB77-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"9DTAW.0.6M5._YtLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1422
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott,

>> In particular, I have noticed in my own Patterson-style cells that the
"electrolysis action" is limited largely to the top two layers of
beads...i.e. the beads closest to the anode. <<

If I may butt-in here - Yonks ago I suggested that better, or at least more
efficient use of the beads, would result from the use of a shallow bed rather
than a deep one.  It seemed logical to have most of them in contact with the
electrode so that they actually formed the pseudo-surface of the cathode, and
thus presented maximum area for reaction.

I realize that this gives a pancake shape to the assembly, but so what?

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 04:29:42 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00263; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 21:27:59 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley's data
In-Reply-To: <961006091318_100060.173_JHB77-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961006212647.32652A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mb75d.0.14.DVvLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1423
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Chris,
      thanks for posting selected quotes. It certainly wets my appetite for
the full paper.

Thanks

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 10:24:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09319; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 10:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 10:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 12:21:51 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610061721.MAA17700@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's data
Resent-Message-ID: <"wI-8n1.0.TH2.zg-Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1424
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:13 AM 10/6/96 EDT, Norman wrote:

>...I suggested that better, or at least more
>efficient use of the beads, would result from the use of a shallow bed rather
>than a deep one.

Seems right to me, too...but, as far as I can tell from the photos and
descriptions of Cravens' cells, he typically uses a bed that is about 2-3 cm
in dia and 1 cm thick.  So that's what I used, too.  In my experience, only
about 1/5 of the beads in such a bed are actively involved in the electrolysis.

 - Scott Little
 EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759
 512-342-2185 (voice)  512-346-3017 (FAX)  little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 10:42:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10432; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 10:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 10:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0v9x0Q-000GnXC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:27:57 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"IRijz3.0.wY2.En-Lo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1425
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
> Date: Sunday, October 06, 1996 3:38 AM
>
(snip)
 
> So the internet finally gives a safe place for indulging in crazy
> speculations.  Now we just need an equivalent safe place in the funding
> structure for the testing of the speculations.

I agree, Bill - how about from the bank account and the TIME ACCOUNT of the
crazy speculator?  This worked for me with my crazy ball-lightning
speculations!

A crazy speculator has some dues to pay to his crazy peers.  He can spend
some
of his own time coming up with a good argument for his peers to go off and
spend
their time/money "bank account" on his crazy idea.  Or, he can just DO IT.

For the sake of all our sanities, I hope that REALITY works on a FINITE
number of
basic principles.  Without a doubt, there are an INFINITE number of crazy
speculations that could be proposed.  It is not sane (nor productive) for
all of us to
check out too many wild speculations at a time!  If we go past some
critical
"diffusion of effort" point, we will wind up REDUCING the number of
validations
of productive speculations.

I would also agree, however, that biological transmutation should not be
crossed off
the list - not in light of the under-sea, volcanic vent life forms that
have been
discovered.

Trying not to spread his paint or himself too thin,   Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 12:40:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05451; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 12:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 12:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961006193332.007331d8@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 12:33:32 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"dlaBp2.0.4L1.iV0Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1426
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:38 AM 10/6/96 -0700, Bill wrote:

>I'm convinced that science would be much better served by reserving some
>significant funding somewhere for far-flung, brainstorming-style
>explorations without the danger of drawing down distain from collegues. 
>Check your skepticism at the door.  Abandon your confidence that
>widely-known facts are correct, and consider the possibility that they are
>widely-held assumptions in disguise. 

That is in tune with Bill's coining of a term, something along the lines 
of:   "Provisional Skepticism", where one is willing to tread into the unknown 
with full knowledge that it may or may not pay.  For many of us, it is easy to 
see the folly of the hook-line-sinker skeptics, who would quickly step up to 
trounce new possibilities, offering nothing in their place, and easy to see 
their true motivation for doing so -- a desire to be on the side of right-- 
a fear of being wrong.  They take what they think is the safer bet, 
an easy path with almost no risk, and by default no effort needed.

But for those who see little value in the status quo, who hunger for 
improvement of the mundane, for those adventurers into the unknown, having 
the sheer audacity to suggest that there are vast realms left undiscovered, 
if I might, with your indulgence be permitted a brief outburst in 
continuance of the line of thought quoted above:

                 WHERE THE HELL ARE THE INVESTORS!!??

Eh-hem.  Scuse me.  But there appears to be large gap between potential 
in fringe science, and resources available to it.

There are stories in the newspaper about millions being given to various 
existing organizations by philanthropists, to universities, other schools, 
and whatever, all well and good.  We hear of the billionaire who donates 
50 million to help people immigrate to the U.S., okay, fine.  Though I 
hesitate to single out Bill Gates in this, at a net worth of 18 billion, 
I believe he just turned 40, so that figures to around $50,000 per hour 
of his life.  In fairness, he says he intends to give most of it away, 
after being sure that the company is on very solid footing for the future, 
and also in fairness to him, when I wrote to him once, sending a photograph 
of a 10 foot Tesla Coil with a red glow above it, he took the time to 
write back saying thanks, and that he would welcome being kept up-to-date 
on the goings on.

Paul Allen had his arm twisted and is somewhat begrudgingly agreeing to 
buy the Seahawks for maybe $200 million to keep them in Seattle.  There 
are billions floating around in sports.  One might wonder what those 
players plan to do with 5 or 10 million year, or 35 million a year for 
Michael Jordan.  The many star millionaires out there are not drones, 
but represent a cross-section where some would find an interest in 
these things, and are unaware of it, as there is no liason.  Charleton 
Heston has hosted an array of programs bravely investigating and even 
promoting radical changes of common viewpoints on history and so on.

Make no mistake.  There is a large and growing interest in the unusual.  
Art Bell's program is the number one nighttime radio show in the country.  
He routinely covers UFO's, psychic phenomena, etc, that is, anything farout, 
and people love it.  Gone are the naysayers who used to be able to float 
the "laughter curtain" and douse any open-mindedness.  They are now seen as 
shallow and inane non-thinkers as the laughter has returned upon them instead.

One might argue wrongly that the individuals on this list are merely lone 
wolf dreamers engaging in idle speculations.  To the contrary, if they would 
only look into it, they would find that a large percentage have a set of 
accomplishments to their credit, and have come across many aspects of 
unusual phenomena that they know could lead to worthwhile results, but 
lack the resources to pursue them to the degree the effects deserve.  
Risking a poly anna christening, I would wonder why there are not by now 
several bright wealthy individuals lurking in the wings on this list, 
and jumping at the chance to be first in line to deliver one of these 
high tech babies to the world.

As Jed posted, the Navy has acknowledged the o/u of cold fusion [it's on 
my website Jed--let me know if you don't want your name on it]. 
A glimmer of dawning light beams forth on this otherwise sleeping realm that 
has not yet had its day.

Jumping into the speculation zone, I would say that the ideas tossed about 
here are merely the tip of the iceberg, and that most of you have several 
projects that could be done--where it is not timely to display them for 
bantering around here as yet--and could certainly use some funding.

We do know that Gene Mallove is willing to take a look at papers on such 
things for publishing them.  That sort of connection with at least *some* 
of the rest of the world is the type of thing that could begin to bridge the 
funding grand gulch for that unknown and dimly lit but incredibly interesting 
and beneficial little town of fringe science on the other side.

"In the end times, the truth will out."

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 13:58:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA26594; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae7dbe612a2a@[204.17.242.75]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 12:56:57 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Miley's data
Resent-Message-ID: <"832Jo1.0.SV6.Zl1Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1427
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 05:13 AM 10/6/96 EDT, Norman wrote:
>
>>...I suggested that better, or at least more
>>efficient use of the beads, would result from the use of a shallow bed rather
>>than a deep one.
>
>Seems right to me, too...but, as far as I can tell from the photos and
>descriptions of Cravens' cells, he typically uses a bed that is about 2-3 cm
>in dia and 1 cm thick.  So that's what I used, too.  In my experience, only
>about 1/5 of the beads in such a bed are actively involved in the electrolysis.
>
> - Scott Little

Possibly it's notable that Patterson spells out thin layers of beads in his
patent 5,318,675.  The "experimental embodiment", FIG. 2, shows 6 layers of
beads, but the other embodiments show less layers.  FIG 4 shows 3-4 layers,
and FIG.5 to FIG 7 show a single layer embodiment.  Reading between the
lines I felt maybe the "wrapped" demo Cravens built for Powergen was
concealing another embodiment - a single layer verison where the beads were
affixed to a flexible cathode that could be wrapped around a central anode
to create a cylindrical configuration, or conversly around a central post
to create a central cathode surrounded by an anode.  Since, in production,
the big bucks are in the Pt anode, I like the former idea better.  If
that's not what it was it's still a good idea anyway.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 16:30:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06003; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 16:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:22:40 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <32598357.6104365@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <199610050050.UAA03299@ns1.ptd.net>
In-Reply-To: <199610050050.UAA03299@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"Wr0zV.0.iT1.mz3Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1429
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 20:50:11 -0400 (EDT), Jeff Fink wrote:

>With the oscilliscope face 16 inches from the PAGD tube there was no =
glow on
>the scope during PAGD operation.
[snip]
Try half an inch.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 16:30:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05986; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 16:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 16:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 23:22:35 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3258805b.5340264@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"IvzCQ.0.JT1.jz3Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1428
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:24:46 -0400, Larry Wharton wrote:
[snip]
>Element		Ratio (meteor/earth)
>rhodium		21650
>ruthenium	11900
>iridium		1210000
>osmium		83700
>rhenium		2250
>platinum		20100
>palladium		7733
[snip]
>The first seven elements on this list would be good candidates.  A
>noticeable standout is nickel with a relatively light weight and a ratio=
 of
>1025.  Where did all the nickel go?  It seems too light to have all but =
one
>part in 1000 gone to the center of the earth.  Maybe something ate it or
>maybe it was transmuted through geological CF.  And that iridium ratio, =
1.2
>million, is an amazing number. =20
[snip]
Actually, the list above closely matches David Hudson's list of
elements that he claims frequently exist in the monatomic form, and
are not detected by normal assay procedures. If he is right, then this
may be an alternative explanation of the ratios. I.e. the elements are
here, and do exist, it's just that they weren't detected by the people
who drew up the statistics you used.


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 19:33:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA06440; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:12:17 -0400
Message-ID: <961006221215_203791962@emout13.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, 101544.702@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil,
        jseese@gpu.com
Subject: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZKT3y.0.Va1.zU6Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1430
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Russ Chapman of Galtek Corp told me to send him a resume, he may have
something for me.  His neodynium magnet moter is now putting out more power
than ever.  It's operating at 6 to 1 C.O.P. and running itself.  2 KW of
excess  electrical energy are being produced.  Russ has just obtained
$10,000,000 to begin a marketing program which will start in 90 days.
 Magizine editor Kelly Betty is carrying the story.  

Miley writes about my "Yusmar improvements".  He believes I have hit the nail
on the head and wants to talk with me after his return from Japan.  He has
sent me a copy of his paper.  

Yury needs letters from organizations requesting that the embassy allow him
to return to the US with a complete Yusmar system.  Please help. Send letters
to me at 
Frank Znidarsic 
481 Boyer st.
Johnstown Pa.  15906 

I will forward to Yury.  He Returns to Moldov on Sunday.  His Visa has run
out.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 20:33:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA07152; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 20:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 06 Oct 96 23:30:27 EDT
From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Message-ID: <961007033027_76570.2270_FHU50-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HbOPA2.0.fl1.lc7Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1431
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank,

This is fantastic news about Galtek. I have independent sources that add
substantially to the credibility of your report. Within a short time -- probably
only several days, I will be able to provide additional details based on this
other connection (can't say what this connection is right now).

The motor is a microprocessor-controlled brushless DC  motor/generator
configuration, with unusual magnet arrangement and magnetic bearings.

Furthermore, I too spoke to Galtek's Russ Chapman some time ago and he assured
me that they *did* have an over-unity motor, but  at that time I heard nothing
about 6/1 -- he told me it was "at least 50%" O/U. I had the feeling he was
understating it. But he did describe the motor as a "power source."

Unless the CEO of a semiconductor company  has flipped out and is dealing in
pure fantasy, I am inclined to beleive that they have what they say they have --
mainly because several other credible entities have produced concrete evieence
of O/U in magnetic motors.

It's going to be FUN!

I happen to know Kelly Beaty personally, so I will call him tomorrow. He's very
conservative, with a conventional physics background. If *he* says it is real
based on his *personal observation*, I will consider the matter essentially
proved.

Gene Mallove


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 21:48:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA28591; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 21:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 21:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961007124126.24f70018@po.pacific.net.sg>
X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mpower <mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:39:17 +0800
Resent-Message-ID: <"LcrOY2.0.Z-6.pc8Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1432
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

You folks talking about the Hooper effect mention a 'hairpin' coil.

What is it ? 

I would like to wind a coil to test this - I have some FeCu stuff
from last year's project and I think this might be good opportunity
to either use it or lose it....


Thanx
pa

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 22:38:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA12611; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610070533.WAA21643@iberia.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"2vj9w2.0.z43.MP9Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1433
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 10:12 PM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Russ Chapman of Galtek Corp told me to send him a resume, he may have
>something for me.  His neodynium magnet moter is now putting out more power
>than ever.  It's operating at 6 to 1 C.O.P. and running itself.  2 KW of
>excess  electrical energy are being produced.  Russ has just obtained
>$10,000,000 to begin a marketing program which will start in 90 days.

Great News!
When can I buy one? Any estimated price?
Thanks
Michael Randall
 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 23:16:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18639; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae7e508eb828@[204.17.242.82]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 22:18:08 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"GWAX62.0.4Z4.bz9Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1434
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

What an exciting time to be alive!  I have often thought I was born too
late, and occasionally too soon, but I thank God I'm living in this time.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct  6 23:28:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24178 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: jorgen@healey.com.au  Sun Oct  6 23:28:32 1996
Received: from sydney.healey.com.au (root@sydney.healey.com.au [203.10.124.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA24152 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dialup189-syd.healey.com.au (dialup189-syd.healey.com.au [203.10.124.189]) by sydney.healey.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id QAA25302 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:28:36 +1000
Message-ID: <325991A6.565E@healey.com.au>
Old-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 16:26:30 -0700
From: jorgen <jorgen@healey.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Horizon Technology -- GRAVITY BREAKTHROUGH
X-URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gravity.htm
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6AB4601644B3"
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------6AB4601644B3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hi,

re : http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gravity.htm

do you have any additiaonal information on expirements and results ?
i have had a good look on net and found every where saying the same 
thing, but nothing new...

thanks

jorgen

--------------6AB4601644B3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="gravity.htm"

<BASE HREF="http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gravity.htm">

<html>
<head>
<title>Horizon Technology -- GRAVITY BREAKTHROUGH</title>
<link rev="made" href="mailto:ghawk@eskimo.com">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">

<a href="http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/"><img src="images/htech0.gif"
width=140 height=87 align=left border=0></a><br clear=all><br><br><br>

Date: 01 Sep 96 11:26:42 EDT<br>
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com><br>
Subject: Tampere 'antigravity'<br>
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<p>
<HR>

<img src="images/gravity.gif" hspace=12 align=right>
<font size=5><b>BREAKTHROUGH AS SCIENTISTS BEAT GRAVITY.</b></font><br>
<I>by Robert Matthews and Ian Sample</I><p>

SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first anti-gravity device.  Measuring about 12in across, the device is said to reduce significantly the weight of anything suspended over it.<p>

The claim -- which has been rigorously examined by scientists, and is due
to appear in a physics journal next month -- could spark a technological
revolution.  By combatting gravity, the most ubiquitous force in the
universe, everything from transport to power generation could be
transformed.<p>

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Nasa, the American space agency, is
taking the claims seriously, and is funding research into how the
anti-gravity effect could be turned into a means of flight.<p>

The researchers at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland, who
discovered the effect, say it could form the heart of a new power source,
in which it is used to drive fluids past electricity-generating
turbines.<p>

Other uses seem limited only by the imagination: Lifts in buildings could
be replaced by devices built into the ground.  People wanting to go up
would simply activate the anti-gravity device -- making themselves
weightless -- and with a gentle push ascend to the floor they want.<br><br
clear=all>


Space-travel would bitcome routine, as all the expense and danger of
rocket technology is geared towards combatting the Earth's gravitation
pull.  By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then
conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against
electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise
power generation.<p>

According to Dr Eugene Podkletnov, who led the research, the discovery was
accidental.  It emerged during routine work on so-called
"superconductivity", the ability of some materials to lose their
electrical resistance at very low temperatures.  The team was carrying out
tests on a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic suspended in
the magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a
low-temperature vessel called a cryostat.<p>

"One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov
said.  "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was
going to the ceiling all the time.  It was amazing -- we couldn't explain
it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the
device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity -
an effect deemed impossible by most scientists.  "We thought it might be a
mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet
the bizarre effects persisted.  The team found that even the air pressure
vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable
directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory.  In recent
years, many so-called "anti-gravity"  devices have been put forward by
both amateur and professional scientists, and all have been scorned by the
establishment.  What makes this latest claim different is that it has
survived intense scrutiny by sceptical, independent experts, and has been
accepted for publication by the Journal of Physics-D: Applied Physics,
published by Britain's Institute of Physics.<p>

Even so, most scientists will not feel comfortable with the idea of
anti-gravity until other teams repeat the experiments.  Some scientists
suspect the anti-gravity effect is a long-sought side-effect of Einstein's
general theory of relativity, by which spinning objects can distort
gravity.  Until now it was thought the effect would be far too small to
measure in the laboratory.  However, Dr Ning Li, a senior research
scientist at the University of Alabama, said that the atoms inside
superconductors may magnify the effect enormously.  Her research is funded
by Nasa's Marshall Space Flight centre at Huntsville, Alabama, and Whitt
Brantley, the chief of Advanced Concepts Office there, said: "We're taking
a look at it, because if we don't, we'll never know." The Finnish team is
already expanding its programme, to see if it can amplify the anti-gravity
effect.  In its latest experiments, the team has measured a two per cent
drop in the weight of objects suspended over the device -and double that
if one device is suspended over another.  If the team can increase the
effect substantially, the commercial implications are enormous.<p>

<a href="http://www.strieber.com/news4.htm">Another article</a>, down the
page there.<p>

More info at the <a
href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~joi/issue4/ar192.html">Journal of
Ideas</a><p>

<center>
<img src="images/colorbar.gif" width=558 height=4><p>

<a href="http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/email.html">ghawk@eskimo.com<br>
<img border=0 src="images/mailbox.gif" width=29 height=34></a><p></center>

</body>
</html>


--------------6AB4601644B3--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 00:28:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04535; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 00:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 00:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 00:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610070722.AAA29337@iberia.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"aw4ji.0.n61.V_AMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1435
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:18 PM 10/6/96 -0800, you wrote:
>What an exciting time to be alive!  I have often thought I was born too
>late, and occasionally too soon, but I thank God I'm living in this time.
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
Good thought! 
I also believe life is a miracle of love and I try to treat each day and
moment as such.

Peace on Earth,
Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 00:44:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA06597; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 00:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 00:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 07 Oct 96 03:34:24 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Message-ID: <961007073424_100060.173_JHB37-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"G_Ch02.0._c1.HCBMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1436
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gary,

>> WHERE THE HELL ARE THE INVESTORS!!?? <<

Having been on both sides of that fence I think I can offer some explanation of
the apparent lack of enthusiasm from potential investors.

Most people with real money are constantly inundated with requests for every
kind of project - most of which are crazy.  This is additional to the flow of
straight begging requests. Those with really big $$$ have set up an office whose
only duty is to deal with this flood of requests.  Occasionally something
catches their interest, often this has not a little to do with PR or the
personal whim of the chief honcho, and they get the bucks.

I have the feeling that its the old story - its not what you know but who you
know that counts.  Alternatively get a good PR spin-doctor to create an image
attractive to potential givers so that the project might improve the image of
the $$$ guy.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 02:09:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA16208; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 01:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 01:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 07 Oct 96 04:55:12 EDT
From: Nene Goose <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Message-ID: <961007085512_76216.2421_HHB42-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"muJpt.0.Az3.NNCMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1437
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace wrote:

>>> "What an exciting time to be alive!"

Yes it is.

And I would sure love to see a real live Gizmo for once, instead of *just*
intriguing stories on my computer screen or on the pages of Infinite Energy. 

I'm very interested in any details on the reasons why we might believe "this is
the one".

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 04:23:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA03650; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 04:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae7e924c92d1@[204.17.242.69]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 03:15:41 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"TxqTo1.0.tu.HKEMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1438
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Horace wrote:

>I'm very interested in any details on the reasons why we might believe "this is
>the one".
>
>- Rick Monteverde

It is not any one thing.  It is the continual outpouring of developments on
almost a daily basis.  In my case alone, I have been at it less than 2
years but now have a list of 34 projects/ideas to pursue or in progress -
probably more than a lifetime's work.  However, it appears most everything
will be overrun, made moot, by developments.  Things are starting to happen
so fast it is becoming difficult to keep up with developments, and ICCF6 is
only about to start!

I hope the Galtek job or some equally fantastic opportunity in the energy
field works out for Frank Z.  There is nothing better than doing what you
love for your work.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 07:11:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA08785; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 07:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 07:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.022304070096281FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 07 Oct 1996 07:04:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/07/96 07:04:22 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"CmO4.0.B92._uGMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1439
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/06/96 20:32
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
I would like to add a bit of "reality base" to the O/U motor claims. I think
that it is hard to imagine pully energy out of the air...I have a gut
reaction about it! HOWEVER, let us for the moment say that Miley's
transformation results are real...THEN PERHAPS the "O/U" motors are
working by causing nuclear transformations in their internals, and
directly translating this into electrical power...That means that
EVENTUALLY they will "run out", but what the heck....If I get one for
$10,000 and it supplies 5KW continuous for 30 years, what do I care?
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 07:48:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA14421; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 07:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
In-Reply-To: <199610070533.WAA21643@iberia.it.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961007073259.20954C-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"-ZbxJ2.0.AX3.XJHMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1440
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, Michael Randall wrote:

> >Russ Chapman of Galtek Corp told me to send him a resume, he may have
> >something for me.  His neodynium magnet moter is now putting out more power
> >than ever.  It's operating at 6 to 1 C.O.P. and running itself.  2 KW of
> >excess  electrical energy are being produced.  Russ has just obtained
> >$10,000,000 to begin a marketing program which will start in 90 days.
> 
> Great News!
> When can I buy one? Any estimated price?

Yeah!  And who is "Galtek"?  Altavista only shows a trademark for teflon
labware under that name.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 08:42:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28000; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/0009A0E8@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:31:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KEvR93.0.Pr6.H9IMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1441
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


 ----------
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Date: Saturday, October 05, 1996 7:53AM

At 5:24 PM 10/4/96, Larry Wharton wrote:
> Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
>conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
>on in biological systems.
[snip]
>So then large
>numbers, larger than expected from the differential settling effect, should
>indicate good CF reactants.  The result in no particular order (except for
>some of the larger values first) is:
>
>Element         Ratio (meteor/earth)
>rhodium         21650
>ruthenium       11900
>iridium         1210000
>osmium          83700
>rhenium         2250
>platinum                20100
>palladium               7733
>silver          1.7
>gold            1654
>tungsten                8.2
>mercury         2.6
>cadmium         .73
>molybdenum      5.9
>indium          .285
>thallium                .005
>lead            4.3
>niobium         .015
>tantalum                .043
>tin             .94
>nickel          1025
>halfnium                .045
>aluminum                .122
>titanium                .13
>cobalt          350
>iron            28
>bismuth         10.6
>antomony                2.2
>copper          8
>zinc            1.1
>vanadium                .43
>chromium                36.5
>calcium         .30
>zirconium               .094
>uranium         .006
>
>The first seven elements on this list would be good candidates.  A
>noticeable standout is nickel with a relatively light weight and a ratio of
>1025.  Where did all the nickel go?  [snip]
>Lawrence E. Wharton

Very interresting analysis in light of recent developments.  Is there
some
significance to the fact the above table seems to be in 2 columns?

I take it elements below 1 would be the presumed transmutation products.
I
see halfnium is there at .045, but one the most striking is uranuium at
.006.  What to make of elements missing from the above list entirely,
like
thorium?  Does this imply they are 100 percent created from
transmutation?

The presence of uranium in this list seems to indicate transmutation
involving the fusion of two or more heavies.

Another hypothesis, not necessarily a complete alternative, is that
elements in meteors, in their history as small unshielded rocks in
space,
were continually transmuted by bombardment with mostly H and He from the
sun, but also heavies from the sun, electrons, xrays, and cosmic rays.
This would have the effect of reversing the significance of the ratios
above, at least to some extent.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 09:22:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA04983; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b04ae7ee242d5ea@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:00:05 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells- fwd
Resent-Message-ID: <"lV9KJ1.0.hD1.IZIMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1442
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Re John Kent's post, forwarded to Vortex-L by Michael Randall
[snip]
>>       "The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of
>>water is 65.3 Wh at 25 degrees C. When Hydrogen and oxygen are recombined
>>into water during combustion 79.3 Wh of energy is released. 14 Wh more
>>energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to
>>split water. The excess must be absorbed from the surrounding media in
>>the form of heat during electrolysis".

   I think these two energy numbers are just the free energy and the
enthalpy of the reaction, respectively.  They are two different, but
related, thermodynamic quantities.  Do any chemists out there care to
confirm?

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 09:34:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07944; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b05ae7ee7ac1b60@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:07:32 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Resent-Message-ID: <"bqr5a1.0.1y1.xhIMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1443
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Gary Hawkins wrote:

>Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on
>whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame
>is applied to metal.
>
>The answer is yes (although small).
>
>Yesterday, we applied the flame to nickel, titanium, tungsten,
>gold, and steel to obtain a few observations.
>
>The tube to the torch is clear plastic, so one lead from an
>analog ammeter was attached to the torch itself (brass),
>the other to the metal sample (the postive lead).
>
>During this, I forgot to touch the metal sample to the torch
>without the flame involved, in case it is a simple result from
>dissimilar metals.
>
>I would hope that the one who suggested this be tried post here
>what reason he had for suspecting there would be current.
>
>The current was electrons to the torch through the gas, from the metal.

   The direction of current flow is consistent with electrons emitted
thermionically by the hot metal sample.  Thermoelectric potentials
generated by the large temperature gradients are a classical phenomenon
able to drive small currents in this situation.  Flames usually contain a
small fraction of ions that renders them modestly conducting.

   I suggest you do a control experiment using the flame from normally
produced hydrogen and oxygen.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 09:53:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA11579; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b06ae7ee9988f2b@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:22:02 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"XceeX.0.nq2.YuIMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1444
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Re Jeff Fink's Correa PAGD experiment:

>... I must make time to do this wok in the morning when I can think
>instead of in a semi-comatose state at night.  It would also be much safer.

   Yes, your experiment could be lethal.

   At a minimum, use ground sticks religiously.  First discharge all
capacitors with a ground stick that has a hefty (physically large) resistor
(say between 10 and 100 Ohm) in series; the resistor limits the discharge
current, avoiding big sparks, bangs, and damage to equipment.  Go through
this proceedure at least twice, because discharging one capacitor in a
circuit containing multiple capacitors can transfer some charge to the
other capacitors.  Finally, discharge all capacitors using a ground stick
with no resistor--just a hefty wire to ground.  When you are sure that all
capacitors are discharged, short their terminals, or ground all terminals.
(Remember that capacitors can recover charge slowly even after being
discharged--a dielectric hysteresis effect).  Also be sure to short your
power supply terminals.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 10:35:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA20163; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 09:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAIwT-000GniC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:53:41 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-2g8S.0.vw4.ZNJMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1445
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Frank!  This sounds too good to be true - but I hope it IS!
Please keep us informed on your progress ---- GO FOR IT!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 11:35:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06583; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 10:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 10:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAJ3b-000GntC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:01:16 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VEmu1.0.mc1.gIKMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1446
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Michael J. Schaffer <Schaffer@gav.gat.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
> Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 1:07 PM
> 
> Gary Hawkins wrote:
> 
> >Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on
> >whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame
> >is applied to metal.
> >
> >The answer is yes (although small).
>    I suggest you do a control experiment using the flame from normally
> produced hydrogen and oxygen.
> 
> Michael J. Schaffer

Good idea Michael!  How about a control experiment using a plumber's
propane
torch?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 12:02:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA20719; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAKiF-00000xC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:47:35 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <v01530500ae7e924c92d1@[204.17.242.69]> from "Horace Heffner" at Oct 7, 96 03:15:41 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wdVU22.0.f35.m1LMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1448
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> >Horace wrote:
> >the reasons why we might believe "this is the one".
> >- Rick Monteverde
> 
> It is not any one thing.  It is the continual outpouring of developments on
> almost a daily basis.  

You've obviously never been to a liar's club. :-)

When talk is cheap, one can expect a good deal of inflation.

And remember, the most successful con men succeed because some people
really want to believe.  To protect your wallet, a little skepticism
is a healthy thing.

Which reminds me, I'm thinking of turning the Brooklyn Bridge into a
toll bridge and making a financial killing.  Here's your chance to 
buy shares early and get in on the ground floor.  It's a sure thing. :-)

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 12:22:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA19014; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 11:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961007184923.006fdb8c@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 11:49:23 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Tesla Coil glow
Resent-Message-ID: <"uwHRJ1.0._e4.yxKMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1447
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>   The direction of current flow is consistent with electrons emitted
>thermionically by the hot metal sample.  Thermoelectric potentials
>generated by the large temperature gradients are a classical phenomenon
>able to drive small currents in this situation.  Flames usually contain a
>small fraction of ions that renders them modestly conducting.

This reminds me of something.  Placing a candle on top of a relatively 
small Tesla Coil, with a wire set to direct the arc into the candle flame, 
there was a bluish glow above the flame.  Have to shield the light of 
the candle and arc to be able to see it.  Similar to the red glow seen 
on photograph above a different 10 foot Tesla Coil run normally with 
shutter open for quite awhile.

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 12:39:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA26079; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b07ae7f12d23e4d@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:07:17 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bsnf_2.0.GN6.rNLMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1449
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> Gary Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> >Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on
>> >whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame
>> >is applied to metal.
>> >
>> >The answer is yes (although small).
>>    I suggest you do a control experiment using the flame from normally
>> produced hydrogen and oxygen.
>>
>> Michael J. Schaffer
>
>Good idea Michael!  How about a control experiment using a plumber's
>propane
>torch?
>
>Frank Stenger

   Propane introduces at least three new variables: (1) chemistry other
than H2 + O2,  (2) different temperature,  (3) different flame resistivity.
Therefore, it's not a good control.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 12:46:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27868; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vALCE-000GnvC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: "Vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:18:16 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"FPfpH3.0.Lp6.SULMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1450
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In the spirit of the water-filled "clink tube", I offer another demo-type
project for
science groups.

With modern semiconductor technology, high voltage thermoelectric junctions
are
in wide use.  However, I offer a low-tech way to demonstrate thermoelectric
effects
that has high visual impact using the following equipment:

	1. A few 1-ft lengths of solid copper wire, say 14 gage and 22 gage.

	2. A common propane torch (A pencil-flame type is best.)

	3. A high-impedence multi-meter (A digital one is great!)

	4. A cutter for small wire and a small vice or locking pliers to clamp the
	    wires.

Clean up the ends of the 14 gage wire and clamp it near one end so that the
rest
sticks out over the edge of your work surface in a roughly horizontal
position.

Connect one multimeter lead to the "cool" end of the wire past the
heat-sink effect
of its clamp.  Clean the ends of the 22 gage wire, connect the second
multimeter
lead to one end, and weight or clamp the wire to the work surface edge near
the
22 gage wire.  The idea here is to lay the clean 22 gage wire end ACROSS
the
top of the 14 gage wire so they make about a 90 degree angle with each
other.
This forms a very small contact junction where the cylindrical wires touch.
Bend and form the small wire so its contact with the large wire is firm and
positive.

Set the meter for DC volts at range to show 1 volt well.

Crank up the torch and heat the crossing wires to bright red - but try not
to melt.
During the 5 or 10 second heating, separate the wires a bit so they will
oxidize
over their contact point.  I assume we are thus forming a COPPER-COPPER
OXIDE-
COPPER  thermoelectric junction when we let the wires contact again.

Now, with the oxidized wires again in contact, try to play the flame on the
22 gage
wire so it alone gets red AS NEAR TO THE CONTACT JUNCTION AS YOU CAN.
The idea here is to get one wire red hot where it touches the other,
relatively cool
wire.  You can also separate the wires and heat the large wire red hot -
then let
the thin wire contact it again.  The output voltage will take several
seconds to decay
to zero as a very visual display of the temperature-difference parameter.

This junction is very transient and goes through rapid "quality" changes,
so a lot of
tinkering is called for.  I tried this junction just a while ago and saw a 
maximum voltage of about 0.41 volts.  If you have a couple of groups
working on
this, they can connect the junctions to strip-chart recorders and have
contests to
see who can get the highest voltage from their junction.  Again, much fun
and
learning can go on!

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 13:25:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA09658; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
In-Reply-To: <v02140b05ae7ee7ac1b60@[198.133.146.230]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961007124950.29587A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"eak0P.0.mM2.d6MMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1451
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Michael J. Schaffer wrote:

> Gary Hawkins wrote:
> 
> >Some time ago, someone asked an experiment to be done, on
> >whether electrical flow is generated when a Brown's Gas flame
> >is applied to metal.
> 
>    The direction of current flow is consistent with electrons emitted
> thermionically by the hot metal sample.  Thermoelectric potentials
> generated by the large temperature gradients are a classical phenomenon
> able to drive small currents in this situation.  Flames usually contain a
> small fraction of ions that renders them modestly conducting.

Ionized, yes, so the flame may also be serving as an electrolyte, and the
contact potentials with the two typse of metal (steel plate and brass
welder nozzle) might be forming an electrochemical cell.  If the metals
were reversed (steel nozzle, brass plate) would the direction of current
be reversed?  Or, if both thermionic potentials and half-cell potentials
are important, does reversing the metals change (but not reverse) the
measured current?

My idea might not apply if the flame front does not make contact with the
brass nozzle.  Yet it must, or there would be no current path for ANY
effect, electrochemical OR thermionic. 

Regardless of the source, the current should increase considerably if the
nozzle had some sort of conductive extension which reaches out to make
better contact with the flame. 

Another experiment: if a microamp is generated, that should be enough to
drive a voltmeter, and so it would be interesting to connect a voltmeter
between the nozzle and the plate.  What voltage would be expected?  About
2v to 3v max for electrochemical reactions?  If the output was over 10v,
that would be very interesting. 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 13:35:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA12185; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:09:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
In-Reply-To: <m0vALCE-000GnvC@netra.interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961007160203.10432E-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"AL7-G2.0.F-2.UGMMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1452
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	From an OLD Pop' 'Tronics.

	take aluminum building wire, and iron baling wire.  make 22 
series junctions .... heat hot ends w/propane torch, cold ends in air ... 
make wire pairs at least 12 to 14 inches long ..... this will usually run 
small [older]  five transistor 9 volt AM radio.  We used to use # 14 wire.
	This was a standard Boy Scout ....radio project

	This is fun.

					J

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> In the spirit of the water-filled "clink tube", I offer another demo-type
> project for
> science groups.
> 
> With modern semiconductor technology, high voltage thermoelectric junctions
> are
> in wide use.  However, I offer a low-tech way to demonstrate thermoelectric
> effects
> that has high visual impact using the following equipment:
> 
> 	1. A few 1-ft lengths of solid copper wire, say 14 gage and 22 gage.
> 
> 	2. A common propane torch (A pencil-flame type is best.)
> 
> 	3. A high-impedence multi-meter (A digital one is great!)
> 
> 	4. A cutter for small wire and a small vice or locking pliers to clamp the
> 	    wires.
> 
> Clean up the ends of the 14 gage wire and clamp it near one end so that the
> rest
> sticks out over the edge of your work surface in a roughly horizontal
> position.
> 
> Connect one multimeter lead to the "cool" end of the wire past the
> heat-sink effect
> of its clamp.  Clean the ends of the 22 gage wire, connect the second
> multimeter
> lead to one end, and weight or clamp the wire to the work surface edge near
> the
> 22 gage wire.  The idea here is to lay the clean 22 gage wire end ACROSS
> the
> top of the 14 gage wire so they make about a 90 degree angle with each
> other.
> This forms a very small contact junction where the cylindrical wires touch.
> Bend and form the small wire so its contact with the large wire is firm and
> positive.
> 
> Set the meter for DC volts at range to show 1 volt well.
> 
> Crank up the torch and heat the crossing wires to bright red - but try not
> to melt.
> During the 5 or 10 second heating, separate the wires a bit so they will
> oxidize
> over their contact point.  I assume we are thus forming a COPPER-COPPER
> OXIDE-
> COPPER  thermoelectric junction when we let the wires contact again.
> 
> Now, with the oxidized wires again in contact, try to play the flame on the
> 22 gage
> wire so it alone gets red AS NEAR TO THE CONTACT JUNCTION AS YOU CAN.
> The idea here is to get one wire red hot where it touches the other,
> relatively cool
> wire.  You can also separate the wires and heat the large wire red hot -
> then let
> the thin wire contact it again.  The output voltage will take several
> seconds to decay
> to zero as a very visual display of the temperature-difference parameter.
> 
> This junction is very transient and goes through rapid "quality" changes,
> so a lot of
> tinkering is called for.  I tried this junction just a while ago and saw a 
> maximum voltage of about 0.41 volts.  If you have a couple of groups
> working on
> this, they can connect the junctions to strip-chart recorders and have
> contests to
> see who can get the highest voltage from their junction.  Again, much fun
> and
> learning can go on!
> 
> Frank Stenger
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 14:04:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18772; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAMS3-000Go2C@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Brown's Gas, electrical flow report
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:38:43 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"zcVtN.0.Cb4.bfMMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1453
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Michael J. Schaffer <Schaffer@gav.gat.com>
> >Good idea Michael!  How about a control experiment using a plumber's
> >propane
> >torch?
> >
> >Frank Stenger
> 
>    Propane introduces at least three new variables: (1) chemistry other
> than H2 + O2,  (2) different temperature,  (3) different flame
resistivity.
> Therefore, it's not a good control.
> 
> Michael J. Schaffer

Of course, you're right, Michael.  It's just that I tried this using a
propane torch and
a heated nickel strip, and it looked like I was getting just under 1
microamp from
this rather arbitrary combination.  If my rough test is valid ( it was very
crude!),
it just seems a bit ho-hum that other flames do the same thing.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 16:00:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA07441; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/0009AB7D@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>, Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 14:58:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AT2KV.0.7q1.KsNMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1454
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Mark, Vortexans
	What about the possibility that the energy is coming
from the reduction of the stored permanent magnetic energy.
in the pole pieces and armature? Has anyone run the numbers?
 I suspect that there is not anywhere enough energy in the
 permanant magnet to show o/u for any length of time, but I don't have
 access to the data here at work?
Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: MHUGO@EPRI
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 7:04AM

*** Reply to note of 10/06/96 20:32
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
I would like to add a bit of "reality base" to the O/U motor claims. I
think
that it is hard to imagine pully energy out of the air...I have a gut
reaction about it! HOWEVER, let us for the moment say that Miley's
transformation results are real...THEN PERHAPS the "O/U" motors are
working by causing nuclear transformations in their internals, and
directly translating this into electrical power...That means that
EVENTUALLY they will "run out", but what the heck....If I get one for
$10,000 and it supplies 5KW continuous for 30 years, what do I care?
 -
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 17:03:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA19770; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.172800130096281FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 07 Oct 1996 13:00:13 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/07/96 13:00:26 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"n6KP42.0.pq4.BiOMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1455
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
-
Well I got it! A copy of the Miley paper. I'm really not anxious to
A. Send out copies, or B. Even give precise details of Miley's address,
etc. until Thursday/Friday of this week. Then George Miley will have presented
his paper at both the Bockris conf. and ICCF6, and I will consider it
"public domain". Let's just say the level of the work is stunning. I'm
sure some people will want to go over it with a "fine tooth comb", but
it looks like most of the basis are covered. I think one of the more
stunning pieces of data are the two figures 3a Before and 3a After...SIMS
scans of the microspheres. There are 19 isotope peaks in the "before"
scan. There are 86 isotope peaks in the "after" SIMS. Now I know the "whine"
is that the SIMS is not distinguishing "hydrides". Frankly, I think that
is nonsense. But I leave it up to others to heuristically look at the
result and figure out why...! (A subtle challange there.)
-
Speaking of subtle challenges, as Chris from England notes, Miley essentially
throws out the gauntlet and says, "HEY, this is simple stuff to duplicate!
If you don't believe it, do it yourself..." (A little paraphrase there.)
-
I might add that the "experiment" is simple enough. However, not everyone
can get EDAX, SIMS, Neutron Activation Analysis and other analysis techiques
done on these experiments as readily as a person in George's position.
-
We'll see what happens when Oriani comes back from Japan. I do believe
we've got similar facilities at the U. of MN, and we might be able to
get a confirmation from Dr. Richard Oriani...
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 17:16:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA26220; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:26:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610072326.TAA26122@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink)
Subject: Re: PAGD
Resent-Message-ID: <"xXVuR2.0.ZP6.q8PMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1456
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks for the warning.  I do have permanent grounding resistors on both of
my 5600mf power supply capacitors wired through a normally closed relay.
When the power is shut off the relay puts a 5 watt 5k resistor across each
capacitor.  It takes nearly a minute to drop the voltage below 100v and the
resistors get very warm.  I keep a volt meter across these caps permanently
and I don't touch anything until it gets down to 50v.  I have been
cultivating the habit of working one handed.



    Yes, your experiment could be lethal.
>
>   At a minimum, use ground sticks religiously.  First discharge all
>capacitors with a ground stick that has a hefty (physically large) resistor
>(say between 10 and 100 Ohm) in series; the resistor limits the discharge
>current, avoiding big sparks, bangs, and damage to equipment.  Go through
>this proceedure at least twice, because discharging one capacitor in a
>circuit containing multiple capacitors can transfer some charge to the
>other capacitors.  Finally, discharge all capacitors using a ground stick
>with no resistor--just a hefty wire to ground.  When you are sure that all
>capacitors are discharged, short their terminals, or ground all terminals.
>(Remember that capacitors can recover charge slowly even after being
>discharged--a dielectric hysteresis effect).  Also be sure to short your
>power supply terminals.
>
>Michael J. Schaffer
>General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
>Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156
>
>
>
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 17:25:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA26975; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAP8R-000GoAC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:29:36 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2RlV12.0.Mb6.8CPMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1457
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Subject: Re: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
> Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 4:09 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 	From an OLD Pop' 'Tronics.
> 
> 	take aluminum building wire, and iron baling wire.  make 22 
> series junctions .... heat hot ends w/propane torch, cold ends in air ...

> make wire pairs at least 12 to 14 inches long ..... this will usually run

> small [older]  five transistor 9 volt AM radio.  We used to use # 14
wire.
> 	This was a standard Boy Scout ....radio project
> 
> 	This is fun.

OK, John.  I just made an Al-mild steel (welding rod) thermo-junction and
fired it up
with a propane torch.  The voltage maxed out at a bit over 0.004 volt. 
Does this
look right?  Estimate delta-T at about 600 deg F.  Just used a twisted +
hammered
junction.  Twenty-two of these in series would do only about 0.09 volts. 
The
single copper-copper oxide junction will do at least 0.400 volts -- about
100 times
more!  With 22 Cu-CuO junctions in series we could get 8.8 volts.  

Maybe Bill B. is right -- maybe the Cu-CuO junction is acting like an
electrochemical
cell with CuO acting as a solid electrolyte?  Anyone have input?

Solid-state once - now a body of jelly,    Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 17:46:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA04299; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 20:04:07 -0400
Message-ID: <961007200406_1345854857@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: magnets/plasmas/evanscence/fermi
Resent-Message-ID: <"RaEJS3.0.j21.xiPMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1458
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I believe the the "new fusion" zero point interactions are a result of the
breaking of symmetry at energy levels below the Fermi level.
..............................................................................
......................................
COLD FUSION 

In cold fusion, a dense plasma formed by a sea of disolved hydrogen atoms
causes sub-Fermi energy levels to evanscence.  The effect is the same one
that absorbes the radio waves transmitted by space capsules during reentry.
 The "electrode effect" differs from the "reentry blackout" in that that the
"cold fusion effect"  occurs at much shorter wavelengths.  The short
wavelength is a result of the very high density of the plasma within cold
fusion electrodes.  The only way to reach this level of plasma density is to
force hydrogen into a metal.  (>10 x 27 -e/mm)
..............................................................................
..................................

MAGNETIC MOTORS

A magnetic shock wave interupts the sub-Fermi energy levels in magnetic
overunity motors.  The effect is similar to the breaking of the
superconductive state at high flux densities.  The Fermi level can no longer
exclude flux lines once a certain magnetic density is reached.  The only way
to  reach this high level of flux density on an atomic level is with a
magnetic shock wave.
..............................................................................
...................................

Both of these effects allow non-paired electrons to drop to sub-Fermi energy
levels.  At this lowered energy state modified electron capture reactions
take place.
..............................................................................
.....................
Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 18:17:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA15096; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: Vortex-L <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/0009AB7D@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961007174519.26723B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"jIeyO2.0.mh3._QQMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1459
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:

> Mark, Vortexans
> 	What about the possibility that the energy is coming
> from the reduction of the stored permanent magnetic energy.
> in the pole pieces and armature? Has anyone run the numbers?

Here's a though-experiment for getting an intuitive feel for the amount of
energy involved: imagine slicing one of the magnets through the pole.
This converts it into two adjacent magnets with like poles repelling.  As
a result, one or both of the magnets will rorate until unlike poles are
adjacent.  This vastly reduces the net field outside the magnets, and if
the magnets were attached to pulleys and belts, the momentary rotation
could be used breifly as a power source.  With a strong NIB magnet, maybe
you could flash a flashlight bulb for a few seconds.

It is possible to cut the half-magnets in half again and again, but the
work extracted by the rotation is far less than that first big rotation.

This suggests that a small magnet, even if extremely strong, is a
flea-power energy storage device.  A tiny battery trounces it.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 19:15:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA29820; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 18:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 18:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
In-Reply-To: <m0vAP8R-000GoAC@netra.interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961007215147.24070B-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"3Ezsn.0.qH7.xIRMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1460
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	I will go dig out the old mag .... or go to library and do so.... 
might have been copper and iron .... but I though it was aluminum and iron.

	If I made you hammer a bunch of stuff, my bad.

	I do, however, clearly remember the photo with the article showing 
the propane torch and radio.



	FJS   'fallible John Schnurer

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote:

> 
> 
> ----------
> > From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Cc: Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Stenger's low-tech , high voltage, TEG
> > Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 4:09 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	From an OLD Pop' 'Tronics.
> > 
> > 	take aluminum building wire, and iron baling wire.  make 22 
> > series junctions .... heat hot ends w/propane torch, cold ends in air ...
> 
> > make wire pairs at least 12 to 14 inches long ..... this will usually run
> 
> > small [older]  five transistor 9 volt AM radio.  We used to use # 14
> wire.
> > 	This was a standard Boy Scout ....radio project
> > 
> > 	This is fun.
> 
> OK, John.  I just made an Al-mild steel (welding rod) thermo-junction and
> fired it up
> with a propane torch.  The voltage maxed out at a bit over 0.004 volt. 
> Does this
> look right?  Estimate delta-T at about 600 deg F.  Just used a twisted +
> hammered
> junction.  Twenty-two of these in series would do only about 0.09 volts. 
> The
> single copper-copper oxide junction will do at least 0.400 volts -- about
> 100 times
> more!  With 22 Cu-CuO junctions in series we could get 8.8 volts.  
> 
> Maybe Bill B. is right -- maybe the Cu-CuO junction is acting like an
> electrochemical
> cell with CuO acting as a solid electrolyte?  Anyone have input?
> 
> Solid-state once - now a body of jelly,    Frank Stenger
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 19:20:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA03661; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 07 Oct 96 22:06:35 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: E. Kennel's ICCF6 preview
Message-ID: <961008020635_72240.1256_EHB267-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"9MJ7P3.0.yu.QXRMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1462
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Elliot Kennel (kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp) sent me this "early read on ICCF6."
I don't suppose he would mind my sharing it with the readers of this forum.
I did not get a copy of the abstracts. I could have used them, it would be
good to get a headstart writing up the conference.

Kennel did not mention two things that I am looking forward to: McKubre's
report on his CETI cell, and the Tom Passell's report on E-Quest.

- Jed

-----------------------------

FWIW, based on the abstracts for ICCF-6, I've made notes on some papers
that appear especially interesting:

a.  Lonchampt et al.  The French Atomic Energy Commission has a program
to duplicate P&F, and claim up to 150% excess heat.  This is important
mainly due to the comparatively high degree of respectability of the
French Atomic Energy Commission, as the results themselves are not new.

b.  Dufour et al. report the ability to measure excess energy per atom
of hydrogen and deuterium.  They report 8 keV per hydrogen, 16 keV per
deuterium.  This is from the Laboratoire des Science Nucleaires
Conservatoire National des Arts et Metier, France, another
well-respected institution.

c.  Zhang Qingfu et al. (Institute of Atomic and Molecular Science,
Chengdu) report on x-ray diffraction analysis indicating that the
crystal structure of the Ti-D system changes from hexagonal to
face-centered cubic TiD2 when excess heat is observed.

d.  Oyama et al (Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology) report
that sulfur additives result in prolonged heat after death.

e.  Hagans et al (NRL) report impurity studies using SPS, GDMS and ICP,
correlating impurities and composition.  NRL being one of the most
prestigious research institutes in the world, their findings may be
important.

f.  Ochiai et al (Osaka U) observed anomalous high energy protons,
similar to Kasagi's results.

g.  Wang et al (Institute of Modern Physics, Lanzhou China) used 1-18
keV hydrogen bombardment on Pd and Ti, finding anomalous x-rays, and
neutrons of 8 x 10^4 n/sec; and also observed high energy protons.  Thus
there are three groups claiming high energy protons.

h. Itoh et al (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) report having done
experiments with excellent nuclear detection capability.  I have clashed
with this group previously on the validity of their results, so it will
be interesting to see what they present (the abstract alludes to new
data but does not specify what it is).

i.  Chen et al (Institute of Nuclear Physics, Beijing) report x-ray
emission during gas discharge loading; at about 26 keV.

j.  Savvatimova et al. (Luch) report transmutation and radioactive
isotope generation in Pd cathodes using glow discharge loading.  Pd-109
and 107 are claimed.  Since these isotopes persist and allow half-lives
to be measured, this may be significant.

k.  Zhang et al. (Institute of Applied Physics, Beijing) report x-ray
generation; however, the steps they may have taken to guard against
electromagnetic noise are not clear.

l.  Yamada et al (Iwate University) report occasional large neutron
bursts of up to 2700 counts in 5 seconds in  a gas loaded discharge
system.

m.  Miley et al. (U of Illinois) reports substantial transmutations
from thin film deuterium and hydrogen systems, in broad agreement with
observations of Mizuno et al.,  and Savvatimova et al and others.20

n.  Claytor et al. (Los Alamos) also have performed the Miley
experiment and suggest that they have positive results, but these are
not specified in the abstract.

o.  Kozima et al (Shizuoka University) also report transmutation
results similar to Miley.

p.  Mizuno et al. report very strong evidence of transmutation and
anomalous isotope production.

q.  Ohmori et al. report similar results in other electrode systems,
expanding the Mizuno effect (note:  because there are about ten groups
world wide now claiming to produce transmutations via electrolysis, I
think that this should be taken seriously).

r.  Notoya et al (Hokkaido University) report other isotope
transmutations.  However, in the past, Notoya has not been very
communicative on how she obtains her results.20

s.  Vysotskii et al. report on controlling the nuclear decay constants
of different radionuclides by restricting the modes of Mossbauer nuclei.
A very interesting paper.

t.  A second paper by Vysotskii et al. claims the production of
isotopically pure Fe-57, which does not exist in nature.

u.  Bertalot et al (EURATOM-ENEA) summarizes their activities.  They
continue to report positive results on excess heat and helium.

v.  Claytor et al. (Los Alamos), report excess tritium results from
glow discharge experiments.

w.  Yuki et al. (Tohoku University) report enhanced reaction rates from
low energy deuteron bombardment of metals.

[End of File]

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 19:21:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA01536; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: PAGD
In-Reply-To: <199610072326.TAA26122@ns1.ptd.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961007215525.24070C-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rYaaM.0.wN.vORMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1461
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Vo.

	Good warning.  I have two permanent 'blots', the distance EXACTLY 
the spacing of the terminals on a 10 uF 600 VAC motor start cap ..... had 
about 20 in parallel.   On my left hand.  Hurt some.  I was lucky.

	Don't let it happen to you!

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Jeff Fink wrote:

> Thanks for the warning.  I do have permanent grounding resistors on both of
> my 5600mf power supply capacitors wired through a normally closed relay.
> When the power is shut off the relay puts a 5 watt 5k resistor across each
> capacitor.  It takes nearly a minute to drop the voltage below 100v and the
> resistors get very warm.  I keep a volt meter across these caps permanently
> and I don't touch anything until it gets down to 50v.  I have been
> cultivating the habit of working one handed.
> 
> 
> 
>     Yes, your experiment could be lethal.
> >
> >   At a minimum, use ground sticks religiously.  First discharge all
> >capacitors with a ground stick that has a hefty (physically large) resistor
> >(say between 10 and 100 Ohm) in series; the resistor limits the discharge
> >current, avoiding big sparks, bangs, and damage to equipment.  Go through
> >this proceedure at least twice, because discharging one capacitor in a
> >circuit containing multiple capacitors can transfer some charge to the
> >other capacitors.  Finally, discharge all capacitors using a ground stick
> >with no resistor--just a hefty wire to ground.  When you are sure that all
> >capacitors are discharged, short their terminals, or ground all terminals.
> >(Remember that capacitors can recover charge slowly even after being
> >discharged--a dielectric hysteresis effect).  Also be sure to short your
> >power supply terminals.
> >
> >Michael J. Schaffer
> >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
> >Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156
> >
> >i
> >
> >
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 20:27:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA21359; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 20:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 20:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961008112106.24c7f43a@po.pacific.net.sg>
X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mpower <mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: PAGD
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:18:52 +0800
Resent-Message-ID: <"B1_i1.0.eD5.8XSMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1463
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 21:59 1996.10.07 -0400, John Schnurer wrote:
>
>
>	Vo.
>
>	Good warning.  I have two permanent 'blots', the distance EXACTLY 
>the spacing of the terminals on a 10 uF 600 VAC motor start cap ..... had 
>about 20 in parallel.   On my left hand.  Hurt some.  I was lucky.
>
>	Don't let it happen to you!
>

Curious: Was it a recent event ?  

If so: 1) did you check for locally transmuted elements/isotopes ?
             (metal may have been electro-deposited subcutaneously)
         2) if wearing any metal (jewelry/watches, etc), were there any
             electrolytic metal deposits at these locations ?
         2) any anamolous tissue growth ?
         3) were there any metabolism side-effects (hand/arm/mental changes) ?

What kind of monetary incentive could persuade you to re-enact this
  for the further benefit of medical science ?

thanx
pa

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 21:34:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA04665; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610080413.VAA19844@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 21:16:51 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"oWFy82.0.c81.bNTMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1464
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:58 PM 10/7/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark, Vortexans
>	What about the possibility that the energy is coming
>from the reduction of the stored permanent magnetic energy.
>in the pole pieces and armature? Has anyone run the numbers?
> I suspect that there is not anywhere enough energy in the
> permanant magnet to show o/u for any length of time, but I don't have
> access to the data here at work?
>Hank Scudder
> ----------


HANK:  Inevitably there will be some entropy in the magnets.  Muller
estimates about 5% per year.  I don't know how good his numbers are on this
score.  

>From: MHUGO@EPRI
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
>Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 7:04AM
>
>*** Reply to note of 10/06/96 20:32
>From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
>Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
>I would like to add a bit of "reality base" to the O/U motor claims. I
>think
>that it is hard to imagine pully energy out of the air...I have a gut
>reaction about it! HOWEVER, let us for the moment say that Miley's
>transformation results are real...THEN PERHAPS the "O/U" motors are
>working by causing nuclear transformations in their internals, and
>directly translating this into electrical power...That means that
>EVENTUALLY they will "run out", but what the heck....If I get one for
>$10,000 and it supplies 5KW continuous for 30 years, what do I care?
> -
>MDH
>
>

No transmutations in the material.  Takes more than magnetic flux.  Requires
some electrochemical transport as well.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 21:47:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA07687; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3259D98F.3ADE@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 21:33:19 -0700
From: Hank Scudder <hjscudde@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: hjscudde@pacbell.net
Organization: Rocketdyne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961007174519.26723B-100000@eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"p_Oh13.0.0u1.wZTMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1465
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

William Beaty wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:
> 
> > Mark, Vortexans
> >       What about the possibility that the energy is coming
> > from the reduction of the stored permanent magnetic energy.
> > in the pole pieces and armature? Has anyone run the numbers?
<snip> 
> 
> This suggests that a small magnet, even if extremely strong, is a
> flea-power energy storage device.  A tiny battery trounces it.
> 
> .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
> William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
> EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
> Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
Bill
	One of the methods which has been used to mechanically actuate low cost
artillery shells has been the impact destruction of a ceramic magnet
wrapped by a large number of turns of thin wire, which generates a
high enough voltage to detonate the explosive in the shell. Very
reliable, simple, cheap.

Hank Scudder 
-- 
1

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct  7 22:31:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA16343; Mon, 7 Oct 1996 22:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 22:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAUIY-0000nzC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells- fwd
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 00:01:42 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <v02140b04ae7ee242d5ea@[198.133.146.230]> from "Michael J. Schaffer" at Oct 7, 96 09:00:05 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1SzWX2.0.H_3.X3UMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1466
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> >>       "The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of
> >>water is 65.3 Wh at 25 degrees C. When Hydrogen and oxygen are recombined
> >>into water during combustion 79.3 Wh of energy is released. 14 Wh more
> >>energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to
> >>split water.

My charts say 79.3 Wh both ways.  But in reality, nobody splits a mole
of H2O with electrolysis with just 79.3 Wh, because the process is so
darn inefficient -- 25-50% at best. Most of the power is wasted heating
up the electrolyte due to resistive losses.


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 00:22:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA17427; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 00:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 00:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 02:18:48 -0500
Message-Id: <9610080718.AA16224@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
Resent-Message-ID: <"hWUCK1.0.DG4._1WMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1467
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Mark,

At 01:00 PM 10/7/96 PDT, you wrote:
>I do believe
>we've got similar facilities at the U. of MN, and we might be able to
>get a confirmation from Dr. Richard Oriani...

The labs at 3M in St. Paul have all the test equipment needed (several of
each, when I was there).


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 07:53:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16457; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 07:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 07:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.042938070096282FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 08 Oct 1996 07:38:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/08/96 07:38:28 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"Byufd2.0.-04.MVcMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1468
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/08/96 00:20
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
The 3M labs MIGHT well have the equipment. But will they have the will or
desire to use them for this purpose...Unless you have a very dynamic thinker
working there, who has the political power and position, I can assure you---
nothing will be done. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 09:41:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA13967; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b08ae803f41d450@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:29:43 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"JTXbh3.0.9Q3.t4eMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1469
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

>On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:
>>       What about the possibility that the energy is coming
>> from the reduction of the stored permanent magnetic energy.
>> in the pole pieces and armature? Has anyone run the numbers?
>
Beaty replied...
>Here's a though-experiment for getting an intuitive feel for the amount of
>energy involved: imagine slicing one of the magnets through the pole.
>This converts it into two adjacent magnets with like poles repelling....

   No, the adjacent poles are opposite and attracting.

   Answer to Scudder's question about energy ion a permanent magnet is---no
more than about 100 kjoule/m^3, or 0.1 j/cm^3.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 10:06:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17270; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:41:05 -0400
Message-ID: <961008124102_205080696@emout05.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Resent-Message-ID: <"hgK163.0.mD4.IHeMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1470
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank says:

" His neodynium magnet moter is now putting out more power
than ever.  It's operating at 6 to 1 C.O.P. and running itself.  2 KW of
excess  electrical energy are being produced."

How solid is this claim?  Are data sheets available?  Will he permit
independent testing, like at the EarthTech calorimeter lab?  If true, a
breakthru of cosmic proportions.

Hal Puthoff 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 10:54:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA00344; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <325A71C3.703@spots.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 08:22:43 -0700
From: Robert Polley <rpolley@spots.ab.ca>
Reply-To: rpolley@spots.ab.ca
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: It's been fun........
References: <961005011246_118932786@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xitJo2.0.H5.q3fMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1471
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Would anyone who has the URL to the Web site referred to below please
post it or send it to me personally.

Thanks,

Rob

JEChampion@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Due to time requirements within my new life, I must respectfully resign from
> the Vortex-l group.
> 
> Some people are interested in new science, while others attemt to prove that
> new science doesn't exist.  I fought in one of these wars, but my family now
> prevails on my physical abilities.
> 
> You see, they want 120 acres of prime mountain real estate near Phoenix.  To
> accomplish such requires the production of ~180kg of Au.  (we are talking
> about a serious mountain)
> 
> So with respect to all, I no longer fight in the war between who's right and
> who's wrong.  I just retired to the fact if you want Au you either have to
> buy it, mine it, or make it.........
> 
> I took the path of least resistance.........
> 
> I shall return
> 
> Joe Champion
> 
> discpub@netzone.com
> 
> BTW -- all information regarding transmutation on my WEB site will be history
> on the nineth of this month.  So if you want anything now is the time!

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 11:34:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA09241; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.240606110096282FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 08 Oct 1996 11:06:11 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/08/96 11:06:05 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"3V8kk2.0.FG2.gZfMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1472
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/08/96 09:04
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
I've run this by one of my company's chemists. Although he sees some interest,
he immediately complained about "near detection limit" numbers, and shifting
effects from the inside of the polystyrene beads to the outside. I guess I'd
like to see a clear cut analysis of the source beads for trace elements before
use...and I have to study the absolute numbers to see how significant they are.
-
Mind you, I think there is something here. I'm concerned about making the case
air tight. Another thought is: LARGER SAMPLE SIZES...! Like running a large
"pancake" cell as someone suggested (thinking the electrolysis is only going
on in a couple layers of beads.)
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 11:36:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA09317; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610081806.LAA08960@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 11:06:36 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells- fwd
Resent-Message-ID: <"osR0G.0.SH2.vZfMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1473
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:01 AM 10/8/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>       "The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of
>> >>water is 65.3 Wh at 25 degrees C. When Hydrogen and oxygen are recombined
>> >>into water during combustion 79.3 Wh of energy is released. 14 Wh more
>> >>energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to
>> >>split water.
>
>My charts say 79.3 Wh both ways.  But in reality, nobody splits a mole
>of H2O with electrolysis with just 79.3 Wh, because the process is so
>darn inefficient -- 25-50% at best. Most of the power is wasted heating
>up the electrolyte due to resistive losses.
>
>

sure nuf is very true - much wasted in heat, getting rid of same prevents
using cheap plastics for the process.

the idea of much more efficient electrolysis is what attracted me to Myer
for a brief moment - and anybody who can create a "cool" electrolysis
process is eventually going to make a little money with it.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 12:37:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA22651; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 08 Oct 96 15:06:53 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
Message-ID: <961008190653_100433.1541_BHG144-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"0XCHU.0.hX5.3SgMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1474
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 > >Here's a though-experiment for getting an intuitive feel for the
 > amount of >energy involved: imagine slicing one of the magnets
 > through the pole. >This converts it into two adjacent magnets with
 > like poles repelling....

 >  No, the adjacent poles are opposite and attracting.

But he said "through the pole", implying that the cutting was along the magnetic
axis.

Yes, the energy in any permanent magnet is tiny.  Actually, I have this idea
that it is negative - doesn't a magnet emit heat as it cools through its Curie
point?  Can't remember.  Isn't senility awful?

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 12:45:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA26243; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAhkD-000GoJC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Slicing magnets?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:22:55 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"YwN8Z.0.zP6.SegMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1475
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: Michael J. Schaffer <Schaffer@gav.gat.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Job at Galtek
> Date: Tuesday, October 08, 1996 1:29 PM
> 
: imagine slicing one of the magnets through the pole.
> >This converts it into two adjacent magnets with like poles repelling....
> 
>    No, the adjacent poles are opposite and attracting.
> 
>    Answer to Scudder's question about energy ion a permanent magnet
is---no
> more than about 100 kjoule/m^3, or 0.1 j/cm^3.
> 
> Michael J. Schaffer
>

Michael, I think Bill B. meant to slice the magnet LENGTHWISE - along (not
across)
the N-S axis.  Would you not then wind up with two adjacent bar magnets
with like
poles adjacent?

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 13:00:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA03015; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 12:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae806062d9ee@[128.183.89.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:49:44 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Joe Champion www page
Resent-Message-ID: <"p87yk2.0.-k.l1hMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1476
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The last chance to view Joe Champion's home page is approching.
It is at:

http://www.netzone.com/~discpub

It has some new information posted within the last few months.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 17:42:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01453; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610090001.RAA12292@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 17:03:57 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"SvmyQ1.0.aM.MqkMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1477
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:17 AM 10/5/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Larry,
>
> > Where did all the nickel go?  It seems too light to have all but
> > one part in 1000 gone to the center of the earth.  Maybe something
> > ate it or maybe it was transmuted through geological CF.  And that
> > iridium ratio, 1.2 million, is an amazing number.  I would believe
> > that number if there only was molecular diffusion in the Earth's
> > core but the eddy diffusion would totally overwhelm the molecular
> > diffusion.  The number should be closer to 10 than a million.  I
> > think that somehow the vast majority of the Earth's iridium was
> > transmuted.  Iridium is likely the most reactive CF element, but
> > of course it is very expensive.  Rhodium is up there too and last
> > I checked it was $5,000 a Troy Oz.  For a cheap reactant metal
> > nothing beats nickel, but I guess we already knew that.
>
>What a fascinating and delightful speculation!  Usually I dislike
>speculations, especially untestable ones, but that is great fun!
>
>Chris
>
>

I think you guys are really on to something here in this chain of posts.
This is great fun!
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 17:50:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA08260; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b0bae80a95cc21f@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:03:26 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Slicing magnets?
Resent-Message-ID: <"pwmN62.0.z02.hFlMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1479
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> imagine slicing one of the magnets through the pole.
>>This converts it into two adjacent magnets with like poles repelling...
>>
>>    No, the adjacent poles are opposite and attracting....
>>
>> Michael J. Schaffer
>
>Michael, I think Bill B. meant to slice the magnet LENGTHWISE - along
>(not across) the N-S axis.  Would you not then wind up with two
>adjacent bar magnets with like poles adjacent?
>
>Frank Stenger

Sorry, I didn't read carefully and gave an answer for slicing the magnet
crosswise BETWEEN the poles.  Chris Tinsley caught me on this one, too.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 20:30:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA17591; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.524106200096282FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 08 Oct 1996 20:06:20 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundance....
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/08/96 20:06:40 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"SV2AW1.0.nI4.OSnMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1480
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundance....
-
OK Vortexians----on of the big points about Miley's work is the (seemingly)
HUGE variations in natural isotope ratios which are observed with SIMS.
-
So some questions --
-
Does SIMS have any built in errors?
-
What are typical variations in nature. (CRC lists things to like 4 decimal
places at times)
-
Does SIMS have trouble with hydrides, or is that a non-sequitor?
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 21:03:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25897; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961009034446.0070dbb4@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 20:44:46 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic
  abundance....
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jlF3N2.0.VK6.jynMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1482
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


If CRC is cyclical redundancy check than what is SIMS ?

At 08:06 PM 10/8/96 PDT, you wrote:
>From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
>Subject: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundance....
>-
>OK Vortexians----on of the big points about Miley's work is the (seemingly)
>HUGE variations in natural isotope ratios which are observed with SIMS.
>-
>So some questions --
>-
>Does SIMS have any built in errors?
>-
>What are typical variations in nature. (CRC lists things to like 4 decimal
>places at times)
>-
>Does SIMS have trouble with hydrides, or is that a non-sequitor?
>-
>MDH
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 21:05:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26786; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:46:23 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundance....
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.524106200096282FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961009134136.8780A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"XeALo1.0.OY6.F1oMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1483
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 8 Oct 1996, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote:

> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Subject: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundance....
> -
> OK Vortexians----on of the big points about Miley's work is the (seemingly)
> HUGE variations in natural isotope ratios which are observed with SIMS.
> -
> So some questions --
> -
> Does SIMS have any built in errors?
> -
> What are typical variations in nature. (CRC lists things to like 4 decimal
> places at times)
> -
> Does SIMS have trouble with hydrides, or is that a non-sequitor?
> -

Sure. Palladium Hydride could easily be mistaken for Silver. Was there 
Palladium in the runs where Silver was detected? But why do play 20 
questions when all we need is the paper?

Once the paper becomes available we can all pick it apart.

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 21:12:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25600; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961009034258.006eb4a8@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 20:42:58 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Slicing magnets?
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"B16pA3.0.wF6.ZxnMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1481
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


According to Stefan Marinov if you slice a cylindrical magnet that way (so
it rotates by itself) and put it in a in a pool of mercury with a copper
ring around it will form a contraption called Siberian Soliu.  According to
him if you let current of several amperes pass through it the copper ring
will rotate violating conventional physics.  Putting a load on this rotating
copper ring does DECREASES the suplly current instead increasing it like in
conventional motors. Quite O/U if true.

I would appreciate if we could put Marinov's Siberian Coilu on trial here,
to test its validity.

P.S
  For detailed description of this contraption look in Nature,  March 28,
1996.  You can also find references to it at:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/MARINOV1.html



At 05:03 PM 10/8/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>> imagine slicing one of the magnets through the pole.
>>>This converts it into two adjacent magnets with like poles repelling...
>>>
>>>    No, the adjacent poles are opposite and attracting....
>>>
>>> Michael J. Schaffer
>>
>>Michael, I think Bill B. meant to slice the magnet LENGTHWISE - along
>>(not across) the N-S axis.  Would you not then wind up with two
>>adjacent bar magnets with like poles adjacent?
>>
>>Frank Stenger
>
>Sorry, I didn't read carefully and gave an answer for slicing the magnet
>crosswise BETWEEN the poles.  Chris Tinsley caught me on this one, too.
>
>Michael J. Schaffer
>General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
>Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 22:14:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA14085; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 22:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 22:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:10:19 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610090510.AAA17723@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic
  abundance....
Resent-Message-ID: <"-bCNC3.0.tR3.IFpMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1484
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:06 PM 10/8/96 PDT, Mark wrote:

>Does SIMS have any built in errors?

If Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry is anything like X-ray Fluorescence
Spectrometry, there will be host of potential errors that must be avoided by
skillful operation of the equipment, proper interpretation of the results,
and a constant vigil against drift, ghosts, artifacts, etc.

Remember the really strange isotopic ratios that Jed's Japanese group got on
the two Champion samples?  One of those samples was untreated ore and thus
should have had natural isotopic ratios but the reported ratios were VERY
far off for some of the elements.  

??????????





 - Scott Little
 EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759
 512-342-2185 (voice)  512-346-3017 (FAX)  little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct  8 23:40:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA28332; Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date:      Wed, 09 Oct 1996 08:26:04 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <325b4582.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: "vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Cc: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Subject:   Pick it apart?
Resent-Message-ID: <"LTiJG2.0.bw6.BXqMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1485
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vortex:
Martin Sevior wrote re. the Miley paper:

"Once the paper is available we can all pick it apart".

This expression is not exactly clear for me but I suppose that
it refers to the possible errors of interpretation of the SIMS 
results. "Pick it apart" can be both a process of very thorough 
analysis and  a process of destruction of something what is 
by definition erroneous. Both signify that the critic is more 
clever and knowledgeable in matters of mass spectroscopy than 
Miley's group.
I wouldn't participate and please let me to consider that 
not such analyses are the reason of existence of the Vortex
group. I would better focus on the interpretation of the results
and on finding an explanation of the LENR, I was informed today
that Francesco Celani's group in Italy has also obtained new
elements on the surface of his filamentous cathodes working
with pulsed, strong currents. Let's be serious, that's focused  
on the important problems.
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 00:28:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA03286; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:21:59 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Pick it apart?
In-Reply-To: <325b4582.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961009164933.10866A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"E-apd3.0.Gp.aArMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1486
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Peter Glueck wrote:

> To Vortex:
> Martin Sevior wrote re. the Miley paper:
> 
> "Once the paper is available we can all pick it apart".
> 
> This expression is not exactly clear for me but I suppose that
> it refers to the possible errors of interpretation of the SIMS 
> results. "Pick it apart" can be both a process of very thorough 
> analysis and  a process of destruction of something what is 
> by definition erroneous. Both signify that the critic is more 
> clever and knowledgeable in matters of mass spectroscopy than 
> Miley's group.
>

The expression is open to interpretation I agree. What I meant was to 
thoroughly and critically read it and to try identify possible sources of
error, inconsistancies, weak points, whatever. It is a vital part of the
Scientific process to critically review the liturature. This is clearly a
very very important paper. It deserves a thorough review.

Regarding the relative cleverness of the individual is immaterial. If there
are questions that need to be asked after reading a paper, they should be 
asked and hopefully answered, maybe by other group members - just as Mark
Hugo asked. I'm sure Miley and many other people know more about lots of
things than I do. The only way I'll cure my ignorance is to 
ask questions.

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 03:57:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21311; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date:      Wed, 09 Oct 1996 12:44:51 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <325b8227.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: "vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject:   Errors, not possible errors
Resent-Message-ID: <"gEbHQ1.0.vC5.EHuMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1487
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To Vortex: 
Martin has politely answered my message re. the process of picking 
Miley's paper apart. He urges us to "try to identify possible
sources of error". This is not a difficult process given that you
have imagination and the facts are not taken as obstacles for
getting new and new POSSIBLE errors. In my opinion we have to
identify the errors, as such, and this can be accomplished by  
consulting with the genuine mass spectroscopy specialists. If we
do not have access to such persons the best is to wait.
Obviously, I could also ask about the possible errors due to PdO
or NiO or ions  with 2e or 3e, but it is more reasonable to suppose
that Miley and the other ten groups which have found new elements
on the surface of the cathodes have avoided elementary blunders.
Searching for POSSIBLE errors can lead to such illogical and
antitechnical conclusions like denying completely the validity
of flow-through calorimetry.
i think that just by asking questions we (the Vortex group)
cannot contribute to the progress of this scientific field.
I have just read a lot of monstrous phantasies and hypotheses
re. cold fusion on the DejaNews. It is not difficult to make 
evil things in the name of good principles.
However, at least it is fine that it was accepted to ask
only after you read the original source, this being bad for
the creativity in questioning. Puts serious limits.  

Very interesting news are coming in the next days, let us
enjoy them!
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 03:59:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21542; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 03:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 03:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 03:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Damn!
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961009033520.14674A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"_qVae2.0.SG5.-JuMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1488
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


I'm doing industrial sensor design work full time, but it's less than
challenging, and I've been looking for something else for the past three
years.  I've limited my search to the Seattle area, but the main tie
keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)

So, is anyone interested in an EE with high creativity, unusual problem-
solving methods, visual thinker, experience in software, physics? 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 07:16:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA22966; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.141711070096283FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 09 Oct 1996 07:11:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundanc
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/09/96 07:11:16 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"QSSps1.0.jc5.sAxMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1489
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/08/96 21:03
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Use of SIMS and variations in natural isotopic abundanc
Martin: I agree about the Pd hydride being mistaken for silver, however,
we still have an important discovery then. As the cells are at the LEAST
scavinging Pd from something...As the orginal sputter layer in MILEY'S cells
is pure Ni.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 07:44:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29925; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vAzmi-000GoZC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Damn!
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 10:38:39 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MvvCU.0.VJ7.6axMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1490
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



----------
> From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Damn!
> Date: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 6:56 AM
> 
> 
> I'm doing industrial sensor design work full time, but it's less than
> challenging, and I've been looking for something else for the past three
> years.  I've limited my search to the Seattle area, but the main tie
> keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)
> 
This sounds like a serious loss, Bill!  I hope things work out OK.

Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 07:53:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00756; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Damn!  Double damn.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961009033520.14674A-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961009073736.22105C-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"hVkLQ.0.gB.rcxMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1491
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, William Beaty wrote:

> I've limited my search to the Seattle area, but the main tie
> keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)

Don't stay up stewing all night, then write emails at 5AM!  Sorry,
a good friend just died.


( Thanks Mark. 7040 22nd Ave NW,  Seattle, WA 98117 )

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 08:45:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10349; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610091519.IAA16202@germany.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Condolences
Resent-Message-ID: <"5eDAK.0.WX2.UCyMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1492
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 07:41 AM 10/9/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, William Beaty wrote:
>
>> I've limited my search to the Seattle area, but the main tie
>> keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)
>
>Don't stay up stewing all night, then write emails at 5AM!  Sorry,
>a good friend just died.
>
>
>( Thanks Mark. 7040 22nd Ave NW,  Seattle, WA 98117 )
>
Sorry to hear the sad news. We all love you William and give condolences to
you and loved ones.

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 09:41:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA23607; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610091543.IAA24865@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 08:43:27 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Damn!
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ev6VF3.0.km5.p0zMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1493
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 03:56 AM 10/9/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I'm doing industrial sensor design work full time, but it's less than
>challenging, and I've been looking for something else for the past three
>years.  I've limited my search to the Seattle area, but the main tie
>keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)
>
>So, is anyone interested in an EE with high creativity, unusual problem-
>solving methods, visual thinker, experience in software, physics? 
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
>
>
>

I am very sorry to hear of your loss.  May I be of some help in some way?
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 09:57:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26234; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed,  9 Oct 96 12:07:15    
From: dacha@shentel.net
Subject: RE: Damn! 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-ID: <Chameleon.844877763.dacha@dacha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lAtfQ1.0.fP6.IAzMo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1494
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

My thoughts go out to you. 

Don't do anything in  a hurry, let things settle a bit.

I feel you have made many friends here, and friends are 
really what much of life is all about.

Drop me a line about what you would like to do, and I will 
keep my eyes and ears open.

Robert 



-------------------------------------
Name: dacha
E-mail: dacha@visor.com
Date: 10/9/96
Time: 12:07:15 PM
No matter where you go, there you are.
http://www.visor.com/
-------------------------------------

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 11:58:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA29724; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 11:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 09 Oct 96 14:38:25 EDT
From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: The Galtek Motor is Real
Message-ID: <961009183825_76570.2270_FHU50-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"AwOIC3.0.MG7.g6_Mo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1496
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Vortexians:

Just before I fly off to Japan for ICCF6 and get IE#9 mailed out today and
tommorrow, I will leave you with this pleasant news -- "cosmic news," Hal
Puthoff would say.

Extensive information about the Galtek motor has come into my possession. I
should have even more soon. I have no doubt at all now that this motor/generator
is real. I have enough concrete evidence to convince me.  Seven doubting
electrical engineers who came to the company to make their own measurements are
now stockholders. It will not be neceasry, Hal, to test it elsewhere. Their
instruments are good enough, but bring yoru own. Just call up Russ Chapman and
ask for a site visit. Then take out your checkbook and invest!

Commercial products will be available within the next two years. They have been
working on this for 4-years. The people behind this motor are solid technical
people who know what they are doing. They have brought this to near perfection
and are moving rapidly forward. They will start by selling motors that will
extend the range of EV's to say 400 miles -- merely by replacing  existing
electric motors. Then they will follow up with a stand-alone system that will
power the vehicles indefinitely. They estimate that magnet performance will drop
off only about 1% per year. So, short of replacing the magnets, no energy  will
be added from any source to propel vehicles. There will be a battery for
starting purposes, but it will always remain charged. It will prabably wear out
before the magentic motor bearings do.

They will also develop their "carousel motor generator" to power homes. The
applications are unlimited. Call the source of energy what you will, but as for
me, I suggest the only possible explanation is "space energy" -- "ZPE" --
however that source acts in and among magnets to bring this miracle of nature
about.  They are using 45 MGOe magnets. The motor/generator will probably work
much better with the Takahashi magnets, which are way over 100 MGOe.

We will have a major story on the Galtek developments in IE#10, which I hope to
accelerate into production so you can have the full story by mid to late
December.

Best,

Gene 

Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
Editor-in-Chief and Publisher
INFINITE ENERGY Magazine
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816

	Phone:603-228-4516
	Fax:  603-224-5975
	76570.2270@compuserve.com

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 13:25:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA20122; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/0009D0F9@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" <FZNIDARSIC@aol.com>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: magnets/plasmas/evanscence/fermi
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:08:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"b0aTZ2.0.Kw4.CS0No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1497
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank
	Have you got any information about this Galtek company?
Phone number, e-mail address, homepage, etc?
Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; GeorgeHM@aol.com; zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: magnets/plasmas/evanscence/fermi
Date: Monday, October 07, 1996 5:04PM

I believe the the "new fusion" zero point interactions are a result of
the
breaking of symmetry at energy levels below the Fermi level.
........................................................................
......
......................................
COLD FUSION

In cold fusion, a dense plasma formed by a sea of disolved hydrogen
atoms
causes sub-Fermi energy levels to evanscence.  The effect is the same
one
that absorbes the radio waves transmitted by space capsules during
reentry.
 The "electrode effect" differs from the "reentry blackout" in that that
the
"cold fusion effect"  occurs at much shorter wavelengths.  The short
wavelength is a result of the very high density of the plasma within
cold
fusion electrodes.  The only way to reach this level of plasma density
is to
force hydrogen into a metal.  (>10 x 27 -e/mm)
........................................................................
......
..................................

MAGNETIC MOTORS

A magnetic shock wave interupts the sub-Fermi energy levels in magnetic
overunity motors.  The effect is similar to the breaking of the
superconductive state at high flux densities.  The Fermi level can no
longer
exclude flux lines once a certain magnetic density is reached.  The only
way
to  reach this high level of flux density on an atomic level is with a
magnetic shock wave.
........................................................................
......
...................................

Both of these effects allow non-paired electrons to drop to sub-Fermi
energy
levels.  At this lowered energy state modified electron capture
reactions
take place.
........................................................................
......
.....................
Frank Znidarsic

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 13:38:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA20656; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610092014.NAA18304@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 13:14:27 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Resent-Message-ID: <"ThmdW3.0.V25.7V0No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1498
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:38 PM 10/9/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Dear Vortexians:
>
>Just before I fly off to Japan for ICCF6 and get IE#9 mailed out today and
>tommorrow, I will leave you with this pleasant news -- "cosmic news," Hal
>Puthoff would say.
>
>Extensive information about the Galtek motor has come into my possession. I
>should have even more soon. I have no doubt at all now that this
motor/generator
>is real. I have enough concrete evidence to convince me.  Seven doubting
>electrical engineers who came to the company to make their own measurements are

>We will have a major story on the Galtek developments in IE#10, which I hope to
>accelerate into production so you can have the full story by mid to late
>December.
>
>Best,
>
>Gene 
>
>Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.


Gene, is there any possibility that you can spend a couple of days on the
U.S. West Coast on your way back from Japan - to take a look at the Muller
Dynamo.  It also works, damn well.

____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 13:39:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21492; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <325C088F.167EB0E7@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 13:18:23 -0700
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Mathematics
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
References: <961009183825_76570.2270_FHU50-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vQbDV.0.kF5.UY0No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1499
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Eugene Mallove wrote:
> 

> Extensive information about the Galtek motor has come into my possession. I
> should have even more soon. I have no doubt at all now that this motor/generator
> is real. I have enough concrete evidence to convince me.  Seven doubting
> electrical engineers who came to the company to make their own measurements are
> now stockholders. 

Well, one might take a lesson from history, though. Over-unity
motors are a relatively old phenomena in the free energy biz, 
and there have been prior examples where various EE's have 
testified to the reality of the effect---e.g., Joe Newman
always had a stable of engineer backers.

But, the bottom line is no functioning product has ever come
from this, which I take to be a strong sign that it simply
doesn't work. So what if seven EE's signed on. Maybe these same
seven also believe in dowsing to find water, etc...

I'm temped to take some bets on whether this comapny ever 
produces a product within the next 2 years, but I'll let it
slide. The track history of CF in this regard is sufficient to 
demonstrate that point.




-- 
Barry Merriman
Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program
Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math
Internet email: barry@math.ucla.edu   
web homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 15:51:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14937; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: siberian soliu Slicing magnets? Sib
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961009174628.14307A-100000@college>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961009175232.14307C-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"qEfW_.0.Hf3.A72No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1500
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	This seems very interesting. Some of the description is un clear, 
can we put it clear by asking S. Marinov?


> From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
> 
> 
> According to Stefan Marinov if you slice a cylindrical magnet that way (so
> it rotates by itself)
	
	What is rotating by itself?  And if something is rotating by it 
self why do you need any of the rest?



 and put it in a in a pool of mercury with a copper
> ring

	Is the copper ring immersed in mercury?

 around it will form a contraption called Siberian Soliu.  According to
> him if you let current of several amperes pass through it

	Which-what it?  Several amperse through the mercury?  The 
copper?  The magnet?


 the copper ring
> will rotate violating conventional physics.

	How is it rotating?  End for end?  As a hoop or bicycle wheel would?

  Putting a load on this rotating
> copper ring does DECREASES the suplly current instead increasing it like in
> conventional motors. Quite O/U if true.

	Load of ring decreases how?  What?



> 
> I would appreciate if we could put Marinov's Siberian Coilu on trial here,
> to test its validity.
> 
> P.S
>   For detailed description of this contraption look in Nature,  March 28,
> 1996.  You can also find references to it at:
> http://www.padrak.com/ine/MARINOV1.html
> 
> 
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 16:11:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA18436; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:20:17 -0400
Message-ID: <961009182016_1212004536@emout16.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, reed@indirect.com
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Resent-Message-ID: <"zRFqR1.0.wV4.QO2No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1503
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jeff Jolett of the Az dept of energy sent the police down to Galteck and
accused Russ Chapmann of fraud.  Russ didn't like the whole affiar.  Jeff is
friends with one of our members Reed Huish.  Reed you have been quiet lately.
 What is up?  Russ Chapmann of Galtek expressed an interest in calling you.
 Did he call?  What happened?  What is the latest from Jeff Jolette?


Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 16:11:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17451; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:00:05 -0400
Message-ID: <961009180003_1580340550@emout12.mail.aol.com>
To: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: DD&AJH(Surface Tention Capillary tube?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"8eQMr.0.TG4.gI2No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1502
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


David I don't know why you got the results you did.  Does anyone else know?

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 18:49:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03868; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 20:05:02 -0500
Message-Id: <9610100105.AA29911@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Resent-Message-ID: <"Vec_Q3.0.Hy.m25No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1506
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Gene,

At 02:38 PM 10/9/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Then they will follow up with a stand-alone system that will
>power the vehicles indefinitely. They estimate that magnet performance will
drop
>off only about 1% per year. So, short of replacing the magnets, no energy  will
>be added from any source to propel vehicles.

Hmm.  I wonder what Takahashi's magnets in the Galtek motors would do.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 19:11:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03286; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 20:05:00 -0500
Message-Id: <9610100105.AA29907@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: Damn!
Resent-Message-ID: <"QLAD5.0.Gp.E05No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1505
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 03:56 AM 10/9/96 -0700, you wrote:
>the main tie
>keeping me here just evaporated.  Car accident.  (Not family)

I hope it wasn't someone emotionally close to you.  

OTOH, I sure would like to see you (and other creative or productive 
people) move east of the Rockies for whatever reason.

Short of hiring you, is there anything we can do to help?


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 20:13:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA17881; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.515723160096283FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 09 Oct 1996 16:23:16 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/09/96 16:23:56 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"UQY7Y2.0.FN4.Fy5No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1507
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/09/96 16:00
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
This is actually a very positive development. Frank, please don't put any
emotional involvement in Russ Chapmann, at least for the moment. The claims
that have been made, frankly, despite being "wild" are "put up or shut up".
At this point, considering that $$$ have been solicited on the basis of these
claims, one CAN make a case for fraud. So far, except for your own solicitation
on behalf of Potapov (which has been done under the cover of "development", whi
ch is legitimate as far as I know), and the Correa's solicitations, done under
the claim of development, this is the first solicitation for PRODUCTION. I
think there is a subtle, but IMPORTANT difference here. Whether or not one beli
eves the results to be true, ANYONE can solicit money for "development". I had
an associate, a fellow church choir member, and engineer with a bio-med back
ground who worked for 2 years on a microwave sterilization device. It was a
product development. Some local Doctors put roughly $500,000 into the developme
nt work. It never got off the ground! After 2 years, my associate was given a
$5000 check, a thanks for the good work and he was off finding another project.
The Doctors who put in the 1/2 million never got anything back. But there were
no lawsuits, no recriminations, nothing negative about this. It happens! (In
this case, strangely enough, there have been some developments and the last
I heard there ARE microwave sterilization devices now available.) BUT, had
this group worked on "half baked" data (excuse the bad pun in this case!) and
solicited money saying, "We HAVE a dynamite product here, we'll have it on the
market in the next year, and here is the estimated market share...." And THEN
it turned out not to WORK, and things folded, I think there WOULD have been
lawsuits. So it's all in the matter of presentation. If Russ C. is NOT aware
of the difference, and if he is soliciting for a REAL product, and if he
CAN'T deliver, then there should be a jail cell awaiting somewhere, or at least
the ability of the "state" (as odious as that may seem to the Libertarians out
there) to "collect" for damages through both the criminal law and tort processe
s. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 21:00:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09421; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 20:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vBCAl-000054C@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 22:52:35 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.515723160096283FEPRI@EPRI.COM> from "MHUGO@EPRI" at Oct 9, 96 04:23:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"GQy781.0.-I2.NC7No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1508
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo wrote:
> of the difference, and if he is soliciting for a REAL product, and if he
> CAN'T deliver, then there should be a jail cell awaiting somewhere, or at
> least the ability of the "state" (as odious as that may seem to the
> Libertarians out there) to "collect" for damages through both the
> criminal law and tort processe

Don't want to wax political on this forum, but Libertarians *do* allow for
the prosecution of fraud.  As Frankenstein might say, "Aggression, bad.
Fraud, bad."


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 21:28:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA15914; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 21:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 21:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 21:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Damn! Double damn.
In-Reply-To: <961009180326_1446754393@emout05.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961009211705.6557G-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"l6W_d2.0.au3.ha7No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1510
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:

> Bill We cannot afford to loose you and the valuable Vortex network that you
> have set up.  What can we do?
> 

No problem, vortex-L is a permanent feature, it can be operated from
anywhere in the world with no changes.  If I end up moving in the future,
I might eventually move vortex-L off eskimo, especially if I find a
low-price, faster ISP.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct  9 22:45:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA02858; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 22:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 22:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 22:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610100535.WAA24020@spain.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Dan Davidson Paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cq6as.0.Ui.3j8No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1511
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Has anyone seen or read Dan Davidson's new paper titled "On the Production
of Aether Stress Waves using Sound Vibration / Sonic Stimulation of the
Aether"? A fellow researcher in England said it was on the Keelynet. I
checked at Jerry Deckers BBS and it wasn't on file there.

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 00:55:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11025; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date:      Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:42:21 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <325ca8e3.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: "vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Cc: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Subject:   HENR vs LENR paradigm.
Resent-Message-ID: <"z7XgJ1.0.Bi2.CkANo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1513
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

             Dear Vortex Fellows,

Actually I am able to feel a lot of empathy toward Martin's problem. The 
existing high energy nuclear reactions paradigm is not compatible with the 
new phenomena and we do not have yet an alternative, a LENR paradigm.
On Sept 25, 1996 Martin wrote (quoting from memory):
-The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell:
a) The reaction rate is much too fast, with many orders of magnitude;
b) There is no ionizing radiation;
c) No radioactive nuclei appear (Note: anyway stable isotopes are dominant
in almost all experiments-- exceptions Savvatimova et al, Wolf.) 
The situation really seems impossible and Martin, as well as other 
inquiring minds are perfectly justified to get a solution; ERROR is
the most easiest and handy. However experimental data are accumulating
and both branches of the dilemma are now equally impossible- in the 
frame of the HENR paradigm.
Because I am working in an institute specialized in isotopes, I am very
motivated to find a solution.
Because my other speciality is management of technology and I am very
familiar with the problems of creativity I will try an inter (trans)-
disciplinar approach to the problem.
.................................................................
(For those interested in a holistic view of the field perhaps the 
following paper will be of great use:
"Isotopicity, Implications and Applications"
by Alexander A. Berezin
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 1992, vol 17,no 1 pp 74-80
BTW, if somebody knows Prof. Berezin <berezin@mcmaster.ca> or 
<berezin@mcmail.cisMcMasterCA>, an authority and expert in isotopes
it would interesting to ask his opinion. In 1989 Berezin has published
a paper (abstract?) re CF but later has not been active, as far as I
am informed. )
...................................................................

A Change of Paradigm is Necessary.
You get good advises for such an action in the book:
"PARADIGMS-the business of discovering the future" by Joel Arthur 
Barker. For managers, in order to get positive change, you have to
pick out which obviously unchangeable step could improve your business.
When it is identified you have to change it; it was only seemingly 
impossible. If we try to find such a fixation in Martin's list
we get the word-- REACTION. As long as HENR, hot fusion, hot fission
reactions take place, the nuclei are indestructible and the results
obtained HAVE to be erroneous.
We have to find an other class of nuclear reactions.  
In the limits of linear logic, the solution offered by me is unique.

Using metaphors.
The use of metaphors for creativity is well known, at least in theory.
..................................................................
One of my favorite works illustrating this method is  Hannu
Vanharanta's Dr. Thesis "Hyperknowledge and Continuous Strategy
in Executive Support Systems", Abo Univ, Finland 1995. The functions 
of the metaphors are cleverly applied in order to start the process 
of transformation on the line: metaphor-analogy-model-theory.
Metaphors can perform four separate but related functions:
- they are expressive, throwing new light on the target domain;
- they are exegetic, trying to describe and interpret complexity;
- they are explanatory, explaining and predicting;
- they are exploratory, suggesting research directions and activities.
........................................................................
Actually, we (vortexan cold fusionists) have a wonderful metaphor
here, it is Tinsley's idea that:

Cold Fusion is for Hot Fusion what Biochemistry is for Chemistry.

(Chris, please give a more elegant formulation, thanks!)
If we consider only essential processes as photosynthesis and 
nitrogen fixation, which are not reproducible  with "human"
technologies, we see that these processes are incredibly complex.
I am systematically reading all the papers on these and related 
subjects in Chemical Engineering News, Physical Chemistry, Nature,
Science, New Scientist as an exercise of complexity and humility. 
Our knowledge is very primitive, we are just crawling out from
the Middle Age.
Anyway, the Tinsley Metaphor suggests that we have to pay a
high price, that of complexity, for attaining low energy nuclear 
reactions. The message of the metaphor is: do not try to find
simple explanations/models/theories. And: the solution is far
from what you know now!

The House Metaphor.
We know from the HENR paradigm that the nuclei of the stable
isotopes are solid, strong edifices and we need high energies
to break them. You need great heavy rocks, bombs, or steel balls
to destroy a house ( have seen a lot in the Ceausescu era when
family houses have been systematically demolished and people 
forced to go in great concrete block buildings where control by 
the secret police was easier). Now, little pebbles are not  
efficient they would not make much damage, metaphorically
thinking the HENR people are right, THOSE reactions will not
work. I think the OTHER reactions are analogous to something
eating out the mortar between the bricks, a much slower 
destructive process..  a real one. I had to solve one case in 
the frame of my consulting practice, when a dreadful sort of 
mildew (Merulius Lacrymans) coming from infested wood used 
for the new parquet began to penetrate  the walls; I had to
use a complex mixture of fungicides to kill the beast.
For the nuclei, the metaphor suggests a NEUTRON EXTRACTION
process. Some entities are "attacking" the nuclei and capturing
the neutrons. It is well known that the number of neutrons
per number of protons ratio is steadily increasing as the
atomic number is increasing; the nuclei will be thus
destabilized and fragmented. What entities can do such a job?
I think the best candidates are energy deficient protons and
deuterons, strongly associated with their electrons. "Hungry"
p's and d's! Honi soit qui mal y pense! 
The most remote (far from the present paradigm) is the Neal
Gleeson process, by a special type of electrolysis, thorium is
fissioned in mercury and neon, tungsten can be fissioned 
symmetrically in two atoms of rubidium or unsymmetrically in
cadmium and iron, in these cases 12-15 neutrons remain in excess 
and have to be "consumed".
In other cases, probably the cluster structure of the nuclei
add a degree of complexity. The fragments thus obtained are all
stable as such or after recombination; the daughter nuclei 
are both smaller and greater than the mother nuclei. Perhaps
these are multi-body reactions with a complex mechanism,
working step-wise and much slower than the HENR processes. 
The active hydrogen isotopes are coming from or interacting
with the energetical vacuum, they work in packs and create
an energy deficient environment in which only stable nuclei
are created. Using Mitch Swartz's terminology, it has yet to
be established how are de novo nucleosynthesis and excess
enthalpy correlated; I think there is no causal relationship
between them.
As I have shown in all my papers, these processes are local
and catalytic.
I am convinced that my "House Metaphor" is a part of the 
truth. After getting the complete data from LENR2 and ICCF-6
I will try to work out a theory.
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 01:15:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14439; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 10 Oct 96 04:10:10 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: John Schnurer's experiment
Message-ID: <961010081009_76216.2421_HHB38-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HgR_C.0.RX3.P_ANo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1514
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John -

Is it still too early for an update on your progress in attempting to duplicate
the effect seen with superconductors as reported by Podkletnov? I'm sure many
of us on this list would love to hear how that's going.

Reports from the Business Week area on AOL (?) are that you got a preliminary
indication that it's real. Any details you could release would be most welcome.
If you aren't yet able to release any apparatus details, could you tell us
anything new about the nature of the effect itself? 

One of the big questions is if it's really a shield or more of a field
generator. I thought that perhaps simply tilting the apparatus a little bit
when it's working would help distinguish which it is. And, if the beam tilts
when the SC is tilted, then obviously it can be focused with multiple units,
right?! Have you tried tilting the apparatus? 

How about the fringe or border areas, do they repel objects entering the zone?

Or have you tried using smoke, or a pan of water to observe the effect?
Supposedly water would have a slight bulge on its surface over a region of
lesser gravitation, and reflections of a screen or grid lines like graph paper
might help make such an effect more visible. 

I hope you're at a point where you can tell us something about this.

Thanks,

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 01:33:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA17042; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961010083442.0071337c@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:34:42 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: THE PERPETUUM MOBILE SIBERIAN COLIU
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"BmlY3.0.CA4._HBNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1515
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Ok, since I was quoting from memory previously here is the description from
the referenced URL.
The Siberian Coilu seems to be the inspiration for Self accelerating plasma
tube on Bill Beaty's NYACP. (WWW page)


excerpt from http://www.padrak.com/ine/MARINOV1.html


THE PERPETUUM MOBILE SIBERIAN COLIU.

...Swhit is produced by the first term in (2) and for a complete circuit is
null. For this reason Swhit can be observed only at interrupted circuits
(see item 9). However Smar can be different from zero also for a complete
circuit. Why then has nobody observed it? Because all people have worked
with cylindrical or quasi-cylindrical magnets for which Smar = 0. Who has
cut a cylindrical magnet in two pieces rotating the one half up-down? -
NOBODY! The first man who has done this is called Gennadi Nicolaev and lives
in Tomsk in Siberia. For this reason I called this magnet the SIBERIAN COLIU
magnet and the perpetuum mobile which I constructed with it the SIBERIAN
COLIU machine. The machine shown in the photograph is a SIBERIAN COLIU
machine. It will work as a perpetuum mobile if the "driving" torque produced
by the current induced in the ring when it will be set in rotation with a
certain velocity will be larger than the friction torque. I constructed the
machine in the photograph in 1993 and the last three years I did "nothing
else" than to try to increase its driving torque and decrease its friction
torque, noting that all B-currents induced in the rotor generated additional
friction torque. The driving torque was produced only by the S (i.e., Smar)
currents. Smar is very strong near the cutting plane, from the one side
positive, from the other negative. The "dozens" of my SIBERIAN COLIU
machines are presented with photographs in DEUTSCHE PHYSIK (Austria)...

..."A cylindrical magnet is cut along one of its axial planes and the one
half is turned up-down (the magnetic forces themselves do the rotation).
Around this magnet, there is a trough filled with mercury in which the
copper ring which can be seen at right swims (the children take salt
solution and suspend the ring on threads). After sending a current of some
tens of amperes from the battery at left, which is regulated by the
rheostat, the ring begins to rotate. That's all!"

Circuit:

  Cylinder magnet in center             Copper ring rotates clockwise
                           \    __---__/
                              _/ __ __ \_
                             /  /  |  \  \
               ---->---->---|  | N | S |  |--->---->----
               |             \_ \__|__/ _/             |
               |               \__   __/               |
               |                  ---                  |
               |                                       |
               |                  |   |                |
               ----<----<-------| | | |-------<----<----
                                  |   |
                                 Battery

According to his theories, you can do the reverse. Rotate the copper ring
clockwise and it will generate power in the same direction of current flow.
Yes I said the same direction. Marinov has demonstrated and proved this in
his devices. What this means, and as he explains, is that working as a motor
or a generator, there is no opposing torque to the direction of rotation and
hence the device becomes "Self Accellerating" and as long as you draw power
from it, it will power itself.

There is one barrier when constructing this as a mechanical device and that
is friction. Due to the low torques generated, friction halts the self
accellerating process but its seems that Marinov has overcome this and
implies that he has a SIBERIAN COLIU working as a PERPETUUM MOBILE and will
soon present this at a press conference...


At 05:59 PM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>	Dear Vo.,
>
>	This seems very interesting. Some of the description is un clear, 
>can we put it clear by asking S. Marinov?
>
>
>> From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
>> 
>> 
>> According to Stefan Marinov if you slice a cylindrical magnet that way (so
>> it rotates by itself)
>	
>	What is rotating by itself?  And if something is rotating by it 
>self why do you need any of the rest?
>
>
>
> and put it in a in a pool of mercury with a copper
>> ring
>
>	Is the copper ring immersed in mercury?
>
> around it will form a contraption called Siberian Soliu.  According to
>> him if you let current of several amperes pass through it
>
>	Which-what it?  Several amperse through the mercury?  The 
>copper?  The magnet?
>
>
> the copper ring
>> will rotate violating conventional physics.
>
>	How is it rotating?  End for end?  As a hoop or bicycle wheel would?
>
>  Putting a load on this rotating
>> copper ring does DECREASES the suplly current instead increasing it like in
>> conventional motors. Quite O/U if true.
>
>	Load of ring decreases how?  What?
>
>
>
>> 
>> I would appreciate if we could put Marinov's Siberian Coilu on trial here,
>> to test its validity.
>> 
>> P.S
>>   For detailed description of this contraption look in Nature,  March 28,
>> 1996.  You can also find references to it at:
>> http://www.padrak.com/ine/MARINOV1.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 01:37:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA15289; Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:49:38 -0500
Message-Id: <9610100049.AA29627@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, and can you hold your horses?
Resent-Message-ID: <"t3klr1.0.kk3.aY4No"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1504
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Mark,

At 07:38 AM 10/8/96 PDT, you wrote:
>The 3M labs MIGHT well have the equipment. But will they have the will or
>desire to use them for this purpose...Unless you have a very dynamic thinker
>working there, who has the political power and position, I can assure you---
>nothing will be done. MDH

I saw some analysis of rather unorthodox materials while I was there.<grin>
Unofficially, there's a good chance of getting some kinds of analysis done
(depends on the work load and mood of the people involved).  Officially,
there's effectively no chance that 3M will admit to having knowledge of any
analysis (that might get done) at present.  

(3M does a huge amount of analysis of their and their competitor's products
-- takes them apart almost molecule-by-molecule.  I'd bet their labs are
better than 10 times the size and capability of UofM's labs.  Unfortunately,
almost every scrap of research they do is kept within the company for
competitive reasons.)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 02:00:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA21193; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: THE PERPETUUM MOBILE SIBERIAN COLIU
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961010083442.0071337c@mail.localaccess.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961010014513.4354A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9CL5M2.0.3B5.XgBNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1516
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote:

> Circuit:
> 
>   Cylinder magnet in center             Copper ring rotates clockwise
>                            \    __---__/
>                               _/ __ __ \_
>                              /  /  |  \  \
>                ---->---->---|  | N | S |  |--->---->----
>                |             \_ \__|__/ _/             |
>                |               \__   __/               |
>                |                  ---                  |
>                |                                       |
>                |                  |   |                |
>                ----<----<-------| | | |-------<----<----
>                                   |   |
>                                  Battery

So, replacing the battery with a short circuit and giving the ring a spin
would in theory cause self-acceleration, but in practice the frictional
decelleration wins?  Unless you know Marinov's secret, whatever it may
be.

Maybe add more poles to the magnet?  Make the device in the shape of a
ring rather than a cylinder?  Incorporate the shorting connection into the
main body?  The result sounds like Searle's device, a magnetic disk which
self-accelerates once a particular RPM is reached.

A thought: if the plasma or vacuum-arc version is tried, maybe it should
be operated behind a heavy shield.  If it "works," it might work too well. 
Searle claims that his early self-accelerating disks caromed about the
room until finding a glass window.  I'd imagine that the self-acceleration
rate of a plasma device would be a bit higher than that of a big iron
assembly, and might attain dangerous output levels with little warning.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 02:35:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA26357; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: dan davidson paper URL
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961010023007.4354C-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"2kJ_C.0.lR6.xBCNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1517
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


   Linkname: FREE ENERGY, GRAVITY, AND THE AETHER.
        URL: http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 02:42:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA26938; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: hooper url
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961010023431.4354D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"BEjfn3.0.la6.aHCNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1518
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


A Hooper article on Elektromagnum page.

http://www.ibg.uu.se/~david/elektromagnum/web/physics/HOOPREV.TXT

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 06:39:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA28196; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 06:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 06:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae82a9c3313e@[204.17.242.76]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 05:39:56 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: THE PERPETUUM MOBILE SIBERIAN COLIU
Resent-Message-ID: <"PycpK1.0.Uu6.ejFNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1519
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

As a historical note there was some discussion of this last April or so
(see included post of mine on the subject from last April.) Without an
experiment that actually demostrates ou behavior it seems to me that there
is a good explanation for what is observed.  As to generation of current
upon reversal of the process it seems a good explanation is that the
process is symmetrical thus reversable.  It appears to be a much more
interresting experiment done in a plasma environment, but, to some extent,
the ring motion could still be induced from friction from MHD propelled
plasma.  Here is the post:

[snip]
>    You take a cylindrical magnet and then cut it along its axes.  You then
>flip one of the sections and let the two stick together.  The magnetic
>force will be attractive so they will hold together on their own.
>this magnet is then placed in a mecury filled container, axis pointing up.
>A copper ring is constructed that will just fit over the magnet.   This
>ring is placed over the magnet and allowed to float on the mecury.  Then
>two electrodes are placed in the container at right angles to the plane of
>the magnet cut.  Then a current on the order of tens of amperes is passed
>through the electrodes and the ring rotates.
[snip]
>
>Lawrence E. Wharton

If I visualize this correctly:

I suspect that if you replace the copper ring with an insulated (but
similarly dense) ring, it will still rotate.  That is because the surface
mercury itself should rotate around the magnet due to MHD type forces.  If
the negative pole is on the north side of the core, then four vortices (how
appropriate) should be created, one on the north side and one on the south
side of the magnet bar, one at each magnet boundary. For opposing vortices,
their main axis is colinear through the magnet bar purpendicular to the
axis of the bar, but they rotate in opposite directions. If the negative
pole is opposite the N pole of the bar, there will be an upwelling as the
electrons move through the field to the right of the N pole, and a
downwelling as they move to the left of the N pole. As the transition into
the returning field lines in the neighborhood of the S pole the fluid
motion is reversed. There is a downwelling on the right (as seen from the N
pole direction) and an upwelling on the left.  This means, as seen from the
N pole side, the N pole vortex rotates conterclockwise, and the S pole
vortex clockwise.

The (secondary) vortecies at the magnet boundaries rotate in a manner that
opposes the surface motion of the N and S pole vertices.  Their motion is
weak because it is not directly driven by MHD forces, because the electrons
in the vicinity are flowing much more purpendicular to the magnetic field
lines.  Their motion is mainly an indirect result of the motion of the
primary vortices.  The larger the container the assembly is placed in, you
would expect the less the secondary vortex motion, and the less continuity
in flow direction within them.

The net rotation of the surface mercury is therefore clockwise when the -
electrode is opposite the N pole.  Reversing the current, so the + terminal
is at the N pole side of the bar should reverse all the rotational
directions.



Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 07:25:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06606; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.673317070096284FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 10 Oct 1996 07:17:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/10/96 07:17:32 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"72FVf.0.7d1.MMGNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1520
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/10/96 01:50
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Barry M.   Can I hasten to point out that Cold Fusion, the claims of
Pons and Flieschmann, EVEN the concepts bear NO relation to ZPE,
"over unity" devices, etc.? ! I personally want to make it very clear
that I have NO truck with these claims, no belief in them, and not
feelings of sympathy for those promoting them. Please, please do not
lump those of us who have been working diligently in the field of
"Cold Fusion" in with the "over unity" group. M. Hugo

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 10:13:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA12594; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae82c974905c@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.673317070096284FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:50:21 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Resent-Message-ID: <"fZE6Y3.0.f43.bcINo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1521
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


  The problem with an ou motor like this is that the proof of the
conservation of energy is very exact and does not allow it to work as
claimed.  I don't see any problem with the conservation of energy even with
the inclusion of the zpe.  The zpe effects are included in the quantum
field theory equations and there is a conservation of energy proof that is
derived from these equations.  Pick up any text book on QED and you will
find a section on the conservation of energy.  You will not find a section
on something like "the non-conservation of energy in the presence of zpe".
That is because it is included in the theory and the theory conserves
energy.  All magnetic, electric and quantum mechanical effects are included
in the theory and energy is still conserved.
  I am just looking at the nearest text on my book shelf - QED by G.
Kallen, Springer-Verlag, 1972. Yup there is the section on conservation of
energy and nowhere is the section on the zpe non-conservation.  The only
problem is that the conservation equations give the canonical stress energy
tensor which is not gauge invariant.  There is a bias in QED theory against
non-gauge invariant quantities bacause they can not be measured.  This is
only a problem in the minds of the theoreticans.  The conservation
equations exist and their validity is not dependent on everyone approving
of the form of the stress tensor.
  There is no problem with conserving energy in the presence of zpe.  There
may be some complaints that the conservations equations are not gauge
invariant but I don't think it makes any difference.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 13:16:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA24988; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 10 Oct 96 15:59:33 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
Message-ID: <961010195933_100433.1541_BHG115-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"qUeIz2.0.G66.AQLNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1522
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 >  The problem with an ou motor like this is that the proof of the
 > conservation of energy is very exact and does not allow it to work
 > as claimed.

I believe that, technically, CofE is a 'Principle' and not subject to 'proof'.
That does not mean that the *demonstrations* of the accuracy of the Principle
are wrong, of course.  However, sceptical as I am of these claims, I shall await
the experimental evidence rather than rely on disproofs.

 >  The zpe effects are included in the quantum field theory
 > equations and there is a conservation of energy proof that is
 > derived from these equations.

The essential difficulty with which is that all laws and theories of physics
*assume* the Principle.  As Puthoff puts it, "There is no o/u available from
Ohm's Law."

 >  All magnetic, electric and quantum mechanical effects are
 > included in the theory and energy is still conserved.

And each and every one of them presume CofE.

There is no question but that any small discrepancy discovered in the
*measurements* of Cof E will always be put down to experimental error, and no
further investigation will be done.
 
I myself would be very interested indeed in a fundamental re-examination of
*all* the assumptions of science.  It is precisely correct that Helmholtz's
original statement of CofE (denied publication in Annalen Physik for being too
speculative) was based on the non-existence of any perpetual motion machine, and
is now cited to prove that no such machine can exist.

That may be correct argument, backed by pretty good experimental evidence, but
without doubt it is circular argument.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 15:26:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA23821; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:16:22 -0400
Message-ID: <961010181603_207332951@emout13.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: DD&AJH(Surface Tention Capillary tube?)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Es9Vf.0.7q5.YNNNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1523
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

David..This is not a secret!  Surface tension effects caviation.  Your
experments to measure surface tension require interpretation.  Please post
them.  We will talk about the results, try to get the students involved, and
maybe even get them published.

Frank Z
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
To:	FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: 96-10-10 02:34:28 EDT

Dear Frank Z,
I do not feel qualified to post my results on  vortex-l@eskimo.com.
I am not a scientist just a observer and organizer of science projects for
students.
So no one but you recieved my piliminary results.
You confidentually intrusted to me a science project.  I feel that the
results are yours to share not mine.

>David I don't know why you got the results you did.  Does anyone else know?
>Frank Z


************************************
*                         David Doty                                     *
*         340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                  *
*                  home 503 266 3969                           *
*         Custodian at Ackerman Junior High              *
*              Canby School District 86                         *
*  CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher *
*  Looking for Science Projects for students to do.  *
*  http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html  *
************************************ 



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 15:34:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26458; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:25:37 -0400
Message-ID: <961010182536_330755355@emout17.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net,
        101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, manty@ctc.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zap@dnai.com
Subject: Miley's paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"NnvMl.0.FT6.BYNNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1524
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion of Miley's report.  Scanned it.
Body was left out as it was to long.


..............................................................................
...............

Preprint prepared for 2nd Intematlonai Conference on Low Energy Nudear
Reactions,
Texas A & M, College Station Texas, September 13-14, 1996.


              NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATIONS IN THIN-FILM NICKEL COATINGS
                      UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS

                          George H. Miley,
             Fusion Studies Laboratory, U. of Illinois
             103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2984
             Ph. 217-333-3772, Fax 217-333-2906
             E-mail: g-miley@uiuc.edu

                       James A. Patterson
                   Clean Energy Technology, Inc.
                        Dallas, TX 75240



      ABSTRACT

         Experiments using 1-mm plastic and glass microspheres coated with
single
     and multilayers of thin films of various metals such as palladium and
nickel, used in
     a packed-bed electrolytic cell (Patterson Power Cell Tm Configuration),
have
     apparently produced a variety of nuclear reaction products.  The
analysis of a run
     with 650-A film of Ni is presented here.  Following a two-week
electrolytic run, the Ni
     film was found to contain Fe, Ag, Cu, Mg, and Cr, in concentrations
exceeding 2
     atom % each, plus a number of additional trace elements.  These elements
were at
     the most, only present in the initial film and the electrolyte plus
other accessible cell
     components in much smaller amounts.  That fact, combined with other
data, such as
     deviations from natural isotope abundances, seemingly eliminates the
alternate
     explanation of impurities concentrating in the film.

           A 1-molar lithium sulfate solution in light water was employed for
the
     electrolyte.  A small excess heat of approximately 0.5 +- 0.4 watts was
recorded
     throughout the run.  Reaction products were analyzed using a combination
of
     secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), Auger electron spectrometry
(AES),
     energy dispersive x-ray (EDX) analysis, and neutron activation analysis
(NAA).

         Results showing a broad array of products such as found here have
also
     been obtained with thin film coatings of other materials, e.g., Pd and
multi-layers of
     Pd and Ni.  The yields of the major elements contributing depend on the
film material,
     however.  Some of that work is still being analyzed and will be
presented at ICCF-6
     (Miley and Patterson, 1996a).


         The array of products found in these experiments is consistent with
recent
     studies of solid Pd and Au electrodes by Mizuno et al. 1996 and Ohmori
and Enyo,
     1996, respectively.  A distinct advantage of thin electrode construction
used here,
     however, is that the reaction zone becomes well defined, enabling
quantitative
     measurements of the amounts of various products.

               To explain the observation of products with atomic numbers
both well above
     and below Ni, a reaction model is being developed that involves
proton-induced
     excited complexes, followed in some cases by a fission of the unstable
compound
     nucleus.

         INTRODUCTION

        Various nuclear transmutation products generated during electrolytic
cell
     operation, typically employing Pd and heavy or light water with various
electrolytes
     such as Na2 CO3 and LI(OH), have previously been reported, e.g., see the
     proceedings of the first conference in this series (Bochris and Lin,
1996).  Most of
     these reports have dealt with impurity level quantities of specific
elements, such as
     Sr, Rb or tritium, although some workers, such as Mizuno et al., 1996,
Ohmorl and
     Enyo, 1996, and Karabut et al., 1991 and 1992 report a wide variety of
isotopes
     occurring at impurity levels.  Several investigators, e.g., Miles and
Bush, 1994, have
     concentrated on 4He, which they view as a logical reaction product for
nuclear
     reactions in solids.

         While the occurrence of this number of independent observations
strongly
     implies that chemically assisted nuclear reactions in solids are
possible, the
     quantification and the credibility of the results have suffered from
low, impurity-level
     yields and non-reproducibility.  In sharp contrast, the thin (<2000A)
films used in
     present work result in transmutation of a significant percentage of the
metal in the
     thin-film cathode due to the "small" number of host atoms. (While, as
stressed later,
     impurity contributions can not be completely ruled out, the term
"transmutation
     products" is used here due to the overwhelming evidence in favor of this
     identification.)

         Over a dozen experiments with various types of thin-film coatings
have been
      carried out in different cells (Miley and Patterson, 1996a).  Thin-film
coatings on
      1 mm-diameter plastic/glass microspheres, ranging from 500-A-thick
single layers of
      Pd or Ni to multiple Ni/Pd layers, were used in a flowing
packed-bed-type electrolytic
      cell with a 1 -molar Li2 SO4 light water electrolyte.  Nuclear reaction
products were
      obtained in all cases, with several runs resulting in over 40 atomic %
of the original
      coating materials being transmuted to reaction products such as Fe, Si,
Mg, Cu, Cr,
      Zn, and Ag.  The present paper deals with the specific case of a single
nickel thin
      film, since it has been analyzed most thoroughly to date and appears to
be
      representative of the behavior observed in the other runs.

          The "normal" Patterson Power Ceil Tm employs electrolytically
coated layers of
      Ni and Pd on microspheres, and this composition has been extensively
studied for
      power production (Patterson 1996a).  The Ni-coated thin film
microspheres
      described here were developed explicitly for reaction product studies,
although
      power production with "conventional" thick Ni electrodes in light water
cells has been
      widely studied (e.g., see 1. Myers et al. 1996 and references therein).

          The use of thin-film coatings originates from the "swimming
electron layer"
     (SEL) theory proposed eariier (Hora, Miley, et al., 1993; Miley et al,
1993; Miley et
     al., 1994), which suggests that nuclear reactions are assisted by the
use of
     multilayer thin films with alternating metals that have large
differences in Fermi
     energy levels.  The resulting increase in electron density at the film
interface is
     shown to "squeeze" excess electrons between ions, greatly reducing the
Coulambic
     barrier, thus enhancing nuclear reactions.  This theory was first
studied using thin-
     film Pd/Ti coatings sputtered onto a large stainless steel substrate
electrode (Miley
     et al., 1994).  Those experiments were terminated due to flaking of the
films off of the
     electrode soon after loading and heating occurred.  However the results
were very
     encouraging, since high excess heat (estimated to be kW/cm3 at the
interface
     regions) was observed for minutes prior to the disintegration of the
thin films.
     Subsequently, J. Patterson (1 996a) developed a unique electrode
configuration
     using electrochemical deposition of relatively thick (mm) coatings of
Ni/Pd layers on
     millimeter diameter cross-linked polymer microspheres.  These
microspheres were
     then employed in a flowing packed-bed-type electrolytic cell (Patterson
Power
     Cell Tm).  The coatings, while thicker than the earlier thin-film
studies, were found to
     be quite stable in this configuration, so experiments with thin films
(300- to 2000-A
     thick) on such microspheres were undertaken in the present work.

            The thin films were laid down using a special sputtering process
(Miley,
     Name, et al., 1996), where the microspheres are suspended in a fluidized
state
     during the spraying process.  The metallurgy of the films themselves has
been
     studied before and after electrolysis, using both Auger electron probe
techniques
     and electron microscopic surface analysis.

          Reaction product measurements have utilized a combination of
secondary
     ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), Energy Dispersive x-ray (EDX) analysis,
Auger
     Electron Spectroscopy (AES), and neutron activation analysis (NAA).
 SIMS is used
     to obtain a broad view of both high and low concentration isotopes
present and their
     isotopic ratios, while NAA provides a quantitative measure of the masses
of key
     elements.  EDX provides confirmatory data for elements having high
concentrations,
     while AES is used for depth-profiling of high concentration elements.
 NAA can
     obtain total quantities of elements in a sample typically containing 10
microspheres,
     while the other techniques are restricted to probing a local area on
single
     microspheres.  Due to variations among microspheres due to location in
the packed
     bed and other effects, this difference in samples becomes very important
in present
     work.  The analysis techniques and the nuclear reaction products
observed are
     described further in following sections.


             ELECTROLYTIC CELL DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

         The general configuration of the Pafterson-type electrolytic cell
employed is
     shown in Fig. la.  About 1000 microspheres (-O.5 cm3 volume) were used
in the
     packed-bed cell.  Titanium electrodes were employed in the present Ni
run and in
     most other runs, except for a few cases where Pt electrodes were used
for
     comparison purposes.


..............................................................................
...............
     products are produced by +Q reactions via fission of compound nuclei.
 This model
     will be presented in detail in a future publication.


     CONCLUSIONS


        The results presented here defy conventional views in many ways.
 First,
     chemically-assisted nuclear reactions are not widely accepted by the
scientific
     community.  The present results not only confront that disbelief, but
add a new
     dimension to the issue by reporting copious light and heavy element
reaction
     products that seem to imply multi-body reactions due to the formation of
heavier
     elements such as Cu and Ag from Ni.  Further, a reaction which does not
emit
     intense high-energy gammas is required by the experimental results.  All
of these
     features are difficult to comprehend and at first glance seem to point
to impurities.
     However, as stressed, an extensive effort to find an impurity source has
not
     uncovered one.  Also, there is other strong evidence (such as isotope
shifts, the
     different products occurring when the coating material is changed, and
the similarity
     in yield trends with results from other workers), which supports the
conclusion that
     the elements observed are reaction products.

        Fortunately, cell experiments of this type are relatively
straightforward and
    inexpensive.  Thus far, reaction products, such as reported here, have
been detected
    by the authors in all dozen experiments of this type performed, using a
variety of
    metallic films.  In this sense, the phenomenon seems highly reproducible.
 The use of
    thin films as developed here offers a way to simplify the analysis since
a large
    fraction of the film contains the new elements and their localization in
the film allows
    a qualitative determination.  Hopefully, open-minded scientists will
attempt to
    replicate the experiments to convince themselves.  If verified, the
thin-film approach
    to chemically assisted nuclear reactions opens the way to a whole new
field of
    science.



           REFERENCES

              Bockris, J.O'M and G.H. Lin (organizers), 1996.  Proceedings of
the 1996 Low
          Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference, J. New Energy, 1, 1, 11 1-1
18.

          Cravens, Dennis, 1995, "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry," Proc. 5th
Intem.
          Conf on Cold Fusion, Valbonne, France, IMRA Europe, 79-86.

          Crouch-Baker, S., M.C.H. McKubre, F.L. Tanzelia, 1995, "Some
Thermodynamic
          Properties of the H(D)-Pd System," Proc. 5th intern.  Conf on Cold
Fusion,
          Valbonne, France, IMRA Europe, 431 @.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 16:46:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10056; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610102331.TAA06613@ns1.ptd.net>
X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink)
Subject: need chemical advice
Resent-Message-ID: <"nOymT2.0.1T2.TTONo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1525
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors from the
surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?


Thanks,

Jeff Fink

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 17:02:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA14555; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b0eae834aeb0144@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:54:41 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Resent-Message-ID: <"ERwVW1.0.9Z3.5oONo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1526
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors from the
>surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff Fink

Maybe muriatic acid (HCL).  It's sold for pH adjustment of swimming pools,
so it's easy to buy.  Use care--it comes fully concentrated.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 17:48:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA23250; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 10 Oct 96 20:32:13 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Message-ID: <961011003213_100433.1541_BHG74-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Htbax1.0.Ch5.COPNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1527
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 > Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum
 > vapors from the surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?
 > Would NaOH work?

Dunno.  There's one rather nasty little trick which most definitely
will do this - but you will have to be careful and provide most thorough
ventilation.  Preferably out of doors.  Simply rub a little mercury (Hg) into
the surface.  Once it has broken through the oxide layer, it will
amalgamate with the aluminium, dissolve it such that it cannot form a
passivating oxide film.  The end result will be a surface with nothing
but a few blobs of Hg and some feathery Al2O3 crystals.

AND a lot of toxic Hg vapour in the atmosphere.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 18:47:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA08250; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:39:51 -0400
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@spectre.mitre.org>
Message-Id: <199610110139.VAA14919@spectre.mitre.org>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-reply-to: <961011003213_100433.1541_BHG74-1@CompuServe.COM> (message from Chris Tinsley on 10 Oct 96 20:32:13 EDT)
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Resent-Message-ID: <"kaRRf2.0.l02.DMQNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1528
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


    > Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum
    > vapors from the surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?
    > Would NaOH work?

    Depends on your definition of "work".  Aluminum plus lye plus
water is known as the Draino reaction.  (I always thought it funny how
they could charge so much for a can of lye and a few bits of aluminum
foil.)  I would try a weak solution in a well ventilated hood or out
of doors.


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:06:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA14216 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au  Thu Oct 10 19:06:01 1996
Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14146 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.0/8.8.0) id MAA03211 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:04:10 +1000 (EST)
Old-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:04:10 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave DAVIES <daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199610110204.MAA03211@nimbus.anu.edu.au>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
....
> ...
>   The problem with an ou motor like this is that the proof of the
> conservation of energy is very exact and does not allow it to work as
> claimed. 

There is, and never can be, a proof of conservation of energy. It is an
idea based on experience that gets modified and re-defined as we change
our conceptual models.

dave

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:16:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA13115; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:57:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
In-Reply-To: <199610110139.VAA14919@spectre.mitre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961010215616.4319N-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fefkv.0.qC3.JfQNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1530
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo,

	I like Roberts' method best.


	Also;  Jeff, are you as a side line handing us a simple metal 
sputtering technique?

	One persons 'dirt' [the aluminum] .... is anothers' coating!


				J

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> 
>     > Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum
>     > vapors from the surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?
>     > Would NaOH work?
> 
>     Depends on your definition of "work".  Aluminum plus lye plus
> water is known as the Draino reaction.  (I always thought it funny how
> they could charge so much for a can of lye and a few bits of aluminum
> foil.)  I would try a weak solution in a well ventilated hood or out
> of doors.
> 
> 
> 					Robert I. Eachus
> 
> with Standard_Disclaimer;
> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:17:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA12481; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:56:06 -0700
Message-Id: <199610110156.SAA00387@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Lu3Gb.0.u23.jcQNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1529
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

You wrote: 
>
>Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors 
from the
>surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?

Those NaOH crystals they sell to unclog the sewer line contains some 
aluminum shavings to 'furthur activate' the uncloggoing action. So I 
would imagine a hot concentrated solution of Drano crystals should work 
on the aluminum pretty good. No guarantees. And watch out for that 
concentrated stuff. If you ever read the Lye cans, it tells you NEVER 
to dissolve the crystans in an aluminum utensil. You will have a 
bottomless utensil with the solution working on your feet. And except 
for a heat too high warping the acrylic, there propably will be no harm 
to the plastic. Again no guarantees -- read the label and talk to a 
plumber.

-AK-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:18:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA14337; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961011100710.21ef3c9a@po.pacific.net.sg>
X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mpower <mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg>
Subject: ?(chem): chlorine
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:04:53 +0800
Resent-Message-ID: <"QR-j02.0.uV3.ikQNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1531
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

One of my rigs is generating hefty quantities of chlorine gas.
Has anyone got any suggestions about what I might do with this stuff ?
My thinking is that I should build an H2O separator and try to mix the H2
and Cl (to HCl) so that I can handle it (my facilities are inadequate for
handling gasses).  But perhaps someone else might have a better clue ?

operational description: supersaturated H20 with NaCl; electrolysis

thanks for any help...<cough. . sputter, gasp() >
pa

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:34:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA17640; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 02:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <19961011021904.AAA1270@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"M4Q2k2.0.OJ4.HxQNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1532
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:31 PM 10/10/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors from the
>surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff Fink
>
As already suggested by others, dilute sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid
will react with the aluminum. Hydrogen is evolved in both instances.  Keep
the temperature low (less than 30 deg C.), since acrylic polymers may also
react with the reagents. Keep the time as short as possible. Use test
samples first.
Wash the acrylic thoroughly with plenty of water.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 19:50:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA22624; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:42:56 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper
In-Reply-To: <961010182536_330755355@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961011124140.18001A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ihCXQ.0.QX5.DHRNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1533
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Thu, 10 Oct 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:

> Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion of Miley's report.  Scanned it.
> Body was left out as it was to long.
> 

Frank can you put the whole thing on your web site including all the
figures?

Thanks,

Martin

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 20:47:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA00743; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net,
        101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, manty@ctc.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zap@dnai.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper
In-Reply-To: <961010182536_330755355@emout17.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961010231123.9816A-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"poW5X.0.RB.PqRNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1534
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Frank,

	Some questions; please;

	1] What was the total amount of fluid used?
	2] What is the source and purity of;
		a] the water
		b] the metal salts
	3] What is the rough cumulative flow and rate through the material
	4] Do we read correctly the total volume of 'beads' to be 0.5 cc?
	5] So how much fluid was re circulated through the 0.5 cc of beads?


	Cross check;

	1A]
	take same fluid amount and salts and re circulate through plain 
styrene beads for same length of time
	2A] 
	evaporate water under reduced pressure
	3A] 
	column chromatograph [separately]
	fluid [aqueous] and 'blank' beads [solvent ie, MEK, acetone]

	1B] repeat cross check with current applied.

	Use same type of pumps, tubing, fittings, etc.... but not the 
same ones used in run for paper.



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 10 22:21:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA23731; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 22:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610110513.WAA28761@serbia.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: dan davidson paper URL
Resent-Message-ID: <"C0L-33.0.io5.SUTNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1535
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:33 AM 10/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>   Linkname: FREE ENERGY, GRAVITY, AND THE AETHER.
>        URL: http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm
>
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
>
Thanks, Dans resent paper is also at Keelynet Linkname:
On the Production of Aetheric Stress Waves Utilizing
                          Sound Vibration"
                                    or
                    "Sonic Stimulation of the Aether"
http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/sound1.htm

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 00:00:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA15365; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <9610110654.AA14822@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:07:39 -0500
To: g-miley@uiuc.edu
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
Subject: RE: Miley's paper
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net,
        101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, manty@ctc.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zap@dnai.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"dvqss1.0._l3.2-UNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1536
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Response to paper by George H. Miley,

How could I put a thin film of Pd on  a 1 mm. thick by 2cm. by 10 cm.
nickel electrods?
What procedure and matterials do I need to get?

>Preprint prepared for 2nd Intematlonai Conference on Low Energy Nudear
>Reactions,
>Texas A & M, College Station Texas, September 13-14, 1996.
>
>
>              NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATIONS IN THIN-FILM NICKEL COATINGS
>                      UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS
>
>
>Fusion Studies Laboratory, U. of Illinois
>103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2984
>Ph. 217-333-3772, Fax 217-333-2906
>E-mail: g-miley@uiuc.edu
>
>



************************************
*                         David Doty                                     *
*         340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                  *
*                  home 503 266 3969                           *
*         Custodian at Ackerman Junior High              *
*              Canby School District 86                         *
*  CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher *
*  Looking for Science Projects for students to do.  *
*  http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html  *
************************************ 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 00:09:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA16237; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:04:04 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Miley's paper
In-Reply-To: <9610110654.AA14822@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961011165957.19960A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"aazy53.0.dz3.p5VNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1537
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, David Doty wrote:

> Response to paper by George H. Miley,
> 
> How could I put a thin film of Pd on  a 1 mm. thick by 2cm. by 10 cm.
> nickel electrods?
> What procedure and matterials do I need to get?
> 

By far the easiest would be to go to your Yellow pages and look up 
electroplaters in your neighbourhood. I guess people who plate 
Jewelry would be the best. Ask a few if they've had any experience etc etc.

My guess is that it would cost less than $100.00

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 02:03:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA00190; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961011091120.006f2a70@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 02:11:20 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Resent-Message-ID: <"PYihH2.0.u2.cqWNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1539
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:31 PM 10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors from the
>surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff Fink
>
>

Next to the Draino, you should be able to find "Red Devil Lye".  It is 
100% Lye (NaOH).  It will not harm acrylic, but will eat away at 
polycarbonate (bullet-proof glass), so you want to be sure it is acrylic.  

Hopefully goes without saying, but NaOH is hell on skin.  The warnings 
on the can are not strong enough.  They should have pictures of what it 
does to skin.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 02:43:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA18901; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <9610110726.AA15004@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:39:27 -0500
To: herman@college.antioch.edu
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
Subject: Re: Surface tension
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"4RGKV.0.Bd4.9SVNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1538
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear John Schnurer,

I ran a pretest on deionized water in the set of Capillary tubes.
The inner diameters are (.5mm, 1.0mm, 1.25mm, 1.5mm) about 3 inches long.
The 0.5 mm tube had a 16 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The 1.1 mm tube had a 10 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The  1.25 mm tube had a 22 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The 1.5 mm tube had a 6 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.

Can you explain why the 1.25 mm tube had the highest rise?
I thought the smaller the tube the higher the  deionized water would rise
in the Capillary tube.
Maybe the Moleculare bonds in the deionized water stop it from going higher
in the 0.5 mm tube.

The surface tention I think should be (the inner diamiter times pi times
the rise).
If this is so the surface tention mm squared is:

The 0.5 mm tube had 25 mm squared.
The 1.1 mm tube had 34.5 mm squared.
The 1.25 mm tube had 86.4 mm squared.
The 1.5 mm tube had 28.3 mm squared.

>        3 main forces control curvature of meniscus in 10 mm tube;
>
>        Capillary tries to draw water up sides
>        Air pressure pushes down
>
>        ***** Surface tension *** is the "skin" which will try to balance
>these forces.
>
>
>        Have you folks ever made a camera obscura?
>
no
>
>        We could probably easily project image of meniscus on wall,
>ceiling or slide projector screen in semi-darkened room.
>        Then the effect would be easily seen and photographed.
>        This type of highly visible demonstration in in my opinion very
>useful and important in class room.
>
>                                        JHS
>
>
Will run more tests next week and post results when I get some students
involved in it.

>> >       water
>> >       water and vinegar
>> >       water and baking soda
>> >       water and soap
>> >       water and rubbing alcohol
>> >       water and antifreeze (Ask Doty for help with this one)
>> >       water and sugar
>> >       water and ammonia (windex)
>> >       water and wiskey..If you dad says OK.
>> >       water and dirt
>> >       water and windshiield washer fluid
>> >

************************************
*                         David Doty                                     *
*         340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                  *
*                  home 503 266 3969                           *
*         Custodian at Ackerman Junior High              *
*              Canby School District 86                         *
*  CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher *
*  Looking for Science Projects for students to do.  *
*  http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html  *
************************************ 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 04:13:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00967; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: ?(chem): chlorine
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:11:10 +0000
Message-ID: <19961011111108.AAA15544@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"aeEf12.0.1F.ZjYNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1540
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 02:04 AM 10/11/96 +0000, you wrote:
>One of my rigs is generating hefty quantities of chlorine gas.
>Has anyone got any suggestions about what I might do with this stuff ?
>My thinking is that I should build an H2O separator and try to mix the H2
>and Cl (to HCl) so that I can handle it (my facilities are inadequate for
>handling gasses).  But perhaps someone else might have a better clue ?
>
>operational description: supersaturated H20 with NaCl; electrolysis
>
>thanks for any help...<cough. . sputter, gasp() >
>pa
>
Pass the chlorine gas through a sodium hydroxide solution; this makes
bleach, a material that is safer and better to cope with.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 04:22:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA01750; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: need chemical advice
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:21:07 +0000
Message-ID: <19961011112105.AAA18757@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"2LK9w3.0.GR.tsYNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1541
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 09:11 AM 10/11/96 +0000, you wrote:
>At 07:31 PM 10/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Does anyone have an idea of how to remove condensed aluminum vapors from the
>>surface of acrylic without damaging the surface?  Would NaOH work?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jeff Fink
>>
>>
>
>Next to the Draino, you should be able to find "Red Devil Lye".  It is 
>100% Lye (NaOH).  It will not harm acrylic, but will eat away at 
>polycarbonate (bullet-proof glass), so you want to be sure it is acrylic.  
>
>Hopefully goes without saying, but NaOH is hell on skin.  The warnings 
>on the can are not strong enough.  They should have pictures of what it 
>does to skin.
>
This a strange world we live in.  One can buy these hazards at your local
hardware store but you cannot buy much safer or innocuous chemicals from a
chemical supply house because you have a "residential" address.

Ed Strojny 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 08:32:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13646; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:20:15 -0400
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@spectre.mitre.org>
Message-Id: <199610111520.LAA16196@spectre.mitre.org>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-reply-to: <2.2.16.19961011100710.21ef3c9a@po.pacific.net.sg> (message from Mpower on Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:04:53 +0800)
Subject: Re: ?(chem): chlorine
Resent-Message-ID: <"aE0xE1.0.2L3.6NcNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1542
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


   Mpower (mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg) asked:

  > One of my rigs is generating hefty quantities of chlorine gas.
  > Has anyone got any suggestions about what I might do with this stuff?
  > My thinking is that I should build an H2O separator and try to mix the H2
  > and Cl (to HCl) so that I can handle it (my facilities are inadequate for
  > handling gasses).  But perhaps someone else might have a better clue ?

  > operational description: supersaturated H20 with NaCl; electrolysis

  > thanks for any help...<cough. . sputter, gasp() >

  Bubble through either dilute NaOH or stronger Na2CO3.  For something
like this there is actually no problem using NaHCO3, it is just more
expensive.  (Of course all three are damned cheap and can be bought at
most grocery stores as lye, Bicarbonate of Soda, or Baking Soda.)

  You can afford to use a copper or stainless steel grid in the
bubbler to break up the bubbles, but it shouldn't be an issue.
However, in any case, even with lye you will get some carbonate (from
CO2 pulled from the air) and therefore some CO2 generated, so you will
need some venting, but not very much.  Also, a note if you really mean
that "hefty quantities."  Get a Ph test kit--good ones are available
from pet supply stores for testing aquariums--and try to keep the Ph
in your solution above eight.  (The "right" value depends on your
setup, and how much Na2CO3 you have in your apparatus normally.)


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 13:15:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA25040; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.831107130096285FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 1996 13:07:13 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/11/96 13:07:10 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"cvuUO1.0.A76.magNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1543
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
-
Vortexian's I'm going to try to get John L. to post Miley's paper. (We need
to talk John!) This will probably take a couple days, even if everything
works right. But I'd like everyone to have access. Any other comments?

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 13:27:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA26124; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 13:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.952512130096285FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 1996 13:12:13 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/11/96 13:12:23 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"vY0fV1.0.-N6.MfgNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1544
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
-
Dear Vortexians: This is somewhat off the topic, but I need some info
from a broad base (primarily domestic on this one, sorry Chris, Martin,
etc). For about the last 6 weeks I have suddenly be getting a high volume
of "hang up" calls on my answering machine. I have talked to the phone company,
and they are attributing it to "automatic dialing" and telemarketing. I don't
think they are that sharp to automatically differentiate answering machines,
and I am wondering why my name would suddenly show up on dozens and hundreds
of lists? (A personal spam maybe, some sort of vendetta? I can't even imagine
who that would be.)
-
So the question is: Are there any Vortexians who have an ans. machine on during
the day (either singles or dual working parties) and have also noticed an
upswing in hang up calls, or should I suspect that there is some single (alledg
ed 'intelligent') entity behind these irritations? Thanks. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 14:37:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA08681; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 11 Oct 96 17:03:38 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
Message-ID: <961011210337_100433.1541_BHG75-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"j0TAp3.0.X72.sThNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1545
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark,

Why assume this is a purely national problem?  These days vices spread accross
boundaries as quickly as ... a very quick thing.  We get these
problems as well.  Used to be it was usually burglars checking to see if
you were at home before coming around to collect your belongings.

I presume you have an equivalent to our '1471' code, which gives the
day, time and caller number of the last caller and invites you to dial
'3' to reurn the call?  Or those little gadgies which log every call
with the originator's number?  Even with the former you can probably
get one of the call originators.

These things have, they tell me, spoiled a lot of beautiful
friendships.  And marriages.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 14:59:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14507; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vBpF2-0001OmC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:35:36 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.952512130096285FEPRI@EPRI.COM> from "Mark Hugo, Northern" at Oct 11, 96 01:12:13 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xP3we2.0.YY3.0thNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1546
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> the question is: Are there any Vortexians who have an ans. machine on during
> the day (either singles or dual working parties) and have also noticed an
> upswing in hang up calls, or should I suspect that there is some single 
> (alledged 'intelligent') entity behind these irritations? Thanks. MDH

Get Caller-ID service.  Turn on anonymous caller reject.  See hang up
calls reduced by 95%.  Remainder are identifed on caller-id log, so
you can call them up and scream at them.


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 15:21:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18486; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 14:50:41 PDT
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9610112150.AA14475@moebius.math.ucla.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
Resent-Message-ID: <"DrgBn3.0.fW4.p6iNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1548
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I've been having trouble lately deciding whether to buy
skim milk, or 2%. What do you Vortexians think?

:-)


Seriously, couldn't this mailing list be kept even remotely
on topic? I get enough mail as it is without getting general
blah blah on this list. Things discussed here should have 
at least some connection to energy, I would think....Mark,
couldn;t you just take a survey of your coworkers on the 
phone thing? And, call me callous, but I don't really need
to hear the ins and outs of the members personal lives either...take
it as given that we all have lives and all the complexities that 
entails. 

Oh well, bottom line is its Bill's list, so whatever he wants is
fine. I'm just putting in a vote for keeping posts here loosely
focused on energy.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 15:23:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18335; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vBpTq-0002ZoC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:50:54 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.831107130096285FEPRI@EPRI.COM> from "Mark Hugo, Northern" at Oct 11, 96 01:07:13 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"2zM_K3.0.KU4.76iNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1547
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Vortexian's I'm going to try to get John L. to post Miley's paper. 

Three criteria to meet:

1.) Absolutely positively not without Miley's approval (and or
copyright holder if different.)

2.) Must be relatively small bytewise (I only get 2M for my entire
ISP budget and I'm already overdrawn.)

3.) Since I haven't read the excerpts, it can't be just a theory
paper -- I've had to turn away too many CF theory papers because
I have no independent way to evaluate them.  The only time people
get to "speak CF theory" on my  my web site is if they have
experimental apparatus to back it up.

Links are relatively cheap, though.  So most any tie-in to CF will
warrant a link to that site.

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 16:40:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05283; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:01:52 -0400
Message-ID: <961011190151_1447006655@emout15.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"NnVkz.0.RI1.9IjNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1549
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I don't know if Miley would approve of this.  Perhaps CETI will post it on
there web site.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 17:02:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10488; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.952512130096285FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961011192952.11880B-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"bx5i32.0.nZ2.BejNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1550
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	On a purely technical level hand up calls can fall into many areas.

	Two of these areas are electronic:

	Fax junk mail

	Modem search for computer entry.

	If you hang a fax machine on your line you can find out if you 
are on a fax-junk list.
	If you find a good friendly hacker, they sometimes want to 
'do battle'....  you can forward to him for a while.




On 11 Oct 1996, Mark Hugo, Northern wrote:

> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Subject: VORTEXIAN SURVEY ON HANG UP CALLS
> -
> Dear Vortexians: This is somewhat off the topic, but I need some info
> from a broad base (primarily domestic on this one, sorry Chris, Martin,
> etc). For about the last 6 weeks I have suddenly be getting a high volume
> of "hang up" calls on my answering machine. I have talked to the phone company,
> and they are attributing it to "automatic dialing" and telemarketing. I don't
> think they are that sharp to automatically differentiate answering machines,
> and I am wondering why my name would suddenly show up on dozens and hundreds
> of lists? (A personal spam maybe, some sort of vendetta? I can't even imagine
> who that would be.)
> -
> So the question is: Are there any Vortexians who have an ans. machine on during
> the day (either singles or dual working parties) and have also noticed an
> upswing in hang up calls, or should I suspect that there is some single (alledg
> ed 'intelligent') entity behind these irritations? Thanks. MDH
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 17:25:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19095; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 20:12:53 -0400
Message-ID: <961011201252_1513489747@emout12.mail.aol.com>
To: CldFusion@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, GeorgeHM@aol.com,
        72240.1256@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com,
        75013.613@compuserve.com, fstenger@interlaced.net,
        101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, CentManGrp@aol.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov,
        zap@dnai.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Yusmar tests
Resent-Message-ID: <"FxaUh2.0.Fg4.NBkNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1551
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



      Yusmar    Oct 11, 1996

      The testing of the Yusmar was continued today.  The testing
      process involved measuring the electrical input to the device
      and measuring the thermal output.  The ratio of these two
      parameters was compared after the device came into thermal
      equilibrium.  Various modifications were made to the system in
      an attempt to get it working.

      The first test indicated a COP of 1.05%

      The second test indicated a COP of 1.08%

      Many difficulties were encountered during testing.  Changes in
      system water pressure effected the cooling water flow.  Changes
      in system voltage effected the power into the system.  A change
      in any parameter moved the temperature at which the system came
      into thermal equilibrium.  This resulted in energy being added
      or subtracted from the large thermal mass of the system.  The
      total cumulative result of all of the inaccuracies is difficult
      to determine.  In my opinion the Yusmar did show a 5% anomalous
      energy, however, the anomalies may have been the result of instrument
      error. 

      We are going to make efforts increase the COP to 200%.  If we succeed,
the       
      results will be beyond doubt and the device will be commercial.  We do
      know that, to date, commercial quantities of energy have not
      been produced.

      Frank Znidarsic


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 17:32:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20067; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 20:17:24 -0400
Message-ID: <961011201721_1379903720@emout08.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, CldFusion@aol.com
Subject: to doty
Resent-Message-ID: <"pjvyl1.0.Nv4.PFkNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1552
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

David one of the things we tried was to add glycol "antifreeze"to the Yusmar.
 The glycol did not work, infact, it make the Yusmar run much quieter.  It
some how effected the mechanical properties of the water and killed the
cavitation effect.  I am interested in your surface tension tests.  What
effect does glycol have on surface tension?  Is there any substance that has
the opposite effect?  If there is, we will try it.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 19:28:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA15629; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 21:22:40 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610120222.VAA09017@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Yusmar tests
Resent-Message-ID: <"lHtYY2.0.7q3.t4mNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1553
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:12 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Frank wrote:

>      The testing of the Yusmar was continued today.
>      The first test indicated a COP of 1.05%
>      The second test indicated a COP of 1.08%
>      Many difficulties were encountered during testing.  Changes...

Frank, are you doing "snapshot" power balance measurements?  By that I mean
simultaneously reading Tin, Tout, flow rate, and input power...and then
computing the COP for that "snapshot" of the Yusmar's performance?  If so,
then you are indeed at the mercy of changes...i.e. the degree to which the
system is not steady-state.

A better alternative is to do a time-integrated energy balance measurement.
For this you need to let the Yusmar heat a known quantity of water up over a
reasonable period of time (e.g. 10 minutes). During this time, you integrate
the electrical power delivered to the Yusmar with a watthout meter.  You
measure the starting and ending temperature of the water and compute the
average COP for the test period from that data plus the mass of water
involved.  You can choose an appropriate mass of water to heat so the
delta-T over the test period is not too great but still accurately measureable.

 - Scott Little
 EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759
 512-342-2185 (voice)  512-346-3017 (FAX)  little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 20:15:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19501; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vBu5Q-000GpxC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>, <dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Subject: Re: DD&AJH(Surface Tention Capillary tube?)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:45:20 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BBB7C5.E1798B20"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"1QhKI.0.Wm4.dPmNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1554
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BBB7C5.E1798B20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



----------
> From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
> To: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us; vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: DD&AJH(Surface Tention Capillary tube?)
> Date: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 6:00 PM
> 
> 
> David I don't know why you got the results you did.  Does anyone else
know?
> 
> Frank Z
> 

The trouble is probably cleanliness, Frank.  Water makes about a zero
contact
angle with CLEAN glass.  For consistant results, the capillary tubes should
all be
cleaned with something like sodium triphosphate.  With this done, with
clean water,
the capillary head should be proportional to 1/D (where D = tube i.d.).

Frank Stenger
------=_NextPart_000_01BBB7C5.E1798B20
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><br><br>----------<br>&gt; From: <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>FZNIDARSIC@aol.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>&gt; To: <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">; <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>vortex-l@eskimo.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>&gt; Subject: Re: DD&amp;AJH(Surface Tention =
Capillary tube?)<br>&gt; Date: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 6:00 =
PM<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; David I don't know why you got the results =
you did. &nbsp;Does anyone else know?<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Frank Z<br>&gt; =
<br><br>The trouble is probably cleanliness, Frank. &nbsp;Water makes =
about a zero contact<br>angle with CLEAN glass. &nbsp;For consistant =
results, the capillary tubes should all be<br>cleaned with something =
like sodium triphosphate. &nbsp;With this done, with clean water,<br>the =
capillary head should be proportional to 1/D (where D =3D tube =
i.d.).<br><br>Frank Stenger</p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BBB7C5.E1798B20--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 22:14:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA20458; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: D. Davidson exerpt
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961011220056.22072B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"TshRu.0.a_4.aZoNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1556
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A


Here's an exerpt from danart1.asc, keelynet file, from Dan A. Davidson's
book "A Breakthrough to New Free Energy Sources."  I think we may have
discussed this in the first month of vortex-L operation.  As far as I
know, no one has ever tried it.  If any subscribers still have
sonoluminescence parts laying around, it wouldn't be that hard to do a
quick test.  With an anonymous source, the whole thing might just be a
rumor.  But if a particular ultrasound freq affects water, then there
might be a more direct way to extract energy than with vortex devices.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


       VERIFICATION OF FREQUENCY TO PRODUCE ETHERIC FORCE FROM WATER ?

            A recent  (1965)  possible  verification  of the frequency Keely
       used to dissociate water into etheric  force  was  related to me by a
       scientist when we were discussing certain aspects of free energy.  He
       wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but  his  name  is on
       file.  I have  no  other  verification  of this experiment, however I
       believe it merits telling.

            The scientist, I shall call  him  Dr.  X,  was doing experiments
       with ultrasonic sound  in  a  column  of water.  The  object  of  the
       experiments was to  devise a means of separating various densities of
       materials by injecting  them  into   a  column  of  water  which  was
       subjected to an ultrasonic standing wave vibration.  The experimental
       setup is sketched in Figure 3-3 (for BBS considerations a description
       follows).

            A Barium Titanate ultrasonic transducer was fixed  to the bottom
       of a quartz  tube which was closed at the bottom and open at the top.
       Pure water was poured into the tube  and the water column was "tuned"
       so that a  standing  wave  was  produced  at 40,000 CPS  (cycles  per
       second).  The transducer  was  powered  by a 700 Watt power amplifier
       which was driven by an ultrasonic  frequency  generator.   Because of
       the large amount  of  power put into the column of  water  a  certain
       amount of evaporation   took  place  at  a  constant  rate  when  the
       transducer was energized.  Therefore,  to maintain a standing wave in
       the water column a feedback device caused the frequency  to be raised
       as the water evaporated and the temperature changed.

            As a test, Dr. X decided to run through the experiment with only
       water in the  tube  to  insure that a standing wave was maintained as
       the water evaporated and the frequency  rose higher and higher.  When
       the experiment was started everything worked beautifully.  Dr. X took
       periodic readings of  his instrumentation and was  assured  that  the
       standing wave was   being  maintained.   Suddenly,  with  no  warning
       whatever the water disappeared from  the open quartz tube.  He looked
       up thinking to  see  the water splashed on the ceiling  when  to  his
       amazement a clean  hole went right through the ceiling.  The hole was
       the same size   as  the  inside  of   the   quartz   tube.    Further
       investigation showed the  hole continued on through  the  roof  also!
       Dr. X checked his notebook and found the last frequency entry to be
       41,300 CPS.  It  was  shortly  after this that the water disappeared.
       Because of the  time  interval  between  the  last  reading  and  the
       disappearing water, the frequency sent to the transducer  was  higher
       than the last  reading  and  Dr.  X said it could well have been very
       close to 42,800 CPS, the Keely dissociation  frequency.   (11)   This
       obviously dangerous event caused Dr. X to dismantle the equipment and
       try some other approach to his problem.  This experiment  points  the
       way to the  use  of our modern technology in conjunction with Keely's
       laws of dissociation to change matter  into energy without the use of
       radioactive materials or extremely expensive atomic accelerators.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 22:47:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA25820; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: D. Davidson exerpt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961011220056.22072B-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961011224046.22072D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"HJWWy3.0.MJ6.D2pNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1557
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Another one.  Same effect?

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: elf@menageri.demon.co.uk (Elf)
Subject: micro-cavitation fusion
Organization: ELF Services
Reply-To: elf@menageri.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:19:10 +0000

Micro-cavitation fusion, or luke-warm fusion
Nobody knows WHY cold nuclear fusion works, or even if it does. \conventional 
theroy does not cover it, and the ones invented to explain it do not work.
O.k, fine, so heres one that does, maybe.
I have a friend who does reaserch for the MOD, on subs etc. He showed me a 
paper on cavitation. It was also mentioned on Tomorrows world apperently. 
Cavitation is when you get bubbles forming in a violently stirred liquid, for 
those who don't know. This effect occurs around submarine propellors at depths 
of about 300ft or lower. Ie at pressures of 10atms. It can also me produced 
at1atms (up here at the surface), by pushing a ultrasound frequency into a 
sealed container of liquid. Water is best. This has been know for ages, since 
1952. What is new is that these bubbles glow in the dark. Dimly blue. Each 
bubble is aprox 1 to 3 microns in diameter, it depends on the wavelength. 
	What my friend was doing was studying the energy inside them, with a 
veiw to preventing it, (he didn't say why, MOD stuff). It turns out that the 
bubbles glow becuase the energys involved produce a plasma inside as they 
collapse. one that is at temp/pressures equal or greater to that at the core of 
the sun !

Reaserch into the experimental set-ups used in cold-fusion show that most used 
magnetic stirrers which produce small amounts of ultrasound, and some did not. 
I made a small set-up using a glass tube, and a ultrasound transducer. The end 
cap was positivly charged to attract free electrons. 
The inital run with plain water heated it no more than expected, ie slightly 
less energy out than in. The next using heavy water, plus dissolved deuterium 
gas was a little more dramatic. 
The equipment was activated in one second bursts, in case of radiation 
production. In aprox 1/10 of a second enough energy was liberated to vapourise 
the water, causing a large steam explostion. also sufficent light to blind me 
temporally.
There was no detectable radiation. upon  later thought I theroised that the 
oxygen atoms wheer acting as neutron absorbers, and the surrounding water coped 
with the gamma. 
Since I am currently in finacial dire striats, would anyone care to follow up 
on this. It is to important to be forgotten due to accident. I suggest a 
modified internal combustion engine would work. The air intake converted to a 
water intake, with the fuel injector acting as a gasious deuterium injector. 
The spark-plug  would be replaced with an ultra-sound transducer (speaker). 
Basically a fusion powered steam engine. 
 N.B, conventional gas plasma theories of fusion still apply, its how the 
plasma is created thats weird ! 



--
 ############################################################################# 
 #                                 #    _________    __         _________    # 
 #     Minds are like Parachutes:  #   |   ______|  |  |       |   ______|   # 
 #                                 #   |  |____     |  |       |  |____      # 
 #        They must be OPEN        #   |   ____|    |  |       |   ____|     # 
 #                                 #   |  |______   |  |____   |  |          # 
 #           to operate!           #   |_________|  |_______|  |__|          # 
 #                                 #        elf@menageri.demon.co.uk         # 
 ############################################################################# 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 23:06:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA29009; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 01:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610120557.BAA26864@mail.inforamp.net>
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.inforamp.net: Host ts41-06.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.140.226] didn't use HELO protocol
X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney@inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZXgTJ.0.557.JJpNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1558
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>            He
>       wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but  his  name  is on
>       file.  I have  no  other  verification  of this experiment, however I
>       believe it merits telling.

Bill

I may have talked to a witness to this experiment about 3 years ago. Don't
recall his name or the group, but I remember the description of this device.
He told the same story as an observer would. I believe he was a member of
one of the ITS  International Tesla Society chapters in California. If the
inventor tried to patent something like that it'll be classified for sure.
His best bet may be  to post it himself, then sell kits. Maybe "JW" McGinnis
over at ITS knows  more about it... 

Colin

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 23:15:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA00983; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <325F365D.5A9E@rt66.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:16:17 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: 547@rt66.com, Franklin@rt66.com, Avenue@rt66.com, Santa@rt66.com,
        Fe@rt66.com, NM@rt66.com, 87501@rt66.com, USA@rt66.com,
        505-757-6145.@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com, rgeorge@hooked.net
Subject: SIMS as CF reactor
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7FA547B55DC2"
Resent-Message-ID: <"3jqgw2.0.HF.qSpNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1559
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------7FA547B55DC2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Dr. Bockris,

Thank you for your recent letter, which I read with great interest,
along with today's post, which expresses a natural skepticism that
isotopic anomalies in SIMS testing would have been overlooked since
1972.  I'm going to look up your 1995 paper in Infinite Energy on the
relationship of typical impurities to surface CF reactions.  
   
I spent eight hours today at Los Alamos National Laboratory, searching
through Chemical Abstracts for reports on "Explosions-Wire-Electrical".
It's a field that started about 1920, and languished from 1928 (The
Great  Depression?) to 1956, and then there were conferences every few
years on  the topic.  The last 20 years, remarkably little work-  the
method is being used as a light source and for depositing metal
coatings.  Recent research is very mathematical.  The typical wire
explosion paper in recent decades measures products in terms of their
mass, velocity, and angular distribution, not their chemistry.  So how
can they tell H3 from He3, or C13 from CH?  I'm looking into that
literature, and will soon inspect the voluminous gas and spark discharge
literature to see if I can find the same anomalies involving unexpected
nuclear reactions that J.J. Thomson found in 1913 in his positive ion
gas discharge work, according to my reading of his reports.  The bias
against seeing these anomalies and interpreting them as unexpected
nuclear events is enormous!  So, so far, to me it's plausible that they
would have been overlooked.  It's possible to explain away and disregard
just about anything, since most experiments are almost unmanageably
complex and subtle.  

I hope some of these odd tidbits of anomaly reports pop up in your
memory. Let me know immediately.  I will do my best to check them out. 
How many times did researches notice fogging of wrapped photographic
plates before 1896?  

It seems every week, I hear about a CF experiment involving gas
discharges, ion beam bombardment, high temperatures, or sparks. For
instance, Sept.,1996 Fusion Technology has "Spark-Induced Radiation from
Hydrogen or Deuterium-Loaded Palladium," by Ernest D. Klema and Gerald
W. Iseler of Tufts University.  They commented, "It is of interest that
Rout et al.,["Copious Low Energy Emissions from Palladium Loaded wtih
Hydrogen or Deuterium,", Indian J. Technol., 29, p. 571 (1991)] have
observed 'low energy, low intensity radiation from palladium samples
loaded with deuterium and hydrogen using plasma focus and other loading
techniques.'"

Well, that's just what SIMS is!  I bet the designers and operators have
been dealing with unwelcome and mysterious anomalies for 4 decades, and
have learned how to stay in the parameters where nuclear reactions are
only occasional glitches.   Why did Miley's SIMS get those skyhigh Na23
readings, and Mizuno the same for C and O?
 
Peter Glucks' missive is wonderful, and I think he's pointing us in the
right way, in that we really have to extend our imaginations to enjoy
these new nuclear realities.  It reminded me of your ideas in your
letter of Sept. 25:  "If one looks at the whole galaxy of phenomena
which have been produced since 1989, it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that an interfacial electric field (around 10E7 volts cm-1)
acting on protons and electrons in the presence of metals produces
nuclear reactions and excess nuclear heat in acceptable and practical
amounts."

Without a clear theoretical justifiction, I keep picturing that crowding
a lot of electrons into a lattice will help protons momentarily turn
into neutrons that can immediately sneak into into innocent nuclei,
fattening  them up for imminent nuclear harvests.  I believe Elio Conte
wrote up a similar scenario this spring [conte@teseo.it].

Rich Murray

--------------7FA547B55DC2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Received: from mail.eskimo.com (smartlst@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA22052 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 01:52:51 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11025; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date:      Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:42:21 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <325ca8e3.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: "vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Cc: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Subject:   HENR vs LENR paradigm.
Resent-Message-ID: <"z7XgJ1.0.Bi2.CkANo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1513
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com

             Dear Vortex Fellows,

Actually I am able to feel a lot of empathy toward Martin's problem. The 
existing high energy nuclear reactions paradigm is not compatible with the 
new phenomena and we do not have yet an alternative, a LENR paradigm.
On Sept 25, 1996 Martin wrote (quoting from memory):
-The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell:
a) The reaction rate is much too fast, with many orders of magnitude;
b) There is no ionizing radiation;
c) No radioactive nuclei appear (Note: anyway stable isotopes are dominant
in almost all experiments-- exceptions Savvatimova et al, Wolf.) 
The situation really seems impossible and Martin, as well as other 
inquiring minds are perfectly justified to get a solution; ERROR is
the most easiest and handy. However experimental data are accumulating
and both branches of the dilemma are now equally impossible- in the 
frame of the HENR paradigm.
Because I am working in an institute specialized in isotopes, I am very
motivated to find a solution.
Because my other speciality is management of technology and I am very
familiar with the problems of creativity I will try an inter (trans)-
disciplinar approach to the problem.
.................................................................
(For those interested in a holistic view of the field perhaps the 
following paper will be of great use:
"Isotopicity, Implications and Applications"
by Alexander A. Berezin
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 1992, vol 17,no 1 pp 74-80
BTW, if somebody knows Prof. Berezin <berezin@mcmaster.ca> or 
<berezin@mcmail.cisMcMasterCA>, an authority and expert in isotopes
it would interesting to ask his opinion. In 1989 Berezin has published
a paper (abstract?) re CF but later has not been active, as far as I
am informed. )
...................................................................

A Change of Paradigm is Necessary.
You get good advises for such an action in the book:
"PARADIGMS-the business of discovering the future" by Joel Arthur 
Barker. For managers, in order to get positive change, you have to
pick out which obviously unchangeable step could improve your business.
When it is identified you have to change it; it was only seemingly 
impossible. If we try to find such a fixation in Martin's list
we get the word-- REACTION. As long as HENR, hot fusion, hot fission
reactions take place, the nuclei are indestructible and the results
obtained HAVE to be erroneous.
We have to find an other class of nuclear reactions.  
In the limits of linear logic, the solution offered by me is unique.

Using metaphors.
The use of metaphors for creativity is well known, at least in theory.
..................................................................
One of my favorite works illustrating this method is  Hannu
Vanharanta's Dr. Thesis "Hyperknowledge and Continuous Strategy
in Executive Support Systems", Abo Univ, Finland 1995. The functions 
of the metaphors are cleverly applied in order to start the process 
of transformation on the line: metaphor-analogy-model-theory.
Metaphors can perform four separate but related functions:
- they are expressive, throwing new light on the target domain;
- they are exegetic, trying to describe and interpret complexity;
- they are explanatory, explaining and predicting;
- they are exploratory, suggesting research directions and activities.
........................................................................
Actually, we (vortexan cold fusionists) have a wonderful metaphor
here, it is Tinsley's idea that:

Cold Fusion is for Hot Fusion what Biochemistry is for Chemistry.

(Chris, please give a more elegant formulation, thanks!)
If we consider only essential processes as photosynthesis and 
nitrogen fixation, which are not reproducible  with "human"
technologies, we see that these processes are incredibly complex.
I am systematically reading all the papers on these and related 
subjects in Chemical Engineering News, Physical Chemistry, Nature,
Science, New Scientist as an exercise of complexity and humility. 
Our knowledge is very primitive, we are just crawling out from
the Middle Age.
Anyway, the Tinsley Metaphor suggests that we have to pay a
high price, that of complexity, for attaining low energy nuclear 
reactions. The message of the metaphor is: do not try to find
simple explanations/models/theories. And: the solution is far
from what you know now!

The House Metaphor.
We know from the HENR paradigm that the nuclei of the stable
isotopes are solid, strong edifices and we need high energies
to break them. You need great heavy rocks, bombs, or steel balls
to destroy a house ( have seen a lot in the Ceausescu era when
family houses have been systematically demolished and people 
forced to go in great concrete block buildings where control by 
the secret police was easier). Now, little pebbles are not  
efficient they would not make much damage, metaphorically
thinking the HENR people are right, THOSE reactions will not
work. I think the OTHER reactions are analogous to something
eating out the mortar between the bricks, a much slower 
destructive process..  a real one. I had to solve one case in 
the frame of my consulting practice, when a dreadful sort of 
mildew (Merulius Lacrymans) coming from infested wood used 
for the new parquet began to penetrate  the walls; I had to
use a complex mixture of fungicides to kill the beast.
For the nuclei, the metaphor suggests a NEUTRON EXTRACTION
process. Some entities are "attacking" the nuclei and capturing
the neutrons. It is well known that the number of neutrons
per number of protons ratio is steadily increasing as the
atomic number is increasing; the nuclei will be thus
destabilized and fragmented. What entities can do such a job?
I think the best candidates are energy deficient protons and
deuterons, strongly associated with their electrons. "Hungry"
p's and d's! Honi soit qui mal y pense! 
The most remote (far from the present paradigm) is the Neal
Gleeson process, by a special type of electrolysis, thorium is
fissioned in mercury and neon, tungsten can be fissioned 
symmetrically in two atoms of rubidium or unsymmetrically in
cadmium and iron, in these cases 12-15 neutrons remain in excess 
and have to be "consumed".
In other cases, probably the cluster structure of the nuclei
add a degree of complexity. The fragments thus obtained are all
stable as such or after recombination; the daughter nuclei 
are both smaller and greater than the mother nuclei. Perhaps
these are multi-body reactions with a complex mechanism,
working step-wise and much slower than the HENR processes. 
The active hydrogen isotopes are coming from or interacting
with the energetical vacuum, they work in packs and create
an energy deficient environment in which only stable nuclei
are created. Using Mitch Swartz's terminology, it has yet to
be established how are de novo nucleosynthesis and excess
enthalpy correlated; I think there is no causal relationship
between them.
As I have shown in all my papers, these processes are local
and catalytic.
I am convinced that my "House Metaphor" is a part of the 
truth. After getting the complete data from LENR2 and ICCF-6
I will try to work out a theory.
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 



--------------7FA547B55DC2--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 23:37:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA04123; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610120636.XAA08134@germany.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Resent-Message-ID: <"JgOaF1.0.L01.dnpNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1560
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:12 PM 10/11/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Here's an exerpt from danart1.asc, keelynet file, from Dan A. Davidson's
>book "A Breakthrough to New Free Energy Sources."  I think we may have
>discussed this in the first month of vortex-L operation.  As far as I
>know, no one has ever tried it.  If any subscribers still have
>sonoluminescence parts laying around, it wouldn't be that hard to do a
>quick test.  With an anonymous source, the whole thing might just be a
>rumor.  But if a particular ultrasound freq affects water, then there
>might be a more direct way to extract energy than with vortex devices.
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
>
[snip]
I ordered the book from ITS today to check this experiment out for parts and
more details. It seems that someone else might have reproduced it lately
using modern lab equipment?

Also related, as reported in New Energy News newsletter, April 1996, Donald
Walton worked on this and with scalar waves within a cell. For those
interested in Donald's work can reach him at:

Donald P.Walton
Electronics Engineer
12, Chatsworth Road
Bournemouth
England BH8 8SW
Tel: 44 202 302213

According to Dan's idea on Keely's theory's on tapping the aether for o/u,
gravity control, ect. (see, Linkname: FREE ENERGY, GRAVITY, AND THE AETHER.
URL: http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm) could occur if you can get
a grad E and resonance across the mass by syncronization of the nuclei with
the aether. This can be achieved by two main methods; rotation or movement
and sonically. It seems that when Townsend Brown started to rotate his
gravitators levitation occured. 

Michael Randall 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 11 23:58:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA06516; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <325F4198.35EB@rt66.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:58:32 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: 547@rt66.com, Franklin@rt66.com, Avenue@rt66.com, Santa@rt66.com,
        Fe@rt66.com, NM@rt66.com, 87501@rt66.com, USA@rt66.com,
        505-757-6145.@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rgeorge@hooked.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com, rmcarrell@aol.com,
        bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu
Subject: Correa, SIMS
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E67314B7A89"
Resent-Message-ID: <"4OVC02.0.kb1.14qNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1561
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------E67314B7A89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks, Russ,

Could you post on vortex-l details about your gas discharge experiments
that sometimes made the cathodes red-hot and eroded them badly?  Would
it be easy to replicate?  A report should be put out.

If you still have access to that fine SIMS instrument, why not try to
induce CF in various films, Pd, Ni, Ti, Pt, by progressively increasing
voltage and current, expanding and contracting the ion beam focus spot,
trying different ions.  How many variables could you run in a day? 
Would the SIMS manufacturer be interested in this possibly vast
expansion in the market for their product?

Rich Murray

--------------E67314B7A89
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: rgeorge@mail.hooked.net
Received: from mom.hooked.net (root@mom.hooked.net [206.80.6.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA09958 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:04:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from tuna.hooked.net (webe-17.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.9.17]) by mom.hooked.net (8.8.Beta.1/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA18377; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199609241605.JAA18377@mom.hooked.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <rgeorge@mail.hooked.net>
From: "Russ George" <rgeorge@hooked.net>
To: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:10:52 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Review of Correa device
Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net
CC: rmcarrell@aol.com
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)

Richard, ( and Mr. Carrell)

I read your review based on RM Carrells assessment of the Correa 
device. I am interested in this but haven't followed it closely. In 
my own work I became interested in the glow discharge methods for CF 
when working at Los Alamos with Tom Claytor monkey wrenching his glow 
discharge experiments. I subsequently set up several GD experiments 
of my own and have seen some odd effects. I a mostly interested in 
measuring the tritium production rates.

I use an AC system in a deuterium gas GD experiment. At times I have 
observed the Pd electrodes cycle through a regular process of heating 
to a bright red heat and then precipitously cooling back to a silver 
color.  In the process the Pd electrode becomes quite damaged 
sputtering away considerable matieral. While I've been enegaged in 
using time of flight SIMS analysis to examine other materials for 
isotopic anomalies I've not yet had the funds to expand that work to 
these GD electrodes.

Does Correa have any material the he is interested in conducting 
isotopic analysis on. I thought pehaps one of you had some contact 
with him and might pose this query. In my current work I am using the 
most advance time of flight SIMS instrument in the world and have the 
operators pretty well tuned in to this work. Unfortunately it is 
rather expensive to operate about running about $2500 per day. Little 
can be accomplished with less than a full day but two days does a 
lot.

Russ George
E-Quest



--------------E67314B7A89--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 00:20:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA09638; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <325F46E2.55C@rt66.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:21:06 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: 547@rt66.com, Franklin@rt66.com, Avenue@rt66.com, Santa@rt66.com,
        Fe@rt66.com, NM@rt66.com, 87501@rt66.com, USA@rt66.com,
        505-757-6145.@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rgeorge@hooked.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu,
        ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, mwm@aa.net
Subject: SIMS is nuclear reactor
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------63AB1FF97E4D"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gff_81.0.RM2.7PqNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1562
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------63AB1FF97E4D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russ,   I'm very interested to be informed about the foibles of SIMS
measurements.  Somehow, I thought it was nearly perfect, you know,
picking up the fatal arsenic in Napoleon's hair and stuff like that.

Maybe you could post to us at Vortex-L@eskimo.com some more information
about SIMS, in regard to Miley's data:
How might SIMS have come up with over 4,000 counts for Na23 on fresh
beads?
Is there any significance to the missing lines for Ni61 (abundance 1.1
%)  and Ni64 (0.9 %)?
How much significance can we safely abscribe to counts in the range 1 to
10?
What are typical ion bean intensities and size of spot?  How much film
is vaporized in how much time?  Is there a molten zone, and how big and
long-lived is it?
Is the ion beam likely to have any other components, like H+ or H2+?
Can SIMS distinguish at low resolutions C(12)H from C(13)?

How many different attempts to deliberately induce CF could you make in
a day?  How long does it take to put in a new sample?  How many
different ion beams are available?

Much appreciated!

Rich Murray

--------------63AB1FF97E4D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: rgeorge@mail.hooked.net
Received: from mom.hooked.net (root@mom.hooked.net [206.80.6.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA25696 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:19:33 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from tuna.hooked.net (fish-60.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.10.60]) by mom.hooked.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA16604 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610101420.HAA16604@mom.hooked.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <rgeorge@mail.hooked.net>
From: "Russ George" <rgeorge@hooked.net>
To: rmforall@rt66.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:26:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Miley, Mizuno data: SIMS makes nuclear reactions
Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)

Before you get too excited about SIMS work I'd look into the
technique. The sensitivity of SIMS is different for each atom. Hence
things like sodium show up with big signals because the machine can
see sodium easily. Xenon and other inert gases cannot be seen at all
in SIMS at least not in any of the methods used in this field
including Mizuno.

Sure 2 12C's make mass 24 and indeed mass 24 is seen however it is in 
fact a double ion of 12C. Only a very high resolution instrument can 
see the difference between 2 12C's and 24Mg, not the instrument Miley 
used in the manner it was used.

Also recall that SIMS has been used for a long time now for examining 
surface materials like layers of various metals deposited by various 
processes. No isotope anomalies have been reported in the literature 
and indeed SIMS is a established tool for measuring isotope ratios.

All this is not to say the Miley's report is all wrong but there are 
some ragged edges.




--------------63AB1FF97E4D--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 00:21:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25048; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 20:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 20:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:07:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961011230701.15221E-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"OPFiD1.0.I76.jlmNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1555
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net,
    101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
    peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, manty@ctc.com,
    CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zap@dnai.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper



	Dear Frank,

	Some questions; please;

	1] What was the total amount of fluid used?
	2] What is the source and purity of;
		a] the water
		b] the metal salts
	3] What is the rough cumulative flow and rate through the material
	4] Do we read correctly the total volume of 'beads' to be 0.5 cc?
	5] So how much fluid was re circulated through the 0.5 cc of beads?


	Cross check;

	1A]
	take same fluid amount and salts and re circulate through plain 
styrene beads for same length of time
	2A] 
	evaporate water under reduced pressure
	3A] 
	column chromatograph [separately]
	fluid [aqueous] and 'blank' beads [solvent ie, MEK, acetone]

	1B] repeat cross check with current applied.

	Use same type of pumps, tubing, fittings, etc.... but not the 
same ones used in run for paper.




From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 08:43:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25669; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 08:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 08:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 08:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: HANG UP CALLS, vortex-L philosophy
In-Reply-To: <9610112150.AA14475@moebius.math.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961012075752.11770A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"oisKN3.0._G6.gkxNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1563
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Barry Merriman wrote:

> I've been having trouble lately deciding whether to buy
> skim milk, or 2%. What do you Vortexians think?
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> Seriously, couldn't this mailing list be kept even remotely
> on topic? I get enough mail as it is without getting general
> blah blah on this list. Things discussed here should have 
> at least some connection to energy, I would think...

Actually, the main topic (other than the official "water vortex" one) is
more like the pursuit of physics anomalies and the opening of fields of
research which are currently "taboo."

> Mark,
> couldn;t you just take a survey of your coworkers on the 
> phone thing?

Barry does have a good point.  Discussion groups are always in danger of
being overwhelmed by off-topic conversations, or simply by overly large
traffic in on-topic conversations.  I've been on newsgroups with 200
messages per day.  They're useless.

It's OK to send off-topic messages, but please people, make it a habit to
take the conversation immediately to private mail.  Mark's survey was OK,
but in the future, this type of message should say "please reply directly
to me, don't fill vortex-L."   And even if it doesn't, please try to
remember to answer privately if the rest of vortex-L doesn't need to see
your message.

> And, call me callous, but I don't really need
> to hear the ins and outs of the members personal lives either...take
> it as given that we all have lives and all the complexities that 
> entails. 

Barry has a misconception, I think.  Vortex-L is one of those strange and
wonderful things called an Online Community.  Without the personal
messages it would die, and become more like a UPS news feed.  Think of it
more like like a physics conference than like a physics journal.  A
physics conference with a chairman who keeps the fistfights to a minimum.

Also, vortex-L is what it is.  It is ( slightly <g> ) controlled by the
rules, but it really is an evolving organism created by its participants.
Even if I had lots of strictly-enforced rules, it would still be
unmoderated.  Then I guess it would be a "bonzai" version of an online
community?

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 09:38:45 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08282; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 09:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 09:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:21:58 -0400
Message-ID: <961012122158_124981484@emout14.mail.aol.com>
To: VORTEX-L@eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro,
        RVargo1062@aol.com, zap@dnai.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com,
        Puthoff@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, 72240.1256@compuserve.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com
Subject: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
Resent-Message-ID: <"MzDdQ.0.G12.ZXyNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1564
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A






                Yusmar test with Magnetite addition  October 96


       time min   temp in F  temp out F    flow GPM   power out KW    KW in

              0          60          60                0.78            0.00
                 4.8
             15          60          78               0.76            2.00
                 4.8
             30          60          89               0.77            3.26
                 4.6
             45          60          96              0.735           3.86
                 4.6
             60          60         101              0.75            4.49
                 4.5
             75          60         102             0.735           4.51
                 4.7
             90          60         103             0.76             4.77
                 4.6
            105         60         104             0.75             4.82
                 4.7
            120         60         104             0.74             4.75
                 4.7


      COP
           0
        0.42
        0.71
        0.84
        1.00
        0.96
        1.04
        1.03
        1.01
  

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 11:09:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA24460; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961012181549.006be820@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:15:49 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com (by way of Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>)
Subject: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
Resent-Message-ID: <"ePbEE.0.6-5.auzNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1565
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

(Reformatted)

From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com


      YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION  OCTOBER 96


Time   Temp In   Temp Out   Flow    Power In   Power Out   COP
(Min)    (F)       (F)      (GPM)     (KW)       (KW)
________________________________________________________________
0        60        60       0.78      4.8       0.00       0
15       60        78       0.76      4.8       2.00       0.42
30       60        89       0.77      4.6       3.26       0.71
45       60        96       0.735     4.6       3.86       0.84
60       60       101       0.75      4.5       4.49       1.00
75       60       102       0.735     4.7       4.51       0.96
90       60       103       0.76      4.6       4.77       1.04
105      60       104       0.75      4.7       4.82       1.03
120      60       104       0.74      4.7       4.75       1.01


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 11:13:45 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA25271; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vC8Wt-00018aC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:11:19 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <961012122158_124981484@emout14.mail.aol.com> from "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" at Oct 12, 96 12:21:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYaG8.0.mA6.IzzNo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1566
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank Z. wrote:

> min   temp in F  temp out F  flow GPM   power out KW    KW in   COP
> 0        60          60       0.78        0.00           4.8     0
> 15       60          78       0.76        2.00           4.8     0.42
> 30       60          89       0.77        3.26           4.6     0.71
> 45       60          96       0.735       3.86           4.6     0.84
> 60       60         101       0.75        4.49           4.5     1.00
> 75       60         102       0.735       4.51           4.7     0.96
> 90       60         103       0.76        4.77           4.6     1.04
> 10       60         104       0.75        4.82           4.7     1.03
> 12       60         104       0.74        4.75           4.7     1.01

                                           -----          ----     ----
                               Cumulative  32.46          42.0     0.77


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 16:55:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA18977; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 19:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: <961012195142_125209631@emout19.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
Resent-Message-ID: <"wovuN1.0.Qe4.uy2Oo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1567
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu (Marcello Truzzi)
Reply-to:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu
To:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu (AAAAA), esper@california.com (Auerbach, Loyd
(2)), BlndgsCast@aol.com (Dan Cohen), dzuck@inforamp.net (Daniel Zuckerbrot),
fivemtn@ilhawaii.net (Dennis Stillings), puthoff@aol.com (Hal Puthoff),
jrc@inforamp.net (john robert colombo), michaelkurland@mindspring.com
(Kurland, Michael), polidoro@aznet.it (Massimo Polidoro), MaxMaven@aol.com
(MaxMaven@aol.com), hermeticpress@worldnet.att.net (Minch, Stephen),
patrick@cloud9.net (Patrick Huyghe), PLAMONT@afb1.ssc.ed.ac.uk (Peter
Lamont), R.Wiseman@herts.ac.uk (Richard Wiseman), ronwestrum@aol.com (Ron
Westrum), schwartz@jsasoc.com (Schwartz, Stephan A.), skrippner@igc.apc.org
(skrippner@igc.apc.org), 75717.3247@CompuServe.COM (T.A. Waters (1)),
thomasb@mindspring.com (Thomas Burgin), 2228@msn.com (Wilhelm, John)
Date: 96-10-12 14:13:06 EDT

Oct. 3, 1996 14:08 EDT, from an AP news report:

NEW DELHI India - An Indian villager who claimed he could turn water into
gasoline is a fraud, scientists have determined.

Last month Ramar Pillai demonstrated at a government lab how boiling a
mixture of leaves, lemon juice and salt, a few drops of gasoline, and a test
tube of undisclosed chemicals could yield fuel.

Scientists this week reported a hollow stirrer Pillai used during his
demonstration contained fuel which he slipped into the boiling concoction,
giving it gasoline-like properties.

The stirrer was filled with kerosene or gasoline; its tip was plugged with
wax, which when heated inside the boiling water, melted, releasing the fuel
into the mixture, V. Ramamurthy, the top scientist in the Department of
Science and Technology,said. Analysis showed that the mixture also contained
lead and other chemicals that are added to gasoline when it is processed.

Pillai, a 34-year-old high school dropout, had said his fuel was herbal and
derived from the leaves of a plant he had found 18 years ago near his
village of Idayankulam, 1,200 miles south of New Delh.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 20:47:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA11636; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610130343.UAA15856@norway.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: JATO Power Calc Experiment
Resent-Message-ID: <"DpXIY1.0.fr2.AM6Oo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1568
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

From: http://www.eifs.com/aftrhour.htm and gif location

Note from Bob T.:

The following story is supposedly true. It was on the AP wire in 1995. 

This story has been nominated for 1996 "Darwin Award", a "real" award
(albeit humorous) given to the person who contributes most to the world's
gene pool by killing themself in the stupidest way. Example: last year some
(deceased) jerk got the award by trying to "jimmy" a soda can out of a Coke
Cola machine by tipping it. The machine fell over and killed him! 

When I first read the article below, I laughed so hard my sides started
aching. UNBELIEVABLE.

Also, FYI, a JATO unit is a one-shot power source. It has no throttle. Once
it's on, it keeps putting out until it runs out of fuel - like a bottle rocket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded
into the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. The
wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type
of car was unidentifiable at the scene. The lab finally figured out what it
was and what had happened. 

It seems that a guy had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted
Take Off - actually a solid fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military
transport planes an extra "push" for taking off from short airfields. He had
driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight
stretch of road. Then he attached the JATO unit to his car, jumped in, got
up some speed and fired off the JATO! 

The facts as best as could be determined are that the operator of the 1967
Impala hit JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the
crash site. This was established by the prominent scorched and melted
asphalt at that location. The JATO, if operating properly, would have
reached maximum thrust within 5 seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds
well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional
20-25 seconds. The driver, soon to be pilot, most likely would have
experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog-fighting F-14 jocks under full
afterburners, basically causing him to become insignificant for the
remainder of the event. However, the automobile remained on the straight
highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20) seconds before the driver applied and
completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber
marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for an additional 1.4
miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet leaving a
blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock. 

Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable; however, small fragments
of bone, teeth and hair were extracted from the crater and fingernail and
bone shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of
the steering wheel. 




From herman@college.antioch.edu  Sat Oct 12 21:09:50 1996
Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15854; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63)
    id AAA12059; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:08:19 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>, William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Community
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961012235503.8815B-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	Bill Beatty's letter about community touched a nerve.  Several 
have asked about gravity research at Antioch.  I had planned on waiting 
until the 'official' word was passed by the administration that Antioch 
College wanted to be involved.  The students I have spoken to want to be 
involved.  The "community" of Vortex wants to be involved.

	I am going to write here a little background, and then post some 
information.  I have been exposed to the work of Eugene E. Podklentnov 
for only a short period of time.  I have been communicating with several 
people theorizing in the field.  Some of what I will be writing is 
opinion, some is information I have recieved, some is information I have 
personally experienced first hand.

	A society has been formed we call "The Gravity Society".  We are 
registering the domain gravity.org.  when I say "we", I mean a very few 
people, we do not even yet have an adminisrator for the society.  The 
domain registration has only just started.  There will soon be 'official' 
and I hope fairly regular reports of work in the field.

	I will editorialize from time to time, and start now;

	This whole work is very new and 'raw'.  I personally say, 
opinion, I do not havea clue as to what, exactly, this is.  Do not take 
what I say as gospel.  I week from now I may well say "I was wrong".

	One thing I can say is I only know what I know now, and it will
change. 

	So, after I close this letter, I will post some material.  It 
will be re posted in a more complete and polished form by the society.  
These postings are for the 'community'.  


					JHS

From herman@college.antioch.edu  Sat Oct 12 21:12:02 1996
Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA16192; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63)
    id AAA12104; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:10:28 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: full BW update 
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013000928.8815C-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE NEWS FLASH!
September 25, 1996


ONE STEP CLOSER TO AN ANTIGRAVITY MACHINE

Is it possible to create a device the reduces the effects of gravity? 
Business Week reported in its Sept. 30 issue that it might be (see "An 
Antigravitiy Machine? Take That, Issac Newton").

Now, preliminary results from initial attempts to confirm the possibility
of an antigravity machine appear to have turned out positively. John H. 
Schnurer, a researcher at Antioch College in Ohio, conducted two trials
over the Sept. 21-22 weekend, and both seem to have caused a small weight
loss in objects suspended over a superconducting disk.

Schnurer cautions that his experimental setup is "still very crude, so
don't hang your hat on it yet." But if Schnurer's initial results hold up
as he refines his techniques, the 2% weight loss reported by Eugene E. 
Podkletnov, the Russian scientist who discovered the anomaly while doing 
research on high-temperature superconducting materials in Finland, might
even turn out to be conservative.

"This is a new field of investigation, so nothing is cast in stone," says
Schnurer. Although a small weight-loss effect was observed, he adds, the
cause is still a mystery. It could end up not being a "gravity shield" but
some other phenomenon.

Schnurer used a disk furnished by Superconductive Components Inc. in 
Columbus, Ohio. He is working on several refinements of Podkletov's 
techniques he believes may be patentable. Indeed, a patent lawyer
witnessed one of Schnurer's  experiments. 

Copyright 1996 The McGraw-Hill Companies All rights reserved. 

[JS note: the BW article from the issue dated Sept. 30 is available on
America Online; keyword: BW.]


From herman@college.antioch.edu  Sat Oct 12 21:18:45 1996
Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00642; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63)
    id AAA12230; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:17:15 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Paper by Giovanni Modanese 
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013001203.8815D-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	This is a technical theory paper by G.M.  If one of you can make 
it into ASCII, this would be good.  I do not have the tools to do so.

	It is an important paper because it has a good description of 
E.E. Podklentnov's experimental apparatus in two different embodiments.

\documentstyle[12pt]{article}

\textwidth 170mm
\textheight 235mm
\topmargin -36pt
\oddsidemargin -0.2cm
\evensidemargin -0.5cm

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}

\hfill \parbox{45mm}{{UTF-367/96} \par Jan 1996 \par supr-con/9601001} 

\vspace*{15mm}

\begin{center}
{\LARGE Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the}

\smallskip

{\LARGE Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment.}
        
\vspace{22mm}

{\large Giovanni Modanese}%

\medskip

\end{center}

\vspace*{10mm}

\begin{abstract}
The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding 
produced recently through a levitating and rotating HTC 
superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the 
shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We 
show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive 
vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained 
by our theoretical model. The small expulsive force observed at the 
border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation.

\medskip
\noindent
74.72.-h High-$T_c$ cuprates.         

\noindent
04.60.-m Quantum gravity.

\bigskip 

\end{abstract}
 
The measurements of Podkletnov et al.\ of a possible weak gravitational 
shielding effect \cite{p1,p2} have been repeated several times and under 
different conditions by that group, with good reproducibility,
including results in the vacuum. In the forthcoming months
other groups will hopefully be able to confirm the effect independently.
While the Tampere group was mainly concerned with  
obtaining larger values for the shielding, studying its dependence 
on numerous experimental parameters and testing new materials
for the disk, in the future measurements it will be important
to obtain more exact data, including detailed spatial field maps. 
The theoretical model suggested by us \cite{m1} is still evolving,
although at a fundamental level; a more detailed account
appears elsewhere \cite{m2}.

Let us recall in short the main features of the experiment. A HTC
superconducting disk or toroid with diameter between 15 and 30 $cm$,
made of $YBa_2 Cu_3 O_{7-x}$, is refrigerated by liquid helium in a
stainless steel cryostat at a temperature below $70 \ K$. The
microscopic structure of the material, which plays an important
role in determining the levitation properties and the amount
of the effect, is described in details in the cited works.

The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by
high-frequency AC currents and rotates by
the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different
weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance
which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A
weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is
levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about
0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. 
If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the
sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency
of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation
frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids
as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values
from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample
with respect to the outer edge of the disk.

This effect, if confirmed, would represent a very new and 
spectacular phenomenon in gravity; namely, as well known, there
has never been observed any conventional gravitational shielding 
up till now, up to an accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$, and General 
Relativity and perturbative Quantum Gravity exclude any measurable 
shielding \cite{m1,unni}. Our tentative theoretical explanation is based
on some properties of non-perturbative quantum gravity. We have
shown that the density field $|\phi_0|^2$ of the Cooper pairs
inside the superconductor may act as localized 
positive contribution to the small negative effective gravitational 
cosmological constant $\Lambda$; if the sum turns out to be positive 
in a certain four-dimensional region, a local gravitational singularity 
arises there, affecting the gravitational propagators and thus the 
interaction potential (between the Earth and the samples, in
this case).

To sketch our model -- although not rigorously -- we could say 
that there is an "anomalous coupling" between the mentioned 
density $|\phi_0|^2$ and the gravitational field, and
that the net result is to partly "absorb" the field. We expect
that only in some regions of the superconductor the density
$|\phi_0|^2$ will be strong enough and
that the inhomogeneities of the material and the pinning centers
will be crucial in determining such regions. 
(It is known that the rapid motion of a type II superconductor in
a magnetic field causes resistive effects in the superconductor.)
Since the gravitational 
field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the 
outside. This is provided in the 
experiment by the action of the levitating rf field.


The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the
samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently 
measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the 
shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in
$10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height
the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory,
on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows
on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample 
the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$.

Such an extremely weak height dependence of the shielding is in 
sharp contrast with the intuitive picture, according to which the
gravitational field of the Earth is the vectorial sum of the
fields produced by each single "portion" of Earth. In the absence
of any shielding, the sum results in a field which is equivalent 
to the field of a pointlike mass placed in the center of the Earth;
this can be checked elementarily by direct integration or invoking
Gauss' theorem and the spherical symmetry. But if we admit that
the superconducting disk produces a weak shielding, the part of
the Earth which is shielded lies behind the projection of the
disk as seen from the sample, i.e., within an angle $\theta$ about
the vertical direction, such that $\ \tan \theta = h$, where $h$ is
the sample height over the disk measured in units of the 
disk radius. (For simplicity we suppose now the sample to be 
centered above the disk.)

In order to obtain the shielding effect as a function of $h$, 
taking into account this geometrical factor, one must integrate 
the Newtonian contribution $\cos \phi /R^2$ over the intersection 
between the Earth and the cone defined by $\phi<\theta$.
We have done this for the values $h=1,2,3,4,6,8,10$, through a 
Montecarlo algorithm. We took into account the higher density 
of the Earth's core ($\rho_{core} \sim 2 \rho_{mantle}$; $r_{core}
\sim (1/2) r_{Earth}$; it is straightforward to insert more accurate
values, but the final results change very little); we also computed 
analytically the contribution of the tip of the cone, from the 
Earth's surface to the Earth's core, in order to reduce the 
fluctuations in the Montecarlo samplings for small $R$.
\footnote{For the detailed algorithm and figures please ask
the author at the e-mail address above.}
The resulting values were the following:

\begin{verbatim}

  h     shielding/maximum-shielding  
  =================================
  1           0.62  +/- 0.02
  2           0.34  +/- 0.01
  3           0.18  +/- 0.01
  4           0.102 +/- 0.003
  6           0.050 +/- 0.002
  8           0.029 +/- 0.001
  10          0.018 +/- 0.001

\end{verbatim}

This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned 
experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the 
shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively 
as if it would be concentrated in one point.

On the basis of an analysis similar to ours, it was argued in
\cite{unni} that Podkletnov's data are inconsistent with the
hyotesis of a real gravitational shielding.
In our theoretical model, however, the weak height
dependence arises in a natural way.
We employ a quantum formula which expresses the static gravitational
interaction energy of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in terms of an
invariant vacuum expectation value, namely \cite{m3}
\begin{eqnarray}
  E & = & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T}
  \log \frac{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \left[
  S[g] + \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} dt \,
  \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu}[x_i(t)] \dot{x}_i^\mu(t) \dot{x}_i^\nu(t)}
  \right] \right\}}{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} S[g] \right\} }
  \label{ciao} \\
  & \equiv & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log 
  \left< \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \sum_{i=1,2} m_i 
  \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} ds_i \right\} \right>_S
\label{bella}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ has Euclidean signature and $S$ is the gravitational 
action of general form
\begin{equation}
  S[g] = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{g} \left( \lambda - kR +
  \frac{1}{4} a R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}
  \right) .
\label{azione}
\end{equation}

The constants $k$ and $\lambda$ are related -- in general 
as ``bare quantities'' -- to the Newton constant $G$ and to the 
cosmological constant $\Lambda$: $k$ corresponds to $1/8\pi G$
and $\lambda$ to $\Lambda/8\pi G$. The trajectories $x_i(t)$ of 
$m_1$ and $m_2$ are parallel with respect to the metric $g$; let
$R$ be their distance.

In the weak-field approximation, eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) reproduces
to lowest order the Newton potential and can be used 
to find its higher order quantum corrections \cite{muz}, or implemented 
on a Regge lattice to investigate the non-perturbative
behaviour of the potential at small distances \cite{h}. The 
addition to the gravitational action (\ref{azione}) of a term 
which represents a localized {\it external} Bose condensate 
\footnote{This means that the density of the condensate is not 
included into the functional integration variables.}
mimics a shielding effect which is absent from the classical
theory and which we take as our candidate model for the
observed shielding.

The feature of eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) which is of interest here 
is that if the two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are not pointlike,
the trajectories $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ must be those of their
centers of mass. (This also makes irrelevant the question --
actually ill-defined in general relativity --
whether they are pointlike or not.) Thus, when applying
eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) to the Earth and the sample, we only need
to consider the centers of mass of those
bodies. In this way we reproduce the observed behaviour for the 
shielding as well as for the regular interaction.
The ensuing apparent failure in the "local transmission" of the
gravitational interaction does not contrast with any known
property of gravity (compare \cite{m3,j}, and references about
the problem of the local energy density in General Relativity
and \cite{m3} about the non-localization of virtual gravitons.
One should also keep in mind that (\ref{ciao}) holds only
in the static case.)

Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight
diminution of the effective value of the gravitational
acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential
energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ 
is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside
the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This
means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force
at the border of the shielded region. Such a force has been
indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not
available yet. From the theoretical point of view it is
however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity
of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy
from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient
stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for
heavy samples.

I would like to thank C.S.\ Unnikrishnan for useful discussions.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{p1}
E.\ Podkletnov and R.\ Nieminen, Physica {\bf C 203} (1992) 441.

\bibitem{p2}
E.\ Podkletnov and A.D.\ Levit, {\it Gravitational shielding properties
of composite bulk $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ superconductor below 70 K under
electro-magnetic field}, Tampere University of Technology report
MSU-95 chem, January 1995.

\bibitem{m1}
G.\ Modanese, {\it Theoretical analysis of a reported weak
gravitational shielding effect}, report MPI-PhT/95-44,
hep-th/9505094, May 1995; to appear in Europhys.\ Lett.

\bibitem{m2}
G.\ Modanese, {\it Role of a "local" cosmological constant in
Euclidean quantum gravity}, report UTF-368/96, 
hep-th@xxx.lanl.gov/9601160; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D}.

\bibitem{p3}
E.\ Podkletnov, private communication, October 1995.

\bibitem{m3}
G.\ Modanese, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 325} (1994) 354; Nucl.\ Phys.\
{\bf B 434} (1995) 697; Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 17}, n.\ 8 (1994).

\bibitem{unni}
C.S.\ Unnikrishnan, {\it Does a superconductor shield gravity?},
to appear in Physica {\bf C}.

\bibitem{muz}
I.J.\ Muzinich and S.\ Vokos, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 3472.

\bibitem{j}
D.\ Bak, D.\ Cangemi, R.\ Jackiw, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49}
(1994) 5173.

\bibitem{h}
H.W.\ Hamber and R.M. Williams, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 435}
(1995) 361.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}



From herman@college.antioch.edu  Sat Oct 12 21:38:25 1996
Received: from college.antioch.edu (college.antioch.edu [192.131.123.11]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA02912; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by college.antioch.edu (SMI-8.6/1.63)
    id AAA12480; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:37:03 -0400
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Gravity
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013001920.8815E-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Dear Vo.,

	We continue work at this task. 

	Opinion:

 Anyone who would wish to follow the work should become educated in
certain matters so as to be effective.  Anyone wishing to engage in the 
work is encouraged.  And, be aware also this is a non trivial effort.
The work does not have to cost mega bucks if you have reasonable access to 
some equipment and supplies but it is not cheap and easy.

	Some of the areas to learn about include but are not limited to 
the following.  In learning about this is is also suggested to learn not 
only theory and mathmatics but also the actual hands on practical applied 
techniques.  Even if you never see or work with materials and equipment 
in the discipline of cryogenics, a different, wonderful and often 
contrary field of endeavor, knowledge of the 'hardball nuts and bolts 
belt and suspenders engineering' aspects will, or should, give you an 
appreciation of those who do.

	My personal opinion almost always is the judge by doing.  If you
think "this is bogus and does not work", then this is just that, thinking. 
But try it yourself first.  Then report.  Do not fear failure.  If a
toaster does not work, and fails to toast toast, report it.  Report all
conditions, in so far as you can.  Then, if Bill Beatty or someone
suggests "plug it in first" .... and it works, then we all win.  It is
very hard to find a bad experiment or quest, or question.


	And Bill, thank you, for the community.


					

	Gravity Society

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 12 21:49:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA04000; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:46:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: D. Davidson exerpt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961011224046.22072D-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013004408.8815F-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"nTBBS2.0.Q-.qH7Oo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1573
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



	Dear Vo.,

	In D. D. exerpt the term "N.B." is used at the end of the text, 
in a similar fashion to the US  PS, which means Post Script.  Can anyone 
elucidate the N.B.?

					JHS

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 01:13:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01046; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 01:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 01:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 01:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: JATO Power Calc Experiment
In-Reply-To: <199610130343.UAA15856@norway.it.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961013011002.3216E-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"1XPlw3.0.CG.rGAOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1574
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Michael Randall wrote:

> From: http://www.eifs.com/aftrhour.htm and gif location
> 
> Note from Bob T.:
> 
> The following story is supposedly true. It was on the AP wire in 1995. 
> 
> This story has been nominated for 1996 "Darwin Award", a "real" award
> (albeit humorous) given to the person who contributes most to the world's
> gene pool by killing themself in the stupidest way.

Unfortunately there was an article on one of the Urban Legends newsgroups
saying that someone had gone looking for the source of this story and
found nothing.  Too good to be true?  Just another "UL"?

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 03:08:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA04880; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date:      Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:05:01 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Message-ID: <3260b0c0.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject:   Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Resent-Message-ID: <"9YFC31.0.AC1.yyBOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1575
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote:
> 
> 
>       Dear Vo.,
> 
>       In D. D. exerpt the term "N.B." is used at the end of the text, 
> in a similar fashion to the US  PS, which means Post Script.  Can anyone 
> elucidate the N.B.?
> 
>                                       JHS
I think it has to be "NOTA BENE" that is 'note well', the conclusion 
or the essential  part of the message.
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 03:25:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00686; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:17:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Paper by Giovanni Modanese 
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013001203.8815D-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"NWtvC.0.eA.hs6Oo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1571
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	This is a technical theory paper by G.M.  If one of you can make 
it into ASCII, this would be good.  I do not have the tools to do so.

	It is an important paper because it has a good description of 
E.E. Podklentnov's experimental apparatus in two different embodiments.

\documentstyle[12pt]{article}

\textwidth 170mm
\textheight 235mm
\topmargin -36pt
\oddsidemargin -0.2cm
\evensidemargin -0.5cm

\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}

\hfill \parbox{45mm}{{UTF-367/96} \par Jan 1996 \par supr-con/9601001} 

\vspace*{15mm}

\begin{center}
{\LARGE Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the}

\smallskip

{\LARGE Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment.}
        
\vspace{22mm}

{\large Giovanni Modanese}%

\medskip

\end{center}

\vspace*{10mm}

\begin{abstract}
The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding 
produced recently through a levitating and rotating HTC 
superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the 
shielding value ($\sim 1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We 
show that whilst this behaviour is incompatible with an intuitive 
vectorial picture of the shielding, it is consistently explained 
by our theoretical model. The small expulsive force observed at the 
border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation.

\medskip
\noindent
74.72.-h High-$T_c$ cuprates.         

\noindent
04.60.-m Quantum gravity.

\bigskip 

\end{abstract}
 
The measurements of Podkletnov et al.\ of a possible weak gravitational 
shielding effect \cite{p1,p2} have been repeated several times and under 
different conditions by that group, with good reproducibility,
including results in the vacuum. In the forthcoming months
other groups will hopefully be able to confirm the effect independently.
While the Tampere group was mainly concerned with  
obtaining larger values for the shielding, studying its dependence 
on numerous experimental parameters and testing new materials
for the disk, in the future measurements it will be important
to obtain more exact data, including detailed spatial field maps. 
The theoretical model suggested by us \cite{m1} is still evolving,
although at a fundamental level; a more detailed account
appears elsewhere \cite{m2}.

Let us recall in short the main features of the experiment. A HTC
superconducting disk or toroid with diameter between 15 and 30 $cm$,
made of $YBa_2 Cu_3 O_{7-x}$, is refrigerated by liquid helium in a
stainless steel cryostat at a temperature below $70 \ K$. The
microscopic structure of the material, which plays an important
role in determining the levitation properties and the amount
of the effect, is described in details in the cited works.

The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by
high-frequency AC currents and rotates by
the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different
weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance
which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A
weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is
levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about
0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. 
If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the
sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency
of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation
frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids
as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values
from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample
with respect to the outer edge of the disk.

This effect, if confirmed, would represent a very new and 
spectacular phenomenon in gravity; namely, as well known, there
has never been observed any conventional gravitational shielding 
up till now, up to an accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$, and General 
Relativity and perturbative Quantum Gravity exclude any measurable 
shielding \cite{m1,unni}. Our tentative theoretical explanation is based
on some properties of non-perturbative quantum gravity. We have
shown that the density field $|\phi_0|^2$ of the Cooper pairs
inside the superconductor may act as localized 
positive contribution to the small negative effective gravitational 
cosmological constant $\Lambda$; if the sum turns out to be positive 
in a certain four-dimensional region, a local gravitational singularity 
arises there, affecting the gravitational propagators and thus the 
interaction potential (between the Earth and the samples, in
this case).

To sketch our model -- although not rigorously -- we could say 
that there is an "anomalous coupling" between the mentioned 
density $|\phi_0|^2$ and the gravitational field, and
that the net result is to partly "absorb" the field. We expect
that only in some regions of the superconductor the density
$|\phi_0|^2$ will be strong enough and
that the inhomogeneities of the material and the pinning centers
will be crucial in determining such regions. 
(It is known that the rapid motion of a type II superconductor in
a magnetic field causes resistive effects in the superconductor.)
Since the gravitational 
field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the 
outside. This is provided in the 
experiment by the action of the levitating rf field.


The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the
samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently 
measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the 
shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in
$10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height
the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory,
on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows
on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample 
the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$.

Such an extremely weak height dependence of the shielding is in 
sharp contrast with the intuitive picture, according to which the
gravitational field of the Earth is the vectorial sum of the
fields produced by each single "portion" of Earth. In the absence
of any shielding, the sum results in a field which is equivalent 
to the field of a pointlike mass placed in the center of the Earth;
this can be checked elementarily by direct integration or invoking
Gauss' theorem and the spherical symmetry. But if we admit that
the superconducting disk produces a weak shielding, the part of
the Earth which is shielded lies behind the projection of the
disk as seen from the sample, i.e., within an angle $\theta$ about
the vertical direction, such that $\ \tan \theta = h$, where $h$ is
the sample height over the disk measured in units of the 
disk radius. (For simplicity we suppose now the sample to be 
centered above the disk.)

In order to obtain the shielding effect as a function of $h$, 
taking into account this geometrical factor, one must integrate 
the Newtonian contribution $\cos \phi /R^2$ over the intersection 
between the Earth and the cone defined by $\phi<\theta$.
We have done this for the values $h=1,2,3,4,6,8,10$, through a 
Montecarlo algorithm. We took into account the higher density 
of the Earth's core ($\rho_{core} \sim 2 \rho_{mantle}$; $r_{core}
\sim (1/2) r_{Earth}$; it is straightforward to insert more accurate
values, but the final results change very little); we also computed 
analytically the contribution of the tip of the cone, from the 
Earth's surface to the Earth's core, in order to reduce the 
fluctuations in the Montecarlo samplings for small $R$.
\footnote{For the detailed algorithm and figures please ask
the author at the e-mail address above.}
The resulting values were the following:

\begin{verbatim}

  h     shielding/maximum-shielding  
  =================================
  1           0.62  +/- 0.02
  2           0.34  +/- 0.01
  3           0.18  +/- 0.01
  4           0.102 +/- 0.003
  6           0.050 +/- 0.002
  8           0.029 +/- 0.001
  10          0.018 +/- 0.001

\end{verbatim}

This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned 
experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the 
shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively 
as if it would be concentrated in one point.

On the basis of an analysis similar to ours, it was argued in
\cite{unni} that Podkletnov's data are inconsistent with the
hyotesis of a real gravitational shielding.
In our theoretical model, however, the weak height
dependence arises in a natural way.
We employ a quantum formula which expresses the static gravitational
interaction energy of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in terms of an
invariant vacuum expectation value, namely \cite{m3}
\begin{eqnarray}
  E & = & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T}
  \log \frac{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \left[
  S[g] + \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} dt \,
  \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu}[x_i(t)] \dot{x}_i^\mu(t) \dot{x}_i^\nu(t)}
  \right] \right\}}{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} S[g] \right\} }
  \label{ciao} \\
  & \equiv & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log 
  \left< \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \sum_{i=1,2} m_i 
  \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} ds_i \right\} \right>_S
\label{bella}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ has Euclidean signature and $S$ is the gravitational 
action of general form
\begin{equation}
  S[g] = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{g} \left( \lambda - kR +
  \frac{1}{4} a R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}
  \right) .
\label{azione}
\end{equation}

The constants $k$ and $\lambda$ are related -- in general 
as ``bare quantities'' -- to the Newton constant $G$ and to the 
cosmological constant $\Lambda$: $k$ corresponds to $1/8\pi G$
and $\lambda$ to $\Lambda/8\pi G$. The trajectories $x_i(t)$ of 
$m_1$ and $m_2$ are parallel with respect to the metric $g$; let
$R$ be their distance.

In the weak-field approximation, eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) reproduces
to lowest order the Newton potential and can be used 
to find its higher order quantum corrections \cite{muz}, or implemented 
on a Regge lattice to investigate the non-perturbative
behaviour of the potential at small distances \cite{h}. The 
addition to the gravitational action (\ref{azione}) of a term 
which represents a localized {\it external} Bose condensate 
\footnote{This means that the density of the condensate is not 
included into the functional integration variables.}
mimics a shielding effect which is absent from the classical
theory and which we take as our candidate model for the
observed shielding.

The feature of eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) which is of interest here 
is that if the two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are not pointlike,
the trajectories $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ must be those of their
centers of mass. (This also makes irrelevant the question --
actually ill-defined in general relativity --
whether they are pointlike or not.) Thus, when applying
eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) to the Earth and the sample, we only need
to consider the centers of mass of those
bodies. In this way we reproduce the observed behaviour for the 
shielding as well as for the regular interaction.
The ensuing apparent failure in the "local transmission" of the
gravitational interaction does not contrast with any known
property of gravity (compare \cite{m3,j}, and references about
the problem of the local energy density in General Relativity
and \cite{m3} about the non-localization of virtual gravitons.
One should also keep in mind that (\ref{ciao}) holds only
in the static case.)

Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight
diminution of the effective value of the gravitational
acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential
energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ 
is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside
the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This
means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force
at the border of the shielded region. Such a force has been
indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not
available yet. From the theoretical point of view it is
however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity
of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy
from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient
stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for
heavy samples.

I would like to thank C.S.\ Unnikrishnan for useful discussions.

\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem{p1}
E.\ Podkletnov and R.\ Nieminen, Physica {\bf C 203} (1992) 441.

\bibitem{p2}
E.\ Podkletnov and A.D.\ Levit, {\it Gravitational shielding properties
of composite bulk $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ superconductor below 70 K under
electro-magnetic field}, Tampere University of Technology report
MSU-95 chem, January 1995.

\bibitem{m1}
G.\ Modanese, {\it Theoretical analysis of a reported weak
gravitational shielding effect}, report MPI-PhT/95-44,
hep-th/9505094, May 1995; to appear in Europhys.\ Lett.

\bibitem{m2}
G.\ Modanese, {\it Role of a "local" cosmological constant in
Euclidean quantum gravity}, report UTF-368/96, 
hep-th@xxx.lanl.gov/9601160; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D}.

\bibitem{p3}
E.\ Podkletnov, private communication, October 1995.

\bibitem{m3}
G.\ Modanese, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 325} (1994) 354; Nucl.\ Phys.\
{\bf B 434} (1995) 697; Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 17}, n.\ 8 (1994).

\bibitem{unni}
C.S.\ Unnikrishnan, {\it Does a superconductor shield gravity?},
to appear in Physica {\bf C}.

\bibitem{muz}
I.J.\ Muzinich and S.\ Vokos, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 3472.

\bibitem{j}
D.\ Bak, D.\ Cangemi, R.\ Jackiw, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49}
(1994) 5173.

\bibitem{h}
H.W.\ Hamber and R.M. Williams, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 435}
(1995) 361.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}



From vortex-digest-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 03:25:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA06364; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 03:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: vortex-digest-request@eskimo.com
Message-Id: <199610131025.DAA06364@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: vortex-digest Digest V96 #83
X-Loop: vortex-digest@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-digest@eskimo.com> archive/volume96/83
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: vortex-digest@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

vortex-digest Digest				Volume 96 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
	 Correa, SIMS
	 SIMS is nuclear reactor
	 Re: Miley's paper (fwd)
	 Re: HANG UP CALLS, vortex-L philosophy
	 RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
	 RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
	 Re: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
	 Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
	 JATO Power Calc Experiment
	 Community
	 Gravity
	 Re: D. Davidson exerpt
	 full BW update 
	 Re: JATO Power Calc Experiment
	   Re: D. Davidson exerpt

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:58:32 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
To: rgeorge@hooked.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com, rmcarrell@aol.com,
        bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu
Subject: Correa, SIMS
Message-ID: <325F4198.35EB@rt66.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E67314B7A89"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------E67314B7A89
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks, Russ,

Could you post on vortex-l details about your gas discharge experiments
that sometimes made the cathodes red-hot and eroded them badly?  Would
it be easy to replicate?  A report should be put out.

If you still have access to that fine SIMS instrument, why not try to
induce CF in various films, Pd, Ni, Ti, Pt, by progressively increasing
voltage and current, expanding and contracting the ion beam focus spot,
trying different ions.  How many variables could you run in a day? 
Would the SIMS manufacturer be interested in this possibly vast
expansion in the market for their product?

Rich Murray

--------------E67314B7A89
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: rgeorge@mail.hooked.net
Received: from mom.hooked.net (root@mom.hooked.net [206.80.6.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA09958 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:04:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from tuna.hooked.net (webe-17.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.9.17]) by mom.hooked.net (8.8.Beta.1/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA18377; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199609241605.JAA18377@mom.hooked.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <rgeorge@mail.hooked.net>
From: "Russ George" <rgeorge@hooked.net>
To: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:10:52 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Review of Correa device
Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net
CC: rmcarrell@aol.com
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)

Richard, ( and Mr. Carrell)

I read your review based on RM Carrells assessment of the Correa 
device. I am interested in this but haven't followed it closely. In 
my own work I became interested in the glow discharge methods for CF 
when working at Los Alamos with Tom Claytor monkey wrenching his glow 
discharge experiments. I subsequently set up several GD experiments 
of my own and have seen some odd effects. I a mostly interested in 
measuring the tritium production rates.

I use an AC system in a deuterium gas GD experiment. At times I have 
observed the Pd electrodes cycle through a regular process of heating 
to a bright red heat and then precipitously cooling back to a silver 
color.  In the process the Pd electrode becomes quite damaged 
sputtering away considerable matieral. While I've been enegaged in 
using time of flight SIMS analysis to examine other materials for 
isotopic anomalies I've not yet had the funds to expand that work to 
these GD electrodes.

Does Correa have any material the he is interested in conducting 
isotopic analysis on. I thought pehaps one of you had some contact 
with him and might pose this query. In my current work I am using the 
most advance time of flight SIMS instrument in the world and have the 
operators pretty well tuned in to this work. Unfortunately it is 
rather expensive to operate about running about $2500 per day. Little 
can be accomplished with less than a full day but two days does a 
lot.

Russ George
E-Quest



--------------E67314B7A89--

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:21:06 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
To: rgeorge@hooked.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu,
        ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, mwm@aa.net
Subject: SIMS is nuclear reactor
Message-ID: <325F46E2.55C@rt66.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------63AB1FF97E4D"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------63AB1FF97E4D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russ,   I'm very interested to be informed about the foibles of SIMS
measurements.  Somehow, I thought it was nearly perfect, you know,
picking up the fatal arsenic in Napoleon's hair and stuff like that.

Maybe you could post to us at Vortex-L@eskimo.com some more information
about SIMS, in regard to Miley's data:
How might SIMS have come up with over 4,000 counts for Na23 on fresh
beads?
Is there any significance to the missing lines for Ni61 (abundance 1.1
%)  and Ni64 (0.9 %)?
How much significance can we safely abscribe to counts in the range 1 to
10?
What are typical ion bean intensities and size of spot?  How much film
is vaporized in how much time?  Is there a molten zone, and how big and
long-lived is it?
Is the ion beam likely to have any other components, like H+ or H2+?
Can SIMS distinguish at low resolutions C(12)H from C(13)?

How many different attempts to deliberately induce CF could you make in
a day?  How long does it take to put in a new sample?  How many
different ion beams are available?

Much appreciated!

Rich Murray

--------------63AB1FF97E4D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: rgeorge@mail.hooked.net
Received: from mom.hooked.net (root@mom.hooked.net [206.80.6.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA25696 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:19:33 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from tuna.hooked.net (fish-60.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.10.60]) by mom.hooked.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA16604 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610101420.HAA16604@mom.hooked.net>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <rgeorge@mail.hooked.net>
From: "Russ George" <rgeorge@hooked.net>
To: rmforall@rt66.com
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:26:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Miley, Mizuno data: SIMS makes nuclear reactions
Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)

Before you get too excited about SIMS work I'd look into the
technique. The sensitivity of SIMS is different for each atom. Hence
things like sodium show up with big signals because the machine can
see sodium easily. Xenon and other inert gases cannot be seen at all
in SIMS at least not in any of the methods used in this field
including Mizuno.

Sure 2 12C's make mass 24 and indeed mass 24 is seen however it is in 
fact a double ion of 12C. Only a very high resolution instrument can 
see the difference between 2 12C's and 24Mg, not the instrument Miley 
used in the manner it was used.

Also recall that SIMS has been used for a long time now for examining 
surface materials like layers of various metals deposited by various 
processes. No isotope anomalies have been reported in the literature 
and indeed SIMS is a established tool for measuring isotope ratios.

All this is not to say the Miley's report is all wrong but there are 
some ragged edges.




--------------63AB1FF97E4D--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:07:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961011230701.15221E-100000@college>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 23:19:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net,
    101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
    peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, manty@ctc.com,
    CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zap@dnai.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper



	Dear Frank,

	Some questions; please;

	1] What was the total amount of fluid used?
	2] What is the source and purity of;
		a] the water
		b] the metal salts
	3] What is the rough cumulative flow and rate through the material
	4] Do we read correctly the total volume of 'beads' to be 0.5 cc?
	5] So how much fluid was re circulated through the 0.5 cc of beads?


	Cross check;

	1A]
	take same fluid amount and salts and re circulate through plain 
styrene beads for same length of time
	2A] 
	evaporate water under reduced pressure
	3A] 
	column chromatograph [separately]
	fluid [aqueous] and 'blank' beads [solvent ie, MEK, acetone]

	1B] repeat cross check with current applied.

	Use same type of pumps, tubing, fittings, etc.... but not the 
same ones used in run for paper.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 08:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: HANG UP CALLS, vortex-L philosophy
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961012075752.11770A-100000@eskimo.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Barry Merriman wrote:

> I've been having trouble lately deciding whether to buy
> skim milk, or 2%. What do you Vortexians think?
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> Seriously, couldn't this mailing list be kept even remotely
> on topic? I get enough mail as it is without getting general
> blah blah on this list. Things discussed here should have 
> at least some connection to energy, I would think...

Actually, the main topic (other than the official "water vortex" one) is
more like the pursuit of physics anomalies and the opening of fields of
research which are currently "taboo."

> Mark,
> couldn;t you just take a survey of your coworkers on the 
> phone thing?

Barry does have a good point.  Discussion groups are always in danger of
being overwhelmed by off-topic conversations, or simply by overly large
traffic in on-topic conversations.  I've been on newsgroups with 200
messages per day.  They're useless.

It's OK to send off-topic messages, but please people, make it a habit to
take the conversation immediately to private mail.  Mark's survey was OK,
but in the future, this type of message should say "please reply directly
to me, don't fill vortex-L."   And even if it doesn't, please try to
remember to answer privately if the rest of vortex-L doesn't need to see
your message.

> And, call me callous, but I don't really need
> to hear the ins and outs of the members personal lives either...take
> it as given that we all have lives and all the complexities that 
> entails. 

Barry has a misconception, I think.  Vortex-L is one of those strange and
wonderful things called an Online Community.  Without the personal
messages it would die, and become more like a UPS news feed.  Think of it
more like like a physics conference than like a physics journal.  A
physics conference with a chairman who keeps the fistfights to a minimum.

Also, vortex-L is what it is.  It is ( slightly <g> ) controlled by the
rules, but it really is an evolving organism created by its participants.
Even if I had lots of strictly-enforced rules, it would still be
unmoderated.  Then I guess it would be a "bonzai" version of an online
community?

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:21:58 -0400
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
To: VORTEX-L@eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro,
        RVargo1062@aol.com, zap@dnai.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com,
        Puthoff@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, 72240.1256@compuserve.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com
Subject: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
Message-ID: <961012122158_124981484@emout14.mail.aol.com>

                Yusmar test with Magnetite addition  October 96


       time min   temp in F  temp out F    flow GPM   power out KW    KW in

              0          60          60                0.78            0.00
                 4.8
             15          60          78               0.76            2.00
                 4.8
             30          60          89               0.77            3.26
                 4.6
             45          60          96              0.735           3.86
                 4.6
             60          60         101              0.75            4.49
                 4.5
             75          60         102             0.735           4.51
                 4.7
             90          60         103             0.76             4.77
                 4.6
            105         60         104             0.75             4.82
                 4.7
            120         60         104             0.74             4.75
                 4.7


      COP
           0
        0.42
        0.71
        0.84
        1.00
        0.96
        1.04
        1.03
        1.01
  

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 11:15:49 -0700
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com (by way of Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961012181549.006be820@mail.eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

(Reformatted)

From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com


      YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION  OCTOBER 96


Time   Temp In   Temp Out   Flow    Power In   Power Out   COP
(Min)    (F)       (F)      (GPM)     (KW)       (KW)
________________________________________________________________
0        60        60       0.78      4.8       0.00       0
15       60        78       0.76      4.8       2.00       0.42
30       60        89       0.77      4.6       3.26       0.71
45       60        96       0.735     4.6       3.86       0.84
60       60       101       0.75      4.5       4.49       1.00
75       60       102       0.735     4.7       4.51       0.96
90       60       103       0.76      4.6       4.77       1.04
105      60       104       0.75      4.7       4.82       1.03
120      60       104       0.74      4.7       4.75       1.01

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 13:11:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION
Message-Id: <m0vC8Wt-00018aC@mirage.skypoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Frank Z. wrote:

> min   temp in F  temp out F  flow GPM   power out KW    KW in   COP
> 0        60          60       0.78        0.00           4.8     0
> 15       60          78       0.76        2.00           4.8     0.42
> 30       60          89       0.77        3.26           4.6     0.71
> 45       60          96       0.735       3.86           4.6     0.84
> 60       60         101       0.75        4.49           4.5     1.00
> 75       60         102       0.735       4.51           4.7     0.96
> 90       60         103       0.76        4.77           4.6     1.04
> 10       60         104       0.75        4.82           4.7     1.03
> 12       60         104       0.74        4.75           4.7     1.01

                                           -----          ----     ----
                               Cumulative  32.46          42.0     0.77


-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 19:51:42 -0400
From: Puthoff@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
Message-ID: <961012195142_125209631@emout19.mail.aol.com>

---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu (Marcello Truzzi)
Reply-to:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu
To:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu (AAAAA), esper@california.com (Auerbach, Loyd
(2)), BlndgsCast@aol.com (Dan Cohen), dzuck@inforamp.net (Daniel Zuckerbrot),
fivemtn@ilhawaii.net (Dennis Stillings), puthoff@aol.com (Hal Puthoff),
jrc@inforamp.net (john robert colombo), michaelkurland@mindspring.com
(Kurland, Michael), polidoro@aznet.it (Massimo Polidoro), MaxMaven@aol.com
(MaxMaven@aol.com), hermeticpress@worldnet.att.net (Minch, Stephen),
patrick@cloud9.net (Patrick Huyghe), PLAMONT@afb1.ssc.ed.ac.uk (Peter
Lamont), R.Wiseman@herts.ac.uk (Richard Wiseman), ronwestrum@aol.com (Ron
Westrum), schwartz@jsasoc.com (Schwartz, Stephan A.), skrippner@igc.apc.org
(skrippner@igc.apc.org), 75717.3247@CompuServe.COM (T.A. Waters (1)),
thomasb@mindspring.com (Thomas Burgin), 2228@msn.com (Wilhelm, John)
Date: 96-10-12 14:13:06 EDT

Oct. 3, 1996 14:08 EDT, from an AP news report:

NEW DELHI India - An Indian villager who claimed he could turn water into
gasoline is a fraud, scientists have determined.

Last month Ramar Pillai demonstrated at a government lab how boiling a
mixture of leaves, lemon juice and salt, a few drops of gasoline, and a test
tube of undisclosed chemicals could yield fuel.

Scientists this week reported a hollow stirrer Pillai used during his
demonstration contained fuel which he slipped into the boiling concoction,
giving it gasoline-like properties.

The stirrer was filled with kerosene or gasoline; its tip was plugged with
wax, which when heated inside the boiling water, melted, releasing the fuel
into the mixture, V. Ramamurthy, the top scientist in the Department of
Science and Technology,said. Analysis showed that the mixture also contained
lead and other chemicals that are added to gasoline when it is processed.

Pillai, a 34-year-old high school dropout, had said his fuel was herbal and
derived from the leaves of a plant he had found 18 years ago near his
village of Idayankulam, 1,200 miles south of New Delh.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 20:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: JATO Power Calc Experiment
Message-Id: <199610130343.UAA15856@norway.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: http://www.eifs.com/aftrhour.htm and gif location

Note from Bob T.:

The following story is supposedly true. It was on the AP wire in 1995. 

This story has been nominated for 1996 "Darwin Award", a "real" award
(albeit humorous) given to the person who contributes most to the world's
gene pool by killing themself in the stupidest way. Example: last year some
(deceased) jerk got the award by trying to "jimmy" a soda can out of a Coke
Cola machine by tipping it. The machine fell over and killed him! 

When I first read the article below, I laughed so hard my sides started
aching. UNBELIEVABLE.

Also, FYI, a JATO unit is a one-shot power source. It has no throttle. Once
it's on, it keeps putting out until it runs out of fuel - like a bottle rocket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded
into the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. The
wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type
of car was unidentifiable at the scene. The lab finally figured out what it
was and what had happened. 

It seems that a guy had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted
Take Off - actually a solid fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military
transport planes an extra "push" for taking off from short airfields. He had
driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight
stretch of road. Then he attached the JATO unit to his car, jumped in, got
up some speed and fired off the JATO! 

The facts as best as could be determined are that the operator of the 1967
Impala hit JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the
crash site. This was established by the prominent scorched and melted
asphalt at that location. The JATO, if operating properly, would have
reached maximum thrust within 5 seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds
well in excess of 350 mph and continuing at full power for an additional
20-25 seconds. The driver, soon to be pilot, most likely would have
experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog-fighting F-14 jocks under full
afterburners, basically causing him to become insignificant for the
remainder of the event. However, the automobile remained on the straight
highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20) seconds before the driver applied and
completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber
marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for an additional 1.4
miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet leaving a
blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock. 

Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable; however, small fragments
of bone, teeth and hair were extracted from the crater and fingernail and
bone shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of
the steering wheel. 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>, William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Community
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961012235503.8815B-100000@college>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

	Dear Vo.,

	Bill Beatty's letter about community touched a nerve.  Several 
have asked about gravity research at Antioch.  I had planned on waiting 
until the 'official' word was passed by the administration that Antioch 
College wanted to be involved.  The students I have spoken to want to be 
involved.  The "community" of Vortex wants to be involved.

	I am going to write here a little background, and then post some 
information.  I have been exposed to the work of Eugene E. Podklentnov 
for only a short period of time.  I have been communicating with several 
people theorizing in the field.  Some of what I will be writing is 
opinion, some is information I have recieved, some is information I have 
personally experienced first hand.

	A society has been formed we call "The Gravity Society".  We are 
registering the domain gravity.org.  when I say "we", I mean a very few 
people, we do not even yet have an adminisrator for the society.  The 
domain registration has only just started.  There will soon be 'official' 
and I hope fairly regular reports of work in the field.

	I will editorialize from time to time, and start now;

	This whole work is very new and 'raw'.  I personally say, 
opinion, I do not havea clue as to what, exactly, this is.  Do not take 
what I say as gospel.  I week from now I may well say "I was wrong".

	One thing I can say is I only know what I know now, and it will
change. 

	So, after I close this letter, I will post some material.  It 
will be re posted in a more complete and polished form by the society.  
These postings are for the 'community'.  


					JHS

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: Gravity
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013001920.8815E-100000@college>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

	Dear Vo.,

	We continue work at this task. 

	Opinion:

 Anyone who would wish to follow the work should become educated in
certain matters so as to be effective.  Anyone wishing to engage in the 
work is encouraged.  And, be aware also this is a non trivial effort.
The work does not have to cost mega bucks if you have reasonable access to 
some equipment and supplies but it is not cheap and easy.

	Some of the areas to learn about include but are not limited to 
the following.  In learning about this is is also suggested to learn not 
only theory and mathmatics but also the actual hands on practical applied 
techniques.  Even if you never see or work with materials and equipment 
in the discipline of cryogenics, a different, wonderful and often 
contrary field of endeavor, knowledge of the 'hardball nuts and bolts 
belt and suspenders engineering' aspects will, or should, give you an 
appreciation of those who do.

	My personal opinion almost always is the judge by doing.  If you
think "this is bogus and does not work", then this is just that, thinking. 
But try it yourself first.  Then report.  Do not fear failure.  If a
toaster does not work, and fails to toast toast, report it.  Report all
conditions, in so far as you can.  Then, if Bill Beatty or someone
suggests "plug it in first" .... and it works, then we all win.  It is
very hard to find a bad experiment or quest, or question.


	And Bill, thank you, for the community.


					

	Gravity Society

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:46:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013004408.8815F-100000@college>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

	Dear Vo.,

	In D. D. exerpt the term "N.B." is used at the end of the text, 
in a similar fashion to the US  PS, which means Post Script.  Can anyone 
elucidate the N.B.?

					JHS

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
cc: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Subject: full BW update 
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013000928.8815C-100000@college>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE NEWS FLASH!
September 25, 1996


ONE STEP CLOSER TO AN ANTIGRAVITY MACHINE

Is it possible to create a device the reduces the effects of gravity? 
Business Week reported in its Sept. 30 issue that it might be (see "An 
Antigravitiy Machine? Take That, Issac Newton").

Now, preliminary results from initial attempts to confirm the possibility
of an antigravity machine appear to have turned out positively. John H. 
Schnurer, a researcher at Antioch College in Ohio, conducted two trials
over the Sept. 21-22 weekend, and both seem to have caused a small weight
loss in objects suspended over a superconducting disk.

Schnurer cautions that his experimental setup is "still very crude, so
don't hang your hat on it yet." But if Schnurer's initial results hold up
as he refines his techniques, the 2% weight loss reported by Eugene E. 
Podkletnov, the Russian scientist who discovered the anomaly while doing 
research on high-temperature superconducting materials in Finland, might
even turn out to be conservative.

"This is a new field of investigation, so nothing is cast in stone," says
Schnurer. Although a small weight-loss effect was observed, he adds, the
cause is still a mystery. It could end up not being a "gravity shield" but
some other phenomenon.

Schnurer used a disk furnished by Superconductive Components Inc. in 
Columbus, Ohio. He is working on several refinements of Podkletov's 
techniques he believes may be patentable. Indeed, a patent lawyer
witnessed one of Schnurer's  experiments. 

Copyright 1996 The McGraw-Hill Companies All rights reserved. 

[JS note: the BW article from the issue dated Sept. 30 is available on
America Online; keyword: BW.]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 01:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: JATO Power Calc Experiment
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961013011002.3216E-100000@eskimo.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Michael Randall wrote:

> From: http://www.eifs.com/aftrhour.htm and gif location
> 
> Note from Bob T.:
> 
> The following story is supposedly true. It was on the AP wire in 1995. 
> 
> This story has been nominated for 1996 "Darwin Award", a "real" award
> (albeit humorous) given to the person who contributes most to the world's
> gene pool by killing themself in the stupidest way.

Unfortunately there was an article on one of the Urban Legends newsgroups
saying that someone had gone looking for the source of this story and
found nothing.  Too good to be true?  Just another "UL"?

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

------------------------------

Date:      Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:05:01 GMT
From: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject:   Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Message-ID: <3260b0c0.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro>

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote:
> 
> 
>       Dear Vo.,
> 
>       In D. D. exerpt the term "N.B." is used at the end of the text, 
> in a similar fashion to the US  PS, which means Post Script.  Can anyone 
> elucidate the N.B.?
> 
>                                       JHS
I think it has to be "NOTA BENE" that is 'note well', the conclusion 
or the essential  part of the message.
Peter
-- 
dr. Peter Gluck

Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology         Fax:064-420042
Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700           Tel:064-184037/144
Cluj 5, 3400 Romania
E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro 

--------------------------------
End of vortex-digest Digest V96 Issue #83
*****************************************

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 08:08:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27987; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:05:33 -0400
Message-ID: <961013110530_209462338@emout08.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Yusmar
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ng3eK3.0.Dr6.HLGOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1576
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
To:	FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: 96-10-13 10:49:18 EDT

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote:

> Yury is returning to Moldova today.  He is going to send us a complete
> system.

Yay!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 08:13:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28715; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 08:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: ANNOUNCE: digest mode now available
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961013080706.23019A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"rlaUj3.0.Z07.gRGOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1577
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Welllllllll-p, digest mode is now available on vortex-L.  If you
unsubscribe from vortex-L and subscribe to vortex-digest instead, you will
receive clumps of messages around 30K - 40K in size.  The software
collects messages until it passes the 40K limit, then transmits them as a
single large message with all the separate messages appearing as
attachment files.

If you want digests, to avoid missing anything I suggest that you remain 
subscribed to vortex-L until a couple of digest messages have arrived.

To subscribe to vortex-digest, send a BLANK MESSAGE to
vortex-digest-request@eskimo.com, with the single word "subscribe" in the
subject line of the message header.  No quotes around "subscribe", of
course.

To unsubscribe from vortex-L, send a BLANK MESSAGE to
vortex-L-request@eskimo.com, with the single word "unsubscribe" in the
subject line of the message header.  No quotes around "unsubscribe", of
course. 

Enjoy!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,..............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 19:29:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA23134; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.265824190096287FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 1996 19:24:19 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/13/96 19:24:57 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"ykO5C3.0.Hf5.ZIQOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1578
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/12/96 03:16
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
Miley's paper is hardly theory John, it briefly mentions his pet
theory. We'll see, I'll send him a note this week, which he probably
won't see for a week. By that time the paper will be widely spread,
so we'll see what the attitude is. No hurry on my part, but I think
a lot of people out there would like to see this. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 20:46:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10456; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 20:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 20:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vCdva-0001iQC@mirage.skypoint.com>
From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:42:54 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.265824190096287FEPRI@EPRI.COM> from "MHUGO@EPRI" at Oct 13, 96 07:24:19 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"KmfiF3.0.IZ2.ARROo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1579
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo wrote:
> Miley's paper is hardly theory John, it briefly mentions his pet
> theory.

As long as he has experimental results ...

> We'll see, I'll send him a note this week, which he probably
> won't see for a week. By that time the paper will be widely spread,
> so we'll see what the attitude is. No hurry on my part, but I think
> a lot of people out there would like to see this. MDH

I don't want to be a wet blanket on this copyright thing, but these ISP
service providers can and do cancel accounts based upon piracy and
copyright violation.

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 21:13:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA16578; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.265824190096287FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961013234252.4453A-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"sJtVK2.0.y24.krROo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1580
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




	Dear Mark,

	I don't think I said anywhere the word 'theory', with regards to 
Miley's paper.  If I did, then 'my bad', I have never thought, based 
on the portion I have seen, this is a theory paper.  I looks like a 
comprehensive paper with application, theory, test, test results and so 
forth.  In other words, a complete paper.

On 13 Oct 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote:

> *** Reply to note of 10/12/96 03:16
> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
> Miley's paper is hardly theory John, it briefly mentions his pet
> theory. We'll see, I'll send him a note this week, which he probably
> won't see for a week. By that time the paper will be widely spread,
> so we'll see what the attitude is. No hurry on my part, but I think
> a lot of people out there would like to see this. MDH
> 
> 
	I too would like to see the whole paper.  My main questions may 
well be answered in the complete paper.  The few that are of 
immediate interest to 
me, due to direct personal background in having to grapple with real 
world stuff in the areas are:

	1] was [is] there a reservoir of fluid [electrolyte] which was 
[is] being re circulated?
	2] how big is the reservoir .... ie, hoe much fluid are we 
talking about  ... and, for this question set, the intitial question set, 
I do not, per se, care about insulation, calorimetery, measurement of 
heat in-heat out or any of that.  

	Background:  I have personallyhad to do work with trying to 
identify VERY small amounts of compounds under difficult conditions.  The 
compound of interest was organic and 'small', compared to an enzyme, 
which was 'large' and also present.  We used dialysis membrane to exclude 
the enzyme.  Why?  Because the enzyme broke down the molecule we 
were looking for.  So we had this molecule, and we had an enzyme breaking 
it down, and the whole was in and part of the 'as good as we could' 
prepared molecular soup.  We ran 	gallons and gallons of water 
under the dialysis memebrane, hoping a few molecules of what we were 
looking for would diffuse through.  Before the enzyme on the other side 
broke down too much of it.
	The molecule was of the EXACT same molecular weight as a similar 
molecule ... also present, and present in much much higher concentration, 
these were NOT L and R isomers .... the difference was a bond 
configuration, and it was a too-easy-happenstance for the bond to be 
reconfigured by heat, or reagent or a number of other factors.
	I could, and should anyone have interest, will go on and on about 
he wonderful and interesting and conditions.  Some would maybe use the 
word  "difficulties" ....  they, this set of parameters and the 
situation,were not in my mind "difficulties' .... they were an exercise, 
they were what made the whole thing interesting, and publishable, 
BECAUSE	it was tough .... and FUN!  We had to be original and clever to 
get anywhere, we were counting 1 X 10 neg. 14 moles of the stuff.  Or, 
NOT MUCH STUFF.
	As with much of my electronic signal processing work for NASA and 
USAF, noise [and in this case chemical artifact or contamination, the 
chemical equivalent of noise] was my friend, ally [job security], and 
constant companion, taskmaster, teacher and ego deflator.
	
	3] what wasin the reservoir?
	4] how much fluid went through the bed of beads?
	5] how much beads were there present?


					J

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 21:19:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA17507; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:14:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: My bad
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961014001027.4453B-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"KtoAG2.0.QH4.ovROo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1581
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	I just posted a windy discussion [which still stands] in response 
to Marks 'it is hardly a theory, John'  ..... well my name is John too. I 
thought you were talking about me, saying theory.

	BUT:  I still have questions
		I did not say theory
		I still would like to see the paper
		I think posters sould say "John xxxx" .... for responses 
to persons with common names.  Just a thought.


			JHS
	

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 21:58:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25044; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Community
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:55:57 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <3265c46a.10349187@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961012235503.8815B-100000@college>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961012235503.8815B-100000@college>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"DPBYN.0.A76.RVSOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1582
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:08:19 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote:
[snip]
>	A society has been formed we call "The Gravity Society".  We are=20
>registering the domain gravity.org.  when I say "we", I mean a very few=20
>people, we do not even yet have an adminisrator for the society.  The=20
>domain registration has only just started.  There will soon be =
'official'=20
>and I hope fairly regular reports of work in the field.
>
>	I will editorialize from time to time, and start now;
>
>	This whole work is very new and 'raw'.  I personally say,=20
>opinion, I do not havea clue as to what, exactly, this is.  Do not take=20
>what I say as gospel.  I week from now I may well say "I was wrong".
>
>	One thing I can say is I only know what I know now, and it will
>change.=20
>
>	So, after I close this letter, I will post some material.  It=20
>will be re posted in a more complete and polished form by the society. =20
>These postings are for the 'community'. =20
>
>
>					JHS
>
>
John,

Before you do too much, you might like to take a look at Project
Omicron:

http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/index.html


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 22:23:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA28603; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 01:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Community
In-Reply-To: <3265c46a.10349187@mail.netspace.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961014011258.4453F-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"A963g1.0.r-6.XnSOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1583
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Robin,

	I do not have web.  Can you give brief overview of omicron, please?

						J

On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:08:19 -0400 (EDT), John Schnurer wrote:
> [snip]
> >	A society has been formed we call "The Gravity Society".  We are 
> >registering the domain gravity.org.  when I say "we", I mean a very few 
> >people, we do not even yet have an adminisrator for the society.  The 
> >domain registration has only just started.  There will soon be 'official' 
> >and I hope fairly regular reports of work in the field.
> >
> >	I will editorialize from time to time, and start now;
> >
> >	This whole work is very new and 'raw'.  I personally say, 
> >opinion, I do not havea clue as to what, exactly, this is.  Do not take 
> >what I say as gospel.  I week from now I may well say "I was wrong".
> >
> >	One thing I can say is I only know what I know now, and it will
> >change. 
> >
> >	So, after I close this letter, I will post some material.  It 
> >will be re posted in a more complete and polished form by the society.  
> >These postings are for the 'community'.  
> >
> >
> >					JHS
> >
> >
> John,
> 
> Before you do too much, you might like to take a look at Project
> Omicron:
> 
> http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/index.html
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on 
> temperature.
> Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
> Learns all his life,
> And leaves knowing nothing.
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 13 23:00:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05609; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 22:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961014060823.006acfe4@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 23:08:23 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Community
Resent-Message-ID: <"p1Yyv3.0.SN1.2QTOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1584
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>John,
>
>Before you do too much, you might like to take a look at Project
>Omicron:
>
>http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/index.html
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>

Omicron plans to spin a magnet at near the speed of light?  
Hopefully he knows that if spun on its own axis, the magnetic 
field itself does not spin.

Omicron seems to place a lot of weight on a not-so-carefully-masked attempt 
to take credit for what occurred in Finland, which I find unsettling at best.

Quoting:
                     " MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH "

  " A Major University has confirmed PROJECT OMICRON Theories! "

The Major University being referred to is Tampere.

What I found interesting over there was the "Think About It" page, 
where comments are quoted from students who were asked a question 
about gravity.  Engineering, Physics, and Math students wrote 
such absurd answers that it's worth a good laugh, though pitiful.

Another interesting page, about geometry, and the Great Pyramid:
http://www.cwo.com/~omicron/prop003.html

The rest of the site has some nice graphics, but otherwise takes on 
an appearance by its content on the level of a sitcom, a spoof, a 
TA having some fun, probably consuming lots of beer, and hopefully 
scoring a few dates with it.  I wish him luck, but experimentation 
and results always say a lot more than math, theories, or rhetoric.  
Tough view, yes, but realistic, yes.

Gary Hawkins

 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 00:02:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA15490; Sun, 13 Oct 1996 23:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 23:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199610140653.CAA25986@mail.inforamp.net>
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.inforamp.net: Host ts25-13.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.139.113] didn't use HELO protocol
X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Quinney <quinney@inforamp.net>
Subject: Re: Community
Resent-Message-ID: <"_BGdJ1.0.xn3.kJUOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1585
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi   Vortexians:

I agree with Gary Hawkins. The Omicron site does not appear to be up to scratch.

I enjoyed Bill Beaty and John Schnurers'  ideas about  Community. I also
like John's ideas about also using this forum as an information exchange on
the "Tampere" Gravity experiments and theories. I'm hoping that the Cold
Fusioneers will not object.. there may actually be some over-unity concepts
associated with the Podklentnov "anti-gravity" field..

This will mean that two very exciting, developing areas in science will be
right here, on one mailing-list.

Regards,
        Colin Quinney                                           

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 00:29:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA18827; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530502ae879cc9e3b4@[204.17.242.74]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 23:34:21 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"mdphd2.0.5c4.dkUOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1586
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:08 PM 10/13/96, Gary Hawkins wrote:
[snip]
>
>Omicron plans to spin a magnet at near the speed of light?
>Hopefully he knows that if spun on its own axis, the magnetic
>field itself does not spin.
>
[snip]
>Gary Hawkins

What evidence is there that the field does not spin with the magnet?


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 02:11:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA28682; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961014091246.006fb944@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 02:12:46 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bG4V41.0.307.xCWOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1587
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hey, isn't the Faraday's homopolar effect without the radial conductor (in
the form of spinning cylindrical capacitor) an evidence that the magnetic
field does rotate with the magnet ?

At 11:34 PM 10/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>At 11:08 PM 10/13/96, Gary Hawkins wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>Omicron plans to spin a magnet at near the speed of light?
>>Hopefully he knows that if spun on its own axis, the magnetic
>>field itself does not spin.
>>
>[snip]
>>Gary Hawkins
>
>What evidence is there that the field does not spin with the magnet?
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 05:11:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA11365; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: LCatalf1@pseg.com
Date:       14 OCT 96 07:52:44 EDT
Subject:    Re: D. Davidson exerpt
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 2.3.5 ZOOMIT X.400/SMTP Dual Stack
X-Complete-Subject:           Re: D. Davidson exerpt
Message-ID: <0000ftflnnxn.0000eccmeqww@pseg.com>
Resent-Message-ID: <"NGKY01.0.Rn2.PsYOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1588
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

	N.B.  stands for "Note' Bene"  in Italian and is interpreted as  "Note 
Well" in English.

														Lee 
Catalfomo
-------------
Original Text
>From C=US/A=INTERNET/DDA=ID/vortex-l(a)eskimo.com, on 10/13/96 12:48 AM:

	Dear Vo.,

	In D. D. exerpt the term "N.B." is used at the end of the text, 
in a similar fashion to the US  PS, which means Post Script.  Can anyone 
elucidate the N.B.?

					JHS

 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 07:31:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29840; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610141421.HAA13299@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:21:01 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: JATO Power Calc Experiment
Resent-Message-ID: <"h9PpD3.0.9I7.rnaOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1589
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 01:11 AM 10/13/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Michael Randall wrote:
>
>> From: http://www.eifs.com/aftrhour.htm and gif location
>> 
>> Note from Bob T.:
>> 
>> The following story is supposedly true. It was on the AP wire in 1995. 
>> 
>> This story has been nominated for 1996 "Darwin Award", a "real" award
>> (albeit humorous) given to the person who contributes most to the world's
>> gene pool by killing themself in the stupidest way.
>
>Unfortunately there was an article on one of the Urban Legends newsgroups
>saying that someone had gone looking for the source of this story and
>found nothing.  Too good to be true?  Just another "UL"?
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
>
>


If so, it is one of the better ones.  I too laughed and laughed and laughed.
Maybe this is a Road-Runner/Coyote tale.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 07:38:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02413; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.062425070096288FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 14 Oct 1996 07:25:07 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/14/96 07:25:23 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"5suRb2.0.Yb.IsaOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1590
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/13/96 20:45
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
John, wouldn't you know that I'd leave all copies of the paper at home
today. I'll write you tonight, but I don't think Miley put "copyright"
on this one...(That might be intentional.) So with some feedback from
the source, (i.e. a reply from Miley) we might have it. (Then again
as was suggested elsewhere, CETI might just post it on their web. Then
all you'd have to do is a link.) MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 07:53:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07868; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610141435.HAA00205@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 07:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961014091246.006fb944@mail.localaccess.com> from "epitaxy@localaccess.com" at Oct 14, 96 02:12:46 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8Tx-K2.0.sw1.F5bOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1591
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

> 
> Hey, isn't the Faraday's homopolar effect without the radial conductor (in
> the form of spinning cylindrical capacitor) an evidence that the magnetic
> field does rotate with the magnet ?

Here's four cases of homopolar generator configurations.
What is the magnetic field anyway?

1.) Conductor rotates, magnet stationary.    Output Generated.
2.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates.       Output Generated.
3.) Conductor stationary, magnet rotates.    No Output Generated.

And here's the fourth not well known, blow my mind case, from
a paper by Mueller. 

4.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates, and   
    complete magnetic circuit also rotates.  No Output Generated.

Go figure. 
Robert Stirniman        

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 08:33:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17609; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 08:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961014233052.221f95b8@po.pacific.net.sg>
X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Mpower <mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:28:26 +0800
Resent-Message-ID: <"mH0jF3.0._I4.ombOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1592
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Sir !

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but - my head is spinning !

Could you _PLEASE_ clarify what you mean by "rotating the magnet" as well as
the phrase "rotating the conductor" ?

I have this mental image of a hairpin coil rotating 
about a common center of gravity as the magnet twirls and tumbles in orbit
around the power supply. Toss in a few litres of magnetic fluid.

Are you rotating the magnet :
        1) on the (longitudinal) axis of the magnetic field ?
        2) on a line normal to the (longitudinal) axis ?
        3) at random ? willy nilly ?  WHAT ???

What kind of conductor are you describing ?

How are you rotating the conductor ?

When they both rotate, is their rotation about :
        1) a common axis
        2) two axes normal to each other, or,
        3) some skewed tumbling motion ?

Sorry to disturb you about all this, but I really would like to understand
the geometry of what you are discussing.  It's important.  Thanks


At 07:35 1996.10.14 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> Hey, isn't the Faraday's homopolar effect without the radial conductor (in
>> the form of spinning cylindrical capacitor) an evidence that the magnetic
>> field does rotate with the magnet ?
>
>Here's four cases of homopolar generator configurations.
>What is the magnetic field anyway?
>
>1.) Conductor rotates, magnet stationary.    Output Generated.
>2.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates.       Output Generated.
>3.) Conductor stationary, magnet rotates.    No Output Generated.
>
>And here's the fourth not well known, blow my mind case, from
>a paper by Mueller. 
>
>4.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates, and   
>    complete magnetic circuit also rotates.  No Output Generated.
>
>Go figure. 
>Robert Stirniman        
>
>

pa
**********************************************************
*            http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8  ********
**********************************************************

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 10:29:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10445; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:07:42 -0500
Message-Id: <9610141707.AA04430@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsm7.dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
Resent-Message-ID: <"tqKX_.0.6Z2.WFdOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1593
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Hal,

At 07:51 PM 10/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Forwarded message:  ...
>From:	soc_truzzi@emuvax.emich.edu (Marcello Truzzi)
>Oct. 3, 1996 14:08 EDT, from an AP news report:
>
>NEW DELHI India - An Indian villager who claimed he could turn water into
>gasoline is a fraud, scientists have determined.
>
>Scientists this week reported a hollow stirrer Pillai used during his
>demonstration contained fuel which he slipped into the boiling concoction,
>giving it gasoline-like properties.
>
>The stirrer was filled with kerosene or gasoline; its tip was plugged with
>wax, which when heated inside the boiling water, melted, releasing the fuel
>into the mixture, V. Ramamurthy, the top scientist in the Department of
>Science and Technology,said. Analysis showed that the mixture also contained
>lead and other chemicals that are added to gasoline when it is processed.

I can't find the original message which reported this demonstration, but I
was a little skeptical of the demo.  However, I recall that something like
1/2 liter of hydrocarbon was produced in the demo (out of a total of 1 liter
of liquid).

I guess I'll have to be a little skeptical of the debunking explanation,
too.  A stirring rod that contains 1/2 liter of hydrocarbons would be a
little too easy to spot, I would think.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 11:50:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01008; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3262F5C0.E53@andover.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:24:00 -0700
From: johnkent <johnkent@andover.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cells- fwd
References: <v02140b04ae7ee242d5ea@[198.133.146.230]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"VQYiW2.0.YF.4ReOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1594
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael J. Schaffer wrote:
> 
> Re John Kent's post, forwarded to Vortex-L by Michael Randall
> [snip]
> >>       "The smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of
> >>water is 65.3 Wh at 25 degrees C. When Hydrogen and oxygen are recombined
> >>into water during combustion 79.3 Wh of energy is released. 14 Wh more
> >>energy is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen than is required to
> >>split water. The excess must be absorbed from the surrounding media in
> >>the form of heat during electrolysis".
> 
>    I think these two energy numbers are just the free energy and the
> enthalpy of the reaction, respectively.  They are two different, but
> related, thermodynamic quantities.  Do any chemists out there care to
> confirm?
> 
> Michael J. Schaffer
> General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
> Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156

Same theme I am afraid. This time extract from "A textbook of 
Magnetohydrodynamics" by J.A.Shercliff, Professor of engineering science, 
University of Warick, Pergamon Press.
       "It should be noted that there are exceptions to the rule that the 
heat flow normal to a surface be continuous....... Another case is that 
where counter-diffusion of molecules and their dissociation products or 
of neutral atoms and electrons and ions gives rise to heat release or 
absorption at an interface where dissociation or recombination is 
occuring.
	........ many of these phenomena are still being explored and it 
is not yet possible to give formulations of them as simple boundary 
conditions."
     Has anyone yet defined the conditions under which heat absorption 
takes place during electrolysis ?. 

regards johnkent

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 11:56:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03860; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610141834.LAA00573@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961014233052.221f95b8@po.pacific.net.sg> from "Mpower" at Oct 14, 96 11:28:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"NRLhe3.0.Dy.ObeOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1596
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Sir !
> I don't speak for anyone but myself, but - my head is spinning !
> Could you _PLEASE_ clarify what you mean by "rotating the magnet" as well as
> the phrase "rotating the conductor" ?

Yes. Sorry. There are two main configurations for the conductor --
a disk, or a drum. Topologically the same. 

In the disk configuration, the magnetic field is axial (along the
axis) of rotation of the conductor. In the drum configuration, the
magnetic field is radial (perpendicular to the axis of conductor
rotation). The magnet (permanent or electromagnet) in some designs
rotates with the conductor, and in some cases does not rotate.
When the magnet rotates, it is always with (attached) to the conductor.

I know. It's still not clear. 
You could try the book, "The Homopolar Generator Handbook", by
Tom Valone.

Regards,
Robert STirniman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 11:58:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01376; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961014184145.006c7dbc@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:41:45 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"eVUVN2.0.JL.9SeOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1595
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:28 PM 10/14/96 +0800, you wrote:
>
>I have this mental image of a hairpin coil rotating 
>about a common center of gravity as the magnet twirls and tumbles in orbit
>around the power supply. Toss in a few litres of magnetic fluid.
>
>Are you rotating the magnet :
>        1) on the (longitudinal) axis of the magnetic field ?
>        2) on a line normal to the (longitudinal) axis ?
>        3) at random ? willy nilly ?  WHAT ???

:>  !  Take some shop parts and throw them in a blender... <no, wait>

This diagram on Bill's site gives some idea of the arrangement, 
although not the more simple models that Faraday used:

http://www.ibg.uu.se/~david/elektromagnum/web/physics/KeelyNet/diagrams/N_MA
CH5.GIF

In that one, current results between the two mercury pools, 
but would not result if the copper rotor were not rotating.

Other diagrams can be found by removing the filename on that URL, 
leaving the trailing slash.

A simple way to check this out is to spin a speaker magnet from a 
handdrill or other motor, placing the face of the magnet near a 
copper plate, observing no drag.  The speaker magnet face is one of the poles.  

Reversing that, having the magnet stationary and spinning a disk of 
copper next to it, there will be drag, and lots of current generated 
in the copper.

Thanks Robert Stirniman for your description of the effects.

The goal with an N-Machine was to spin the two together and generate 
current without the drag (no back EMF).  I have not seen anything to 
indicate a success with that, and DePalma seems to have gone silent.

Gary Hawkins

 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 12:03:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA07315; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610141847.LAA00605@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961014184145.006c7dbc@mail.eskimo.com> from "Gary Hawkins" at Oct 14, 96 11:41:45 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"fKc_p1.0.Do1.eneOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1597
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> The goal with an N-Machine was to spin the two together and generate 
> current without the drag (no back EMF).  I have not seen anything to 
> indicate a success with that, and DePalma seems to have gone silent.
> Gary Hawkins

In my opinion, the HPG design to look at most seriously for O/U
is Trombley. It was classified in the US Patent Office by 
Naval Intelligence, due to the "unique brush design". 
He has since gotten an international patent, of which
there is a copy (very poor) in Valone's book.

It's a neatly engineered design. Trombley, who is
obviously no fool, claimed that the prototype 
operated at 250% efficiency. 

Trombley's HPG has a couple features that make it different
than "conventional" designs.

1. Current is taken from the rotating disk in a completely
   symmetrical fashion.

2. The entire magnetic circuit rotates. 

3. Current is taken from the rotating disk, 
   through a gap in the rotating magnetic circuit.

It would be interesting to build one of these,
or talk with Trombley about it. 
But of course it's all been classified. 
National security don't you know. 
Due to brush design?

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 13:22:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA22512; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 14 Oct 96 15:46:48 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Message-ID: <961014194647_100433.1541_BHG63-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"4HZQQ.0.aV5.BbfOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1598
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Robert,

 > Yes. Sorry. There are two main configurations for the conductor --
 > a disk, or a drum. Topologically the same.

I always see this stated as a fact, yet when I've tried it experimentally I keep
getting almost null results from the drum, yet nice clear ones from the disc.
Is it just me?

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 18:39:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA10875; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae8890ba22af@[204.17.242.67]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:18:09 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"9ZhW22.0.qf2.0MkOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1600
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>
>A simple way to check this out is to spin a speaker magnet from a
>handdrill or other motor, placing the face of the magnet near a
>copper plate, observing no drag.  The speaker magnet face is one of the
>poles.
>
>Reversing that, having the magnet stationary and spinning a disk of
>copper next to it, there will be drag, and lots of current generated
>in the copper.
>
[snip]
>Gary Hawkins

If the copper plate rotates about the same axis of rotation the magnet does
in the first test, then the results should be indentical.  The motion is
*relative*, even though it is angular.  Furthermore, a radial field
gradient should be generated in the copper in both such cases.  The
gradient produces no current because there is no current loop available.
On the other hand, if the copper sheet rotates off center, a current loop
is available in the copper, so a strong braking effect is seen.  A similar
braking effect would be seen by inserting a shim in the drill in order to
rotate the magnet off center for test one above.

The field must rotate with the magnet since the field lines are composites
of many field lines from many small domains.  Domains on the outer rim of
the magnet have both rotational and lateral motion relative to the copper
conductor immediately opposite them at any point in time.  The magnetic
field lines must move with and be connected to the domain, i.e. the moving
charged particles, of origin.  Nothing else makes any sense.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 19:01:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA19966; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 18:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 21:50:33 -0400
Message-ID: <961014215033_210974443@emout13.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
Resent-Message-ID: <"qBjZt.0.rt4.GukOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1601
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dean Miller says (with regard to the debunking msg I forwarded on the Indian
herbal water additive to make gasoline):

"I guess I'll have to be a little skeptical of the debunking explanation,
too.  A stirring rod that contains 1/2 liter of hydrocarbons would be a
little too easy to spot, I would think."

You may be right.  I forwarded this, not because I have any reason to believe
the debunking either, but so that anyone who can find out more about it can
let us know.  I have certainly seen debunking messages in the past about
anomalous phenomena themselves in need of debunking.  Is this one?

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 19:29:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA26255; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 22:15:56 -0400
Message-ID: <961014221555_211003247@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"udvim2.0.4Q6.QGlOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1602
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Stirnman says:

"1.) Conductor rotates, magnet stationary.    Output Generated.
2.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates.       Output Generated.
3.) Conductor stationary, magnet rotates.    No Output Generated.

And here's the fourth not well known, blow my mind case, from
a paper by Mueller. 

4.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates, and   
    complete magnetic circuit also rotates.  No Output Generated.

Go figure. "

How's this, which assumes magnetic field does rotate.  In (1) conductor cuts
stationary mag field - the usual case to generate output, no mystery.  In (2)
no relative motion between  rotating magnetic field and rotating disk
conductor, so no output generated here BUT rotating mag field cuts external
circuit that is not rotating and generates output there.  In (3) rotating mag
field generates output in stationary disk conductor BUT generates cancelling
emf in external circuit, so no net output.  In (4), like (2), nothing
generated in nonrelative motion of conducting disk and magnet AND since
external circuit is also rotating, so no chance for rotating mag field to
generate anything here by relative motion either, so no output.

Hal Puthoff 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 19:37:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA27397; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 22:19:37 -0400
Message-ID: <961014221935_211007233@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"GdLTt3.0._h6.uJlOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1603
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mpower asks:

"Are you rotating the magnet :
        1) on the (longitudinal) axis of the magnetic field ?
        2) on a line normal to the (longitudinal) axis ?
        3) at random ? willy nilly ?  WHAT ???"

Two cylinders or disks, end to end (as in one cylinder cut in two and
separated slightly) with mag field longitudinal as in a cylindrical bar
magnet.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 21:07:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA23506; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 16:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
In-Reply-To: <199610141435.HAA00205@shell.skylink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961014163527.16350C-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"URvnw2.0.Cl5.-FjOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1599
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Robert Stirniman wrote:
> And here's the fourth not well known, blow my mind case, from
> a paper by Mueller. 
> 
> 4.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates, and   
>     complete magnetic circuit also rotates.  No Output Generated.
> 
> Go figure. 
> Robert Stirniman        

Makes perfect sense to me, because the output voltage is developed between
a rotor and a stator, where the stator is the external circuit.

When I break the homopolar generator down in my mind to the flux-cutting
level, I see a radial e-field created by the rotation of the rotor in
relation to the magnet.  If I spin either the magnet or the rotor, this
field appears.  If I instead look at the STATOR, the external circuit,
this field appears if I either rotate the entire external circuit or I
rotoate the magnet.

But if I then put the rotor and stator together and connecte them to a
load resistor, they will both see exactly the same e-field when I rotate
the magnet, and hence there will be no current.  It's like connecting two
fully-charged D-cells together plus to plus and minus to minus: if they
both have 1.50000 volts across them, there will be no current even though
a voltage exists. If the magnet is held still and the rotor and stator are
spun together, there is no current.  If the magnet is spun, there is no
current. Only when the magnet is there (rotating or not,) and the rotor is
spun relative to the stator, is there a current.

Now if you want weird, look into self-acting homopolar generators, where
there is no magnet at all, just a rotor and a stator.  In these devices,
any microscopic preexisting current creates an exciting b-field which then
causes an enlarged current when the parts are spun.  After a short while,
an enormous current appears.  It's as if the self-acting HG pulls threads
of flux out of space itself and weaves them into a coherent b-field around
itself.  These devices are the electromagnetic "dual" of the Wimshurst
machine.  The Wimshurst machine creates e-field from nothing and charges a
capacitor.  The self-acting homopolar generator creates b-field from
nothing and produces a trapped "flywheel" current in an inductor.

Weird-squared: the current in a superconducting self-acting homopolar
generator will grow as long as the device is turned, and if you stop
turning it, the current will remain forever, until you turn it backwards
(or let the crank go, which allows the device to spin backwards as a
motor!)  Essentially what you've got is a "windup magnet"!

I doubt that such a thing exists, since you'd have to have sliding
superconductor brushes (zero-ohm sliding contact!)

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 14 23:11:45 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA21554; Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961015061351.006dad14@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:13:51 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"QaC-v2.0.eG5.9eoOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1604
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:18 PM 10/14/96 -0800, you wrote:

>The field must rotate with the magnet since the field lines are composites
>of many field lines from many small domains.  Domains on the outer rim of
>the magnet have both rotational and lateral motion relative to the copper
>conductor immediately opposite them at any point in time.  The magnetic
>field lines must move with and be connected to the domain, i.e. the moving
>charged particles, of origin.  Nothing else makes any sense.
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>

Try it.  One way of rigging it up would be to use a rubber stopper or 
"foot", put a 1/4" bolt through it, and tighten it down (with a nut) to 
fill the big hole in the middle of a speaker magnet.  Be sure to stay 
out of the plane of rotation in case it flys apart.

Or, if you have a motor with a shaft that fits a magnet hole just right, 
(or with rubber tubing as spacers) could just glue the magnet on there.

Or, how about gluing a magnet onto your disk sander.

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 15 12:10:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09196; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610151754.KAA08764@mail.eskimo.com>
Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 07:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kirk L Shanahan <kirk.shanahan@srs.gov>
Subject: Re: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 07:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
A1-Type: MAIL
Hop-Count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"ycs303.0.aF2.C1zOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1607
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>
>Dean Miller says (with regard to the debunking msg I forwarded on the Indian
>herbal water additive to make gasoline):
>
>"I guess I'll have to be a little skeptical of the debunking explanation,
>too.  A stirring rod that contains 1/2 liter of hydrocarbons would be a
>little too easy to spot, I would think."
>
>You may be right.  I forwarded this, not because I have any reason to believe
>the debunking either, but so that anyone who can find out more about it can
>let us know.  I have certainly seen debunking messages in the past about
>anomalous phenomena themselves in need of debunking.  Is this one?
>
>Hal Puthoff

I saw another report on the 'net that said the Indian gentleman also used 
a wax bottom in his reactor (fuel underneath).  That would probably explain it.

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 15 16:36:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20585; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961015220836.0071a384@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:08:36 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5jqhP2.0.Z15.Dl0Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Unidentified subject!
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1610
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

...But, what about the case where the flux cutting radial conductor is
eliminated and the electrical charge is collected in a cylindrical capacitor
instead ?


At 10:15 PM 10/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Robert Stirnman says:
>>
>>"1.) Conductor rotates, magnet stationary.    Output Generated.
>>2.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates.       Output Generated.
>>3.) Conductor stationary, magnet rotates.    No Output Generated.
>>
>>And here's the fourth not well known, blow my mind case, from
>>a paper by Mueller. 
>>
>>4.) Conductor rotates, magnet rotates, and   
>>    complete magnetic circuit also rotates.  No Output Generated.
>>
>>Go figure. "
>>
>>How's this, which assumes magnetic field does rotate.  In (1) conductor cuts
>>stationary mag field - the usual case to generate output, no mystery.  In (2)
>>no relative motion between  rotating magnetic field and rotating disk
>>conductor, so no output generated here BUT rotating mag field cuts external
>>circuit that is not rotating and generates output there.  In (3) rotating mag
>>field generates output in stationary disk conductor BUT generates cancelling
>>emf in external circuit, so no net output.  In (4), like (2), nothing
>>generated in nonrelative motion of conducting disk and magnet AND since
>>external circuit is also rotating, so no chance for rotating mag field to
>>generate anything here by relative motion either, so no output.
>>
>>Hal Puthoff 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>.



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 00:40:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA22067; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <9610160731.AA20756@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:44:27 -0500
To: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
Subject:  Surface tension
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"0nz1l3.0.cO5.q_8Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1614
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scudder,Henry J,

I rinse it with tap water then deionized water.
After my second set of data I found that the new capillary tubes were not
as clean as I assumed on the first data reported.

In Deionized water

The first data was 0.5 mm tube raised 16 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 10 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 22 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 6 mm.

The second data collected was 99 ml deionized water and 1 ml ethyl alcohol.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 34 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 23 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 21 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 8 mm.

The next sample was 63 ml  deionized water and 1 ml Amnonia.
The recomened dilution for window wash was 1 Tsp/ Qt =
15 ml/950 ml = 1 ml/63ml ratio dilution.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 30 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 28 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 23 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 20 mm.

The next sample run was Paulsen & Roles 64 to 1 Glass Cleaner (GC)
containing isoprocal alcohol.  I mixed 1ml GC /64 ml deionized H20.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 17 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 12 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 10 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 9 mm.

I then tried to get a new base line on deionized water by its self 3 times
rensing between measurments.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 38 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 20 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 23 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 19 mm.

Same beaker new deionized water

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 37 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 22 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 22 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 19 mm.

A new beaker with deionized water

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 31 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 19 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 24 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 17 mm.

I think the science teacher runs the glass ware through the dish washer.
When I did some internship at a waistwater lab they washed and
rensed their glass ware with a acid rinse.
Since this is a Junior High School lab I do not think I could go that intense
in cleaning the glass ware.

>David
>How are you cleaning your capillary tubes before testing them?
>I would expect that your tests would critically depend on this, and
>somehow you need to have a uniform surface before testing them.
>Hank Scudder



************************************
*                         David Doty                                     *
*         340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                  *
*                  home 503 266 3969                           *
*         Custodian at Ackerman Junior High              *
*              Canby School District 86                         *
*  CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher *
*  Looking for Science Projects for students to do.  *
*  http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html  *
************************************ 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 03:04:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15162; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae8a64166fd9@[204.17.242.66]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 02:08:51 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"7mbfv1.0.pi3.RBBPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1616
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

AI sent the following yesterday at 6:21 AM, but it didn't show up so I am
sending it again.  Note that the unsigned attachments below were my posts.


>At 05:18 PM 10/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>The field must rotate with the magnet since the field lines are composites
>>of many field lines from many small domains.  Domains on the outer rim of
>>the magnet have both rotational and lateral motion relative to the copper
>>conductor immediately opposite them at any point in time.  The magnetic
>>field lines must move with and be connected to the domain, i.e. the moving
>>charged particles, of origin.  Nothing else makes any sense.
>>
>>
>>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>>
>>
>>
>
>Try it.  One way of rigging it up would be to use a rubber stopper or
>"foot", put a 1/4" bolt through it, and tighten it down (with a nut) to
>fill the big hole in the middle of a speaker magnet.  Be sure to stay
>out of the plane of rotation in case it flys apart.
>
>Or, if you have a motor with a shaft that fits a magnet hole just right,
>(or with rubber tubing as spacers) could just glue the magnet on there.
>
>Or, how about gluing a magnet onto your disk sander.
>
>Gary Hawkins
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA

Gary,

I did a number of experiments regarding this last June using a large metal
washer for the disk and magnetron magnet(s) all mounted on ball bearing
shafts using Lego parts for mounting frame, shafts, and motor.  This was in
relation to discussions in the thread "Hering experiment" here on vortex,
some of which I have included in this post below.  I saw no evidence of
significant drag on the metallic disk when no brushes were attached and the
disk rotated.  However, I made no effort to measure such because that was
not the purpose of the experiment.  I would point out to you that magnetic
fields have been used to suspend rotating metal objects for various
purposes - providing an almost perfect bearing.

I just do not have time right now to reconstruct the gadget.  I was
recently doing high voltage electrolyis experiments when I destroyed some
20,000V diodes in a 0 - 7,500 V circuit which was only operating at 3,500
V. This is mind boggeling, unless there was something wrong with the
diodes.  The electrolysis cell was nothing but a capacitor in the HV
circuit.  Losing the power supply was a real loss. I have a number of
experiments backed up waiting to free up the power supply.  Also have other
experiments going on right now.

Here are some of the past discussions:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Chris,

OK, thinking about this some more, the current/conductor loop of the
Faraday disk experiment is closed.  Every flux loop is also closed.
Therefore every flux loop will cut the conductor loop exactly zero times or
some multiple of 2 times, typically 2 times assuming the wire has no kinks,
each rotation.  Each cut alternates going "into" (adding voltage) and "out"
(subtracting voltage) of the loop so there is no net induced voltage on the
loop from the magnet, regardless of the magnet/conductor relative velocity.
Therefore there is no net rotational force on the magnet,  only a torque on
the poles of rotation due to the current induced in the loop, but this is
resisted by the bearings.  If the stator becomes an envelope instead of a
wire, then even this polar torque is removed.  The important factor in
generating current is the relative angular velocity  between the armature
and the rest of the loop, the stator. It is interresting that the armature
(disk) could be left stationary and the stator part of the loop could
rotate instead, reversing roles. It is only the simple relative motion of
the stator and armature that produces the voltage and current.  The other
part of effective use of the field is minimizing the number of times flux
lines cross either the armature or stator both ways, as these flux line
double crossings cancel their own effects.

So, put another way, to the degree the magnet rotates relative to the
stator, the stator becomes the armature to the exact same degree the effect
of the armature is diminished.  This is why the Faraday disk experiment is
different from the Hering experiment, because in the Hering experiment
there is no conductor being cut by flux.  In the  Faraday experiment the is
always some conductor being cut by flux as long as there is armature/stator
relative motion, it's just not immediately intuitively clear that the
stator becomes the conductor being cut as the magnet begins to rotate.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>Greetings guys;
>
>I read about this in a couple of books, but it was a long time ago.  Could
>you repeat the experimental observations please.  I know that it is probably
>back in your thread somewhere.
>
>I gather that the cases are;
>
>I assume that non rotating means that it is not rotating relative to the
>laboratory, and earth solar and other rotations are ignored.

Only three reference frames are important, the disk, the magnet, and the
rest of the circuit (the stator).  The earth's magnetic field and all other
motion is ignored and could not be expected to have a measureable effect,
especially in the time of Micahel Faraday.


>
>1  disk rotates, magnet is stationary.  Take voltage from the center to the
>outer perimeter.   ??Does the device taking the power (LED or whatever) need
>to rotate with disk, or be in a non rotating reference or either?

Typically this is a microammeter.=and is in the stator frame of reference.

>
>2  disk rotates, magnet rotates with it.  again how is voltage taken out

Same way.  Chris has suggested a variation of the Faraday experiment where
the magnet is circular and the size of the disk and the disk axle goes
through the magnet. The magnet is on bearings on the axle so it is free to
rotate with the disk or to remain stationary.  There is a brush on the axel
so there is a current path (uncut) down the center of the magnetic field.
There is a brush on the outside perimeter of the disk.  The microammeter is
in the circuit between the two brushes.  In the orginal version of the
experiment the disk rotation cuts the flux so induces a voltage from the
axle across the disk to the peripheral area of the disk. The brushes close
the loop to generate the current.



>
>3  disk is stationary, magnet rotates.   is this a zero voltage situation?

Yes. (I deduce.)

>
>So, what combinations have I missed, and what exactly must be done to bleed
>power away?

The area of interest here is whether current theory predicts the behavior
(i.e. is there an anomaly here to be investigated for energy creating
potential?) or whether the results are simply non-intuitive.  Michael
Schaffer's excellent analysis shows clearly "three ways from Sunday" the
actual results agree with the results expected by theory in the case of the
Hering experiment. Based on my comments in the prior post, I think all the
stated observations in the case of the Faraday disk experiment are
completely expected on a qualitative basis.  Unless someone has some new
data or theory, I personally see no anomalies, no excess energy potential,
so therefore consider it case closed. (I have a very small workspace.  Case
closed to me means the stuff goes into a box and into the crawl space to
make room for the next thing on my queue, which happens to be condensed
charge.  I am now in the process of zapping little sparks through xenon
bulbs.  Fun!)


>
>If the power circuit must be fixed, then this requires contacts or brushes
>for DC power so doesn't the friction come into play?

There has not been any energy balance experiment discussed.  The implied
interest here (at least for me) is just in turning over old rocks to look
for the unexplained. The unexplained leads to experiments that show the
unexpected, or vice versa, which leads to discovering a law that leads to
engineering principles for an ou device which leads to an experiment, etc.
This is pretty old stuff, so not much hope, but maybe the longitudinal
force and exploding wire thing maybe could show some leads.

>
>In any case, I think this one would be very interesting to investigate from
>a phased array point of view.  I have a fairly good model for the electrons
>motions in the magnets and for how that affects the surrounding nodal
>structure of space according to my model.  So I want to use the above
>results to fine tune my model.
>
>Thanks. Ross Tessien


I have an experimental angle.  Maybe the longitudinal force  problem could
be investigated by looking at effects on wires or spring loaded segmented
rods which are the center conductors of a large coaxial cable?  The results
could be compared for coaxials of outer conductor inner radius r and much
larger outer conductor inner radius R, and if the results are the same then
perhaps it can be concluded there is an "inner current only" related force
affecting the inner conductor, possibly the micro-pinch phenomenon I
suggested, or something similar.  Comments anyone?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Horace asks:
>
>>The results concerning this brain teaser put into question >now the Farady
>disk experiment in the case where the magnet >turns with the disk.  I took
>the queue for my answer from that >experiment.  I don't see any significant
>difference.  How good >and clear are the results from that experiment?
>
>The experiment is good.  When the magnet rotates with the disk, the voltage
>is still generated in the disk.  See nice clear exposition of the experiment
>and its results under all conditions of relative movement of disk and magnet
>by Gupta, Amer. Jour. of Phys., vol 31, p. 428 (1963).
>
>My favorite interpretation is that under the cemented-magnet condition, even
>though there is no relative motion between the disk and the magnet, there is
>relative motion between the rotating combination and the circuit in which the
>voltage is picked off, and that's where the action is. I know this is
>controversial, and Francisco Muller has published an article with other
>interpretations in Galilean Electrodynamics, as well as in Marinov's
>hard-to-find "Thorny Way of Truth" series.
>
>Hal Puthoff


Not controverial with me! I just came to the same conclusion - see earlier post.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 03:19:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA16335; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 06:11:09 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: One of those days....
Message-ID: <961016101109_100433.1541_BHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HV5hO1.0.9_3.8MBPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1617
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I realise that this is way off-topic, but I just could not resist
sharing it all with you.

I see that yesterday was another of those days.  First James Mulahey of
Florida became 'tired and emotional' and tried to enter the cockpit on a
Virgin Airlines flight from there to Manchester.  It took six passengers
and a steward to handcuff him to his seat (I didn't know airliners
carried handcuffs).  In a fine example of deadpan reporting, the
newspapers say that he succeeded in freeing himself "and suffered a
broken nose while being restrained once more."  He's up before the
magistrates this morning...

Meanwhile there was a bit of a problem at Rome airport, and the
passengers had to get out and push their Brutish [sic] Airways jet out
to the runway.  Perhaps they got a partial refund for their trouble?  I
can just imagine the scene - lots of fat businessmen and little old
ladies straining with their shoulders to the landing gear, while a huge
BA official, moustachioed and stripped to the waist, wields his whip.

And finally a cracking good scheme was dreamed up in Sweden, but
unfortunately it didn't work.  Huge quantities of synthetic wolf urine
was sprayed onto roads in an effort to persuade elk and reindeer to stay
off them.  This brings to mind images of dour Swedish chemists, solemnly
checking the noxious fluid to see where they went wrong.

"Ah, Sven, I fear we have not precisely matched the timber wolf's fine
bouquet."

"Nils, I must disagree.  It smells just perfect to me, we will get the
Nobel prize after all."

Meanwhile, and more boringly, I am locked in combat with my gas
suppliers, whose billing techniques are headline news in the local
press.  Admittedly they haven't done to me what they've done to others,
taking up to $1,600,000 (each) from their bank accounts and sueing for
huge sums aged folk who have all-electric homes, but I keep getting
different-sized bills (frequently by the same post) and endless
correspondence and phone calls get me all kinds of promises - but no
action.  I gather that the 'deregulation' process is now hitting US
utility companies - and you should all beware, because the first action
of companies is to get rid of all the 'useless' clerks who actually sort
all these problems out, leaving the customers to the tender mercies of some
demented mainframe.  Naturally, all technical staff get fired as well.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 03:24:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA17392; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae8a64dd9e91@[204.17.242.76]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 02:29:07 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"oNFTF.0.bF4.KUBPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1618
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 10:15 PM 10/14/96 -0400, Hal Puthoff wrote:
>
>>circuit that is not rotating and generates output there.  In (3) rotating mag
>>field generates output in stationary disk conductor BUT generates cancelling
>>emf in external circuit, so no net output.
>
>If you compare the *area* being affected, the disk vs. a small area of wire,
>the two will not match up to be able to cancel out.  Nice try.  :^)
>
>Gary Hawkins
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA

Gary,

The area is not directly related to the voltage.  It is the voltage
difference that decides if there will be current flow and if so, which
direction.  A single battery opposing 1000 same voltage batteries in
parallel is a circuit where no current will flow.   The voltage is
determined by the rate of flux cutting the conductor, i.e. the number of
lines of flux per second. If t is in seconds and phi is the net flux in
webers then the voltage induced on a conductor (in volts) is V = (d phi)/
dt.  If every line of flux cutting a conductor in one direction is opposed
by a line of flux cutting the other direction then the net flux is zero so
the net voltage induced is zero, regardless of the area of the conductor
cross sections cut by the flux, assuming the flux density is uniform across
the conductor so no "hole" in the voltage gradient is opened up for a
backwards eddy current to form.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 03:36:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA18620; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530502ae8a69eace42@[204.17.242.76]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 02:40:11 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnets
Resent-Message-ID: <"-sqzY.0.oY4.ieBPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1619
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>...But, what about the case where the flux cutting radial conductor is
>eliminated and the electrical charge is collected in a cylindrical capacitor
>instead ?
>
>


Could you be more specific about this geometry?

If you are talking about a cylindrical homopolar motor/generator where the
armature is two rotating cyliders forming the plates of a capacitor, then
there is no difference between two plates or twenty stacked with insulating
cylinders in between to make a capacitor because the same voltage is
generated (induced) in each plate at each corresponding location, so no net
charge is stored in the capacitor. The net effect, assuming the plates are
connected together at the ends, is like using a thicker cross section
conductor for the armature - which has no effect except to lower the
armature resistance.  If the plates are not connected together then there
is no effect on the output at all.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 03:38:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA19104; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961016104010.00707148@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 03:40:10 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kerJO1.0.Qg4.2hBPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1620
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Even if the external flux cutting conductor is ELIMINATED, the electric
crrent will still flow and can charge a cylindrical cap.

No relative motion between disk and external load circuit is required.
(anybody wants references ?)




At 02:29 AM 10/16/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 10:15 PM 10/14/96 -0400, Hal Puthoff wrote:
>>
>>>circuit that is not rotating and generates output there.  In (3) rotating mag
>>>field generates output in stationary disk conductor BUT generates cancelling
>>>emf in external circuit, so no net output.
>>
>>If you compare the *area* being affected, the disk vs. a small area of wire,
>>the two will not match up to be able to cancel out.  Nice try.  :^)
>>
>>Gary Hawkins
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
>> http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA
>
>Gary,
>
>The area is not directly related to the voltage.  It is the voltage
>difference that decides if there will be current flow and if so, which
>direction.  A single battery opposing 1000 same voltage batteries in
>parallel is a circuit where no current will flow.   The voltage is
>determined by the rate of flux cutting the conductor, i.e. the number of
>lines of flux per second. If t is in seconds and phi is the net flux in
>webers then the voltage induced on a conductor (in volts) is V = (d phi)/
>dt.  If every line of flux cutting a conductor in one direction is opposed
>by a line of flux cutting the other direction then the net flux is zero so
>the net voltage induced is zero, regardless of the area of the conductor
>cross sections cut by the flux, assuming the flux density is uniform across
>the conductor so no "hole" in the voltage gradient is opened up for a
>backwards eddy current to form.
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 04:49:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA05693; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 07:45:44 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Flat wings will work just as well.
Message-ID: <961016114543_100433.1541_BHG142-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Uc61I1.0.tO1.cjCPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1621
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This one seems to have got lost.

Chris
 -- Forwarded Message --

     14201-2   [MAIL]
     15-Oct-96  11:55
 Sb: Flat wings will work just as well.      
 Fm: Chris Tinsley 100433,1541
 To: Vortex Internet:vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com

I've had two long phone calls from Jed Rothwell, who is at the ICCF6 CF 
conference in Hokkaido.  I'm rather reluctant to pass on too much of 
what is obviously second-hand information, so *please* take anything I 
say as being hearsay *only*.  Jed will undoubtedly post a better report, 
maybe here, certainly in Infinite Energy.

Two points stood out, though, as being worth passing on.  One is that 
the NHE people (the funded researchers in Japan) do seem to be making a 
serious mess of things.  The Ikegami paper published in Japan four years 
ago spelled out four essentials for reproducing the Fleischmann-Pons 
effect with bulk palladium.  Two of these are the loading level of
deuterium in the palladium metal, and the necessity for the experiment
to be done at 70C or higher.

It is well-known that loading is difficult to measure, but perhaps less
well-known that this difficulty has led meany in Japan to run at lower,
more easily measured loadings.  Pity about that, because of course the
experiment won't work.

Now I hear that worker after worker got on his hind legs and reported 
null results with elaborate and highly precise flow calorimeters - much 
to the delight of Douglas Morrison.  But they all were working at 20C!!! 
Apparently, frantic retro-fitment to allow flow calorimetry at elevated 
temperatures is no underway in more than one NHE lab.  Ho, hum.

Seems scarcely credible, eh?  But reports from the French atomic energy
research people (among othrs) have shown that when they actually
*replicated precisely* the F&P 'boiloff' experiments, then they
(usually) worked fine.

Closer to home, Miley says that glass beads don't work worth a damn. 
I'm afraid we have been caught in the old trap, where "to assume makes
an ass out of you and me".  Replicating the Wrights with flat wings
doesn't work, and neither do glass beads work in a Patterson cell.

Apparently, my suggestion that the nickel be measured quantitatively
after a run, using standard chemical measurement, has gone down well
with all concerned.  Whether they will try it or not is another matter.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 05:19:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09281; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 05:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 05:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 05:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961015220836.0071a384@mail.localaccess.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961016051232.13147V-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"cPvsu2.0.uG2.s9DPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1622
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote:

> ...But, what about the case where the flux cutting radial conductor is
> eliminated and the electrical charge is collected in a cylindrical capacitor
> instead ?

Oooo, interesting!  I never looked into this.  The capacitor should charge
to a small potential while the magnet is spinning, I think.  Does the
magnet do work upon the capacitor as it charges is?

What if the capacitor dielectric is very lossy, will the heating induced
by the charging current be reflected in increased torque requirements on
the spinning magnet?

And, if the magnet is spun "AC" instead of "DC", (I mean, wiggle the
magnet rotationally, like torsion waves), will a lossy dielectric be
heated by the presumed AC radial e-field?  The answer might settle the
question of whether the b-field rotates or not, since rotating the magnet
back and forth should not change the b-field at all, but might (or might
not) create an AC radial e-field.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 05:26:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA10248; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Heat from mixing D2O with H2O
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:24:30 +0000
Message-ID: <19961016122428.AAA16657@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"4C46-1.0.2W2.TGDPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1623
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:08 PM 10/15/96 +0000, you wrote:
>I just received some heavy water from Isotech. On the material
>safety data sheet that came with it, they indicate that if the D2O is
>mixed with H2O, heat is produced, but they don't say how much
>or why. Does anyone have any answers? Is it a chemical heat, or
>a nuclear heat? (presumably its chemical, or we would have heard
>more about it). Is this something I need to worry about? I have 300g
>of D2O.
>Help?
>Hank Scudder
>
I mix D2O with water with total equanimity.  D2O is more associated than H2O
so on mixing D2O with H2O the energy associated with this higher association
is released on mixing with H2O and the energy is manifested as an increase
(slight) in temperature.  It is not at all like mixing concentrated sulfuric
acid with water where precautions are taken (adding sulfuric acid to water
slowly and not vice versa).

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 07:22:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02501; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610161417.HAA02459@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:16:24 -0600
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor_t_n@lanl.gov>
Subject: D20 heat
Resent-Message-ID: <"cnBau1.0.oc.HwEPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1624
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:08 PM 10/15/96 +0000, you wrote:
>I just received some heavy water from Isotech. On the material
>safety data sheet that came with it, they indicate that if the D2O is
>mixed with H2O, heat is produced, but they don't say how much
>or why. Does anyone have any answers?....................
>Hank Scudder

I would be more concerned about how much tritium is in the D20. I hope they
gave you a nanocurie per liter number or some other sort of specification.
Otherwise, I would call them up before you use it too extensively. The
tritium is not too much of a hazard (evacuate the room at 100
microcurie/meter cubed) but you would like to know exactly how deep you are in.
Thomas N. Claytor	Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESA-MT, MS C914
Los Alamos NM, 87545
505-667-6216 voice
505-665-7176 fax

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 07:55:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA08384; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae8aa43db8a2@[204.17.242.76]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 06:50:07 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"yqiHE2.0.w22.7JFPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1625
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 3:40 AM 10/16/96, epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote:
>Even if the external flux cutting conductor is ELIMINATED, the electric
>crrent will still flow and can charge a cylindrical cap.
>
>No relative motion between disk and external load circuit is required.
>(anybody wants references ?)
>
>
[snip]


It would be nice to have a more detailed description of the configuration
you are talking about.  I have the feeling I have the wrong picture of the
device you are talking about.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 08:47:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20388; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 11:31:53 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Blue speaks
Message-ID: <961016153152_100433.1541_BHG114-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"7jn4L.0.R-4.55GPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1626
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

An alternative view of Miley, from Richard Blue.

Chris
--------------------------------------------------

I received a copy of the Miley preprint from Jed, have given it a
preliminary reading, and expect to post a more careful analysis at some
point.  However, I can give you a preview of what I will likely have to
say.

The case for nuclear transmutations in the Miley data stands on two key
claims that are not, I think, sufficiently well supported by the actual
data provided.  First the claim that there is no source of contamination
that can account for the composition of the used beads is very, very
weak.  For example, the Paterson cell has glass walls; but, unless I
missed it first time over, there is no discussion of the composition of
that glass! Other things for which the composition may not be
documented: temperature probes, seals, auxilliary heater, pump.

As for where the nickel went, what's the big mystery?  According to one
source the nickel will simply disolve if you don't keep the cell biased.
One estimate I have yet to make is just how many ions are potentially
plated out on the cathode relative to what seems to accumulate there.
I am no electrochemist, but as I understand it there is no guarantee
that only hydrogen is deposited.

I also speculate on such things as the manufacturing process by which
the plastic tubing is formed.  Is it perhaps extruded through a chrome
plated die?  We must be aware of the fact that some forms of analysis
look only at the surface material while others sample the bulk.  That
being the case the plastic (or anything else)  could have a surface
layer that is not representative of the bulk.  As long as all the
elements found are common as dirt, the starting assumption has to be
that they are dirt. 

Some of the things found, such as cadmium and zinc, just have to be
taken as standard background contaminants until the experimenters prove
that they can produce control samples that don't have them.

That leaves the question as to whether these trace analyses show isotope
ratios that are "not natural."  First question I have is, "What defines
the natural ratios, and how much variation occurs naturally?"  I know
that for some elements there are, indeed, significant variations
depending on such things as the source of the ore used to produce the
metal.  Ultimately I suspect that the error level assigned to the
analysis for isotopic ratios is just a bit too optimistic.  Again I
would expect to see some control analyses to demonstrate the claim level
of certainty as to what constitutes the appropriate natural ratio.

Interestingly enough the Miley result may hang entirely on the precision
of the determined isotope ratios.   Yet I don't see that there is very
much by way of justification for the claimed precision.  My eye-ball
evaluation of the data for all the most abundant "reaction products" is
that the final isotope ratios are pretty close to the natural values. 
In other words Miley has simply made an assertion that is not supported by his
own data!

Since the ratio of 63Cu to 65Cu is one that has received some attention,
let me point out one potential defect in the Miley measurements based on
neutron activation analysis.  The ultimate signal is a gamma ray of a
specific energy that is supposed to be uniquely associated with a single
isotope.  But suppose the gamma ray energy used to identify 63Cu is not,
in fact, unique?  Than any other source of that radiation will lead to
a false estimate, on the high side, of the amount of 63Cu present.  Let
me just hint that 0.511 MeV gamma rays are not uniquely associated with
anything!  I think Miley may have to revise his conclusions regarding
the copper isotopes.

So when you sort through all this painstaking analysis, all the evidence
supports an hypothesis that only chemical processes involving ion
transport and deposition are required to account for the data.  The lack
of observed nuclear activity certainly supports that view.  I would go
even further to say that nuclear reactions without observed activity
becomes more and more unreasonable as the complexity and variety of the
reactions increases.  If you are forming a little bit of everything, as
claimed, just by accident something is going to end up being in the
wrong place at the wrong time to form a stable nucleus in its ground
state.  CF advocates may find it perfectly OK to form the radioisotope, tritium,
while the formation of any other radioisotope is strictly
forbidden, but  I am really waiting for Hagelstein to explain that one! 
-db-...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 08:49:42 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA21302; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A325C@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: One of those days....
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:34:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"yI1eV.0.mC5.99GPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1627
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris
	The closest I came to this was while I was returning from an
experiment in underwater sound that GE performed in the Bahamas.
We had 25 large boxes of expensive electronic computer gear and
peripherals (this was 1973, before microprocessors). The equipment
 was trucked to the airport by the Navy, and left in the baggage area.
The four engineers from GE joined the tourists, watched the Boeing 707
fly in, and saw two tiny (~130 lbs) freight handlers start loading the
tourist
baggage and our gear into the baggage compartment. The boxes each
weighed about 100 lbs, and they were struggling. After a couple of
moments,
we realized if we were going to get to NY that day, we had to do
something,
so we took off our coats, hopped over the fence, and started loading our
gear
into the belly of the 707, to the grateful smiles of the baggage
handlers. After
we finished, we hopped back over the fence, put on our coats and enjoyed
the stares of the tourists. Only time I ever saw the downstairs of an
aircratt.

Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: Chris Tinsley
To: Vortex
Subject: One of those days....
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 1996 3:11AM

I realise that this is way off-topic, but I just could not resist
sharing it all with you.

<snip>
Meanwhile there was a bit of a problem at Rome airport, and the
passengers had to get out and push their Brutish [sic] Airways jet out
to the runway.  Perhaps they got a partial refund for their trouble?  I
can just imagine the scene - lots of fat businessmen and little old
ladies straining with their shoulders to the landing gear, while a huge
BA official, moustachioed and stripped to the waist, wields his whip.
<snip>

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 13:01:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13564; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:16:43 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610161916.OAA17507@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Re: D20 heat
Resent-Message-ID: <"YxA7p1.0.iJ3.eKJPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1628
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:16 10/16/96 -0600, Tom Claytor wrote:

>I would be more concerned about how much tritium is in the D20....
>....(evacuate the room at 100 microcurie/meter cubed) 

Hi Tom, welcome to Vortex.  Is a case of beer still prescribed for acute T
exposure cases?

Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.
Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759,  USA
512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 13:19:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16438; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.790930120096290FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 1996 12:30:12 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/16/96 12:30:09 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"g0Taq1.0.f04.XWJPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1629
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
-
Send $12, and your address to:
-
INFINITE ENERGY Mag.
PO Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
-
Probably won't get it until late next week or after as Gene M. will not be
back from ICCF6. HOWEVER, Gene and Jed did (and Chris?) did manage to get
permission and publish the WHOLE thing in IE #7 (I think I got that # right.)
-
GOOD WORK GUYS!
-
I now officially am not worrying about getting it on the Internet. I figure
if you are interested, you can get a copy from "the (secondary) source".

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 13:42:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23354; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vDbEx-000GrkC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>, "Vortex" <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Blue speaks
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:02:28 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BBBB73.0C512BE0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"5drVo3.0.qi5.OzJPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1630
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BBBB73.0C512BE0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



----------
> From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM>
> To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
> Subject: Blue speaks
> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 1996 11:31 AM
> 
> An alternative view of Miley, from Richard Blue.
> 
> Chris
> --------------------------------------------------
>(snip) 
Let
> me just hint that 0.511 MeV gamma rays are not uniquely associated with
> anything!  

Meaning that anything resulting in 0.511 MeV gammas could indicate
electron-
positron annihilation from any source?

Frank Stenger
------=_NextPart_000_01BBBB73.0C512BE0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial"><br><br>----------<br>&gt; From: Chris =
Tinsley &lt;<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>100433.1541@CompuServe.COM</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">&gt;<br>&gt; To: Vortex &lt;<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">&gt;<br>&gt; Subject: Blue speaks<br>&gt; Date: =
Wednesday, October 16, 1996 11:31 AM<br>&gt; <br>&gt; An alternative =
view of Miley, from Richard Blue.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Chris<br>&gt; =
--------------------------------------------------<br>&gt;(snip) =
<br>Let<br>&gt; me just hint that 0.511 MeV gamma rays are not uniquely =
associated with<br>&gt; anything! &nbsp;<br><br>Meaning that anything =
resulting in 0.511 MeV gammas could indicate electron-<br>positron =
annihilation from any source?<br><br>Frank Stenger</p>
</font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BBBB73.0C512BE0--

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 14:48:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10084; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 17:17:04 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
Message-ID: <961016211704_76016.2701_JHC134-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"iOu2Q1.0.QT2.f8LPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1632
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo writes:

>>Send $12, and your address to:
-
INFINITE ENERGY Mag.
PO Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
-
Probably won't get it until late next week or after as Gene M. will not be
back from ICCF6. HOWEVER, Gene and Jed did (and Chris?) did manage to get
permission and publish the WHOLE thing in IE #7 (I think I got that # right.)<<

You can get issue #9, which includes the Miley Paper from Infinite Energy for
US$5.95 or C$7.95 plus postage.  As a bonus, this issue also features a summary
of the Antigravity experiments from our own homely brit, Mr. Tinsley.

Issue #7 wasn't bad either. <g>

>>GOOD WORK GUYS!<<

Amen!

Regards, Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 14:55:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA08802; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 17:13:10 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
Message-ID: <961016211310_100433.1541_BHG115-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"QrnwK2.0.R92.33LPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1631
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark,

The issue with the Miley paper in is actually #9.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 16:23:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA24215; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <961016182736_128424038@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Yuck!!!
Resent-Message-ID: <"z1t3-2.0.Fw5.O7MPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1633
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Yuck!!!
Date:    96-10-16 18:25:56 EDT
From:    FZNIDARSIC
To:      RVargo1062
To:      101544.702@compuserve.com
To:      fstenger@interlaced.net
To:      tkepple@third-wave.com
To:      zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil,CldFusion
To:      jseese@gpu.com

My movie gets the worst billing in very bad company.  I am not happy with the
company.  Yuck!!!  Not good for my reputation at all.

see

http://home.earthlink.net/~plutofilms/th02000.html

Frank

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 18:13:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA17394; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 20:28:10 -0400
Message-ID: <961016202809_1778601144@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Surface tension
Resent-Message-ID: <"CBMZV1.0.dF4.0uNPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1636
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

David Doty  Your data with deionized water ran all over the place.  Do you
know why?  Did you try ethelene glycol...antifreeze...when tried in the
Yusmar it killed the cavatation.  I am trying to find out why.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 18:31:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA14462; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961017001426.006eda40@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:14:26 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DKXbC2.0.sX3.9gNPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1635
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I could fax you the paper on these homo' experiments with pictures if you
give me your fax#.


At 06:50 AM 10/16/96 -0800, you wrote:
>At 3:40 AM 10/16/96, epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote:
>>Even if the external flux cutting conductor is ELIMINATED, the electric
>>crrent will still flow and can charge a cylindrical cap.
>>
>>No relative motion between disk and external load circuit is required.
>>(anybody wants references ?)
>>
>>
>[snip]
>
>
>It would be nice to have a more detailed description of the configuration
>you are talking about.  I have the feeling I have the wrong picture of the
>device you are talking about.
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 18:44:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA14445; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961017001424.006ea85c@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:14:24 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Homo data
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"phHYz3.0.XX3.6gNPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1634
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I am too lazy to type in the whole experiment here + pictures.  I can add
that in addition to the elimination of the external conductor that cuts the
field, the experimenter also tried different experiments where the magnetic
field was routed away by iron cores so the external conducter wouldn't have
a chance to cut it (yes there was EMF...), the experimenter also tried some
linear setups (no rotation) with positive results.

Give me your fax# and I will splurge on LD call to you.  Maybe you can scan
in the pictures for the other guys on your www page. 

At 05:17 AM 10/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote:
>
>> ...But, what about the case where the flux cutting radial conductor is
>> eliminated and the electrical charge is collected in a cylindrical capacitor
>> instead ?
>
>Oooo, interesting!  I never looked into this.  The capacitor should charge
>to a small potential while the magnet is spinning, I think.  Does the
>magnet do work upon the capacitor as it charges is?
>
>What if the capacitor dielectric is very lossy, will the heating induced
>by the charging current be reflected in increased torque requirements on
>the spinning magnet?
>
>And, if the magnet is spun "AC" instead of "DC", (I mean, wiggle the
>magnet rotationally, like torsion waves), will a lossy dielectric be
>heated by the presumed AC radial e-field?  The answer might settle the
>question of whether the b-field rotates or not, since rotating the magnet
>back and forth should not change the b-field at all, but might (or might
>not) create an AC radial e-field.
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 20:09:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA25250; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 16 Oct 96 21:30:44 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
Message-ID: <961017013044_76216.2421_HHB42-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"nygtL3.0.SA6.WTPPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1637
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry Blanton wrote:

   >  You can get issue #9, which includes the Miley Paper from
   >  Infinite Energy for US$5.95 or C$7.95 plus postage.  As a
   >  bonus, this issue also features a summary of the Antigravity
   >  experiments from our own homely brit, Mr. Tinsley.

Hey, good to see you on Vortex!

Looking forward to the write-up on the g-experiments. Good thing we can read
"English", huh?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 16 23:16:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA13551; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610170600.XAA15344@norway.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Electron Field Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"gFwrY2.0.bJ3.CmSPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1638
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In the excellent new book (a must read book) about Patrick Flanagan's
research titled, "Toward a New Alchemy", by Nick Begich, there are many
novel and new devices that were discovered and one I found interesting for
vortex-l was the Electron Cascade Generator, Registered. He patented this
device 4,743,275, Electron Field Generator. Below is a small portion of what
I read from the book.

Flanagan discovered a strange phenomenon that had applications in
levitation, air purification technologies, and maybe the renewable energy
field.  While studying the past works of researchers into anti-gravity,
Sikorsky and Brown, he accidentially discovered a breakthrough in the
creation of a force field. By combining the use of a Tesla coil and various
capacitors Flanagan found the greatest force-field manifested itself at the
moment the DC power was engaged dropping thereafter to a more regular level
using a Keithly High-impedence Electrometer. From this observation Flanagan
concluded that the effect could be more efficiently produced with
alternating current. The new design worked, the force field increased
dramatically, and he was ecstatic.

After finishing his experiment using the electrometer, he reset the device
and moved the device across the room, inadvertly leaving it turned on.

Flanagan continued experimenting with his new force field generator by
turning it off and on a couple of times when he noticed from the corner of
his eyes a small movement of the needle on the electrometer bouncing out and
down every time he switched the generator on and off.  What was so strange
was how the capacitor could be creating negative ions much less sending them
across the room instantly. As he left his work place that evening he left
both the coil-capacitor and electrometer operating.

The next day Flanagan returned to his lab to continue his research when he
noticed the usual odors which accompanied his experiments were gone and the
room smelled like fresh mountain air.  He noticed that the equipment had
been left on and somehow worked as a powerful new kind of air purifier. Like
many past inventors, this particular discovery was made while investigating
other technologies. Out of these levitation experiments came a major step
forward in air purification techology.

After eight years of studying this effect Flanagan figured out why this
technology worked along with his theory and applied for his first patent.  

Flanagan concluded that a new application of a dielectric field, energy
could be stored there in what he calls a dielectric stress field. He could
effect the dielectric we know as air in a way that caused a cascade of
electrons. With 5kv (min.) and 25khz ac sent to a set of plates constructed
of alternating plates of metal and nonconductive materials, the stress built
up between the the metal plates caused increased levels of stress in the air
surrounding the plates, causing the air to release electrons. These
electrons do not dehave in the same manner as regular electricity because
they travel slower, and are referred as "intermediate velocity".  

What happens is as these electrons are knocked loose they impact other atoms
with sufficient speed to cause those atoms to shed their electons as well.
These secondary freed electrons, although slower than the first, are moving
with sufficient speeds to knock loose a third set of atoms causing
additional releases of electrons. This cascade effect continues slower each
time until they cannot cause any more electrons to be released and in the
process eventually gets captured by positively charged atoms, pollutants and
other surface areas of the room. The pollutants being positively charged,
gains an electron becomes neutralizied and falls to the floor. This is what
occurs naturally in rain storms and along the beach.

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 01:52:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09894; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A1FF5@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>, Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Heat from mixing D2O with H2O
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:08:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"QISMy1.0.RQ2.34zOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1608
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: O
X-Status: 

I just received some heavy water from Isotech. On the material
safety data sheet that came with it, they indicate that if the D2O is
mixed with H2O, heat is produced, but they don't say how much
or why. Does anyone have any answers? Is it a chemical heat, or
a nuclear heat? (presumably its chemical, or we would have heard
more about it). Is this something I need to worry about? I have 300g
of D2O.
Help?
Hank Scudder

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 02:11:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA06298; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961017091646.006df200@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:16:46 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"XtH4I3.0.IY1.7VVPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1639
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>I just do not have time right now to reconstruct the gadget.  I was
>recently doing high voltage electrolyis experiments when I destroyed some
>20,000V diodes in a 0 - 7,500 V circuit which was only operating at 3,500
>V. This is mind boggeling, unless there was something wrong with the
>diodes.  The electrolysis cell was nothing but a capacitor in the HV
>circuit.  Losing the power supply was a real loss. I have a number of

Did the diodes die during a sudden discharge?  Current too high.  Need 
resistors in series to protect them.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 02:25:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11657; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961016022203.006a28a8@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:22:03 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"uEP6l2.0.yr2.DL4Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1612
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 10:15 PM 10/14/96 -0400, Hal Puthoff wrote:

>circuit that is not rotating and generates output there.  In (3) rotating mag
>field generates output in stationary disk conductor BUT generates cancelling
>emf in external circuit, so no net output. 

If you compare the *area* being affected, the disk vs. a small area of wire, 
the two will not match up to be able to cancel out.  Nice try.  :^)

Gary Hawkins
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology     Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/          Seattle, WA


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 02:45:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA12068; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 17 Oct 96 05:41:59 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Message-ID: <961017094159_76216.2421_HHB38-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"7OLV52.0.Uy2.8_VPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1640
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael Randall wrote:

[snip]

   >  Like many past inventors, this particular discovery was made
   >  while investigating other technologies. Out of these levitation
   >  experiments came a major step forward in air purification
   >  techology.

[snip]

I'm not too sure about Flanagan's explanation of how his air freshener works,
but there is an old precedent to that sort of thing. What kills the germs and
eradicates the smell they leave is ozone. Tesla coils generate lots of ozone.
This was one of the early practical uses of these coils, and small units were
sold specifically for this purpose early in the century - 30's, or perhaps
before. You'd close one up a smelly refrigerator and the thing would be fresh
and clean after a few hours running time. The old machines are collector's
items, but you can still find similar small tesla coils for air and surface
purification in some plumbing catalogs, or so I've heard from the serious coil
winders before the Tesla list went down for the count.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 03:17:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16682; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610151601.JAA27489@helix.ucsd.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu>
From: "Bart Simon" <bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:58:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Fwd: The old hollow stirring rod trick...
Reply-to: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Resent-Message-ID: <"soAWd1.0.Y44.xgzOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1609
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 14 Oct 96 at 12:07, Dean Miller  wrote:
 
> I can't find the original message which reported this demonstration, but I
> was a little skeptical of the demo.  However, I recall that something like
> 1/2 liter of hydrocarbon was produced in the demo (out of a total of 1 liter
> of liquid). 

I've been following the story at,

http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~ksathiah/Indian-Herbal-Petrol.HTM

It will be interesting to see if this debunking can be successfully 
debunked.

cheers,
Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)


============================================
Bart Simon
Dept. of Sociology/Science Studies-0533
University of California at San Diego (UCSD)
9500 Gilman Dr.
La Jolla, CA, 92093-0533

phone: 619-534-0491/fax: 619-534-3388
===========================================

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 07:15:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06376; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:09:54 -0400
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@spectre.mitre.org>
Message-Id: <199610171409.KAA06354@spectre.mitre.org>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-reply-to: <961017094159_76216.2421_HHB38-1@CompuServe.COM> (message from Rick Monteverde on 17 Oct 96 05:41:59 EDT)
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"48_in1.0.YZ1.9vZPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1641
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


   Rick Monteverde (76216.2421@CompuServe.COM) said:

 > I'm not too sure about Flanagan's explanation of how his air
 > freshener works, but there is an old precedent to that sort of
 > thing. What kills the germs and eradicates the smell they leave is
 > ozone. Tesla coils generate lots of ozone.  This was one of the
 > early practical uses of these coils, and small units were sold
 > specifically for this purpose early in the century - 30's, or
 > perhaps before. You'd close one up a smelly refrigerator and the
 > thing would be fresh and clean after a few hours running time. The
 > old machines are collector's items, but you can still find similar
 > small tesla coils for air and surface purification in some plumbing
 > catalogs, or so I've heard from the serious coil winders before the
 > Tesla list went down for the count.

   The ozone helps, but what really does the work is the non-linear
electric field.  There is a second order effect which causes uncharged
particles to be attracted to the discharge wires.  The particles then
get charged, repelled and stick to some grounded surface.


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 08:30:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA21296; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.852819080096291FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1996 08:19:08 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: A list of other checks for Miley to make...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/17/96 08:19:27 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"wWk7Z2.0.cC5.7xaPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1642
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: A list of other checks for Miley to make...
-
Rather than just whine and cry about what Miley "didn't do", how about we
establish a complete list of items which "critics" are whining about.
-
I think, however, there should be an effort to quantify the whining?
-
I.e., after looking over Miley's paper---at what level would measurements
have to be made to assure the results were not due to "contamination"? Does
Miley need to measure PPM, or PPB in the glassware? Does he need to measure the
PPM/PPB of elements in the tygon tubing? In a dissolved surface from the tubing
? Does he need to measure an impeller's contaminates if it doesn't touch the
electrolyte? (The case of a peristalic pump.) Should he take samples of the
electroyte during the run and profile the dissolved ion species on an ongoing
basis? Should he take 1, 2, 3 or 4 or 5 measurements to establish a sigma?
-
Beyond what tally of trace elements and what sigma's do the results become
convincing?
-
These are not trivial questions. And they can have numbers put to them. Since
this experiment DOES seem to be repeatable, it would lead on to believe that
it could be repeated often enough to full fill any list of requirements to
establish the "formed in place" versus "shifted contamination" arguements.
-
MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 09:27:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02189; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A4759@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>,
        "Robert I. Eachus"
	 <eachus@spectre.mitre.org>,
        Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:58:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9o7NF1.0.3Y.VhbPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1643
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick, Robert
	I bought one of these gadgets and put it in my office at GE.
The office had metal walls. After a few days, the wall was black.
I complained to facilities, that the air they were providing us was
filthy. They complained to my manager that I was defacing
company property, and I was told to take it down. I then gave it
to a friend who worked for the state, and she put it up in her office,
where she had smokers in the cubicals on each side of her. Same
thing, she was made to take it down, as it was too depressing for
the smokers to see what they were doing to their lungs.
Go figure
Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: Robert I. Eachus
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Thursday, October 17, 1996 7:09AM


   Rick Monteverde (76216.2421@CompuServe.COM) said:

 > I'm not too sure about Flanagan's explanation of how his air
 > freshener works, but there is an old precedent to that sort of
 > thing. What kills the germs and eradicates the smell they leave is
 > ozone. Tesla coils generate lots of ozone.  This was one of the
 > early practical uses of these coils, and small units were sold
 > specifically for this purpose early in the century - 30's, or
 > perhaps before. You'd close one up a smelly refrigerator and the
 > thing would be fresh and clean after a few hours running time. The
 > old machines are collector's items, but you can still find similar
 > small tesla coils for air and surface purification in some plumbing
 > catalogs, or so I've heard from the serious coil winders before the
 > Tesla list went down for the count.

   The ozone helps, but what really does the work is the non-linear
electric field.  There is a second order effect which causes uncharged
particles to be attracted to the discharge wires.  The particles then
get charged, repelled and stick to some grounded surface.


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 09:29:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02345; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610171612.JAA02227@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:10:19 -0600
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Thomas N. Claytor" <claytor_t_n@lanl.gov>
Subject: D20 heat
Resent-Message-ID: <"5zqdo3.0.Ra.-hbPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1644
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Scott,

At least a case, the half life in the body is about a week.

Tom.
Thomas N. Claytor	Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ESA-MT, MS C914
Los Alamos NM, 87545
505-667-6216 voice
505-665-7176 fax

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 10:59:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16855; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 17 Oct 96 13:16:45 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Message-ID: <961017171644_76216.2421_HHB55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"K8Td9.0.G74.cfcPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1645
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Eachus wrote:

   >   I bought one of these gadgets and put it in my office at GE. The
   >  office had metal walls. After a few days, the wall was black. I
   >  complained to facilities, that the air they were providing us
   >  was filthy. They complained to my manager that I was defacing
   >  company property, and I was told to take it down.

Nothing in there was said about defacing company personnel, eh? =80

   >  Go figure

Did. Good story. Confirms what I already thought of the general mentality in
government or corporate organizations. 

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI
<going it on his own>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 11:25:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25671; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.792456100096291FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 17 Oct 1996 10:56:10 PDT
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/17/96 10:56:23 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"NcTOl.0._G6.bEdPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1647
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/17/96 09:22
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
HANK, RICK, etc. What sort of gadget are you talking about? I'll get one
and put it in my place of employ! Please detail. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 11:31:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA24926; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 17 Oct 96 12:38:46 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
Message-ID: <961017163846_76016.2701_JHC75-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"6ULaL1.0.O56.XBdPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1646
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Montverde wrote:

>>Hey, good to see you on Vortex!<<

Thank you!  This does seem to be a more humane place to discuss new science than
the CIS Science Forum.  I guess the sysop's warning keeps FERvid comments to a
minimum.

>>Looking forward to the write-up on the g-experiments.<<

I thought I'd lurk a bit before making a total fool of myself. <g>

>>Good thing we can read "English", huh?<<

Ah, yes.  "Homely" means "a likeable person" in the UK.  

Terry
"T'is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove
all doubt."  -A. Lincoln

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 13:25:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA20938; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 17 Oct 96 15:54:19 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Message-ID: <961017195419_76216.2421_HHB46-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"MHLGh1.0.375.C_ePo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1649
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo wrote:

   >  HANK, RICK, etc. What sort of gadget are you talking about?
   >  I'll get one and put it in my place of employ! Please detail.
   >  MDH

Small tesla coil such as those used to purify air inside refrigerators and so
forth. 

I think Edmund Scientific sells these small units, but quite a few people like
to build them as a hobby. I really don't think these are the right tool for
generally purifying air in closed spaces constantly occupied by people,
primarily because they can generate so much ozone. Powerful charge buildup can
damage computer equipment too. Electrostatic air cleaners and low-volume ion
generators are better in that situation. Ozone is a poison in large
concentrations - it's very reactive biologically and can damage your lungs and
the rest of you as well. The small Tesla coils are typically used to eradicate
bacteria and smell by confining them overnight in the area to be cleaned, but
are not usually employed for the constant maintainence of environmental air
quality. It's not good to breathe too much ozone. 

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 13:50:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23824; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610172006.NAA00661@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <961014221555_211003247@emout01.mail.aol.com> from "Puthoff@aol.com" at Oct 14, 96 10:15:56 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6jg9y2.0.Aq5.4EfPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1650
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hal Puthoff writes:

> In (4), like (2), nothing
> generated in nonrelative motion of conducting disk and magnet AND since
> external circuit is also rotating, so no chance for rotating mag field to
> generate anything here by relative motion either, so no output.

In Mullers experiment (which I've been spelling Mueller) he uses
a rectangular, open-sided box magnetic shell, and makes connection 
to the conductor through the side of the box. There is NO flux 
linkage between external measuring circuit and the magnetic shell. 
He does not do full rotations -- but partial rotations, and 
watches for deflections in the potential meter.
A crude measure of either: output, or no output.

He finds output when the full magnetic circuit does not rotate,
and finds that there is no output when the full magnetic circuit
does rotate. In neither case is there any flux linkage with the
external circuit. 

How does either the rotating conductor, or the external circuit,
"know" and why do they "care" about what has happened with the
un-linked external magnetic circuit? 

Still mind blown.
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 15:37:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA12080; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610172130.OAA00991@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <199610172006.NAA00661@shell.skylink.net> from "Robert Stirniman" at Oct 17, 96 01:06:43 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-6aqM1.0.cy2.kTgPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1651
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Oops. Please allow me to retract the gibberish, copied
below, which I posted earlier today. After reveiw of
the actual drawing of Mueller's experiment, rather than
my memory of it. It is clear that the magnetic flux does
link the external circuit -- as it must. It seems to be
topologically impossible to build a homopolar generator
in which the external circuti does not have flux linkage.

Regards,
Robert Stirniman


> Hal Puthoff writes:
> > In (4), like (2), nothing
> > generated in nonrelative motion of conducting disk and magnet AND since
> > external circuit is also rotating, so no chance for rotating mag field to
> > generate anything here by relative motion either, so no output.
> 
> In Mullers experiment (which I've been spelling Mueller) he uses
> a rectangular, open-sided box magnetic shell, and makes connection 
> to the conductor through the side of the box. There is NO flux 
> linkage between external measuring circuit and the magnetic shell. 
> He does not do full rotations -- but partial rotations, and 
> watches for deflections in the potential meter.
> A crude measure of either: output, or no output.
> 
> He finds output when the full magnetic circuit does not rotate,
> and finds that there is no output when the full magnetic circuit
> does rotate. In neither case is there any flux linkage with the
> external circuit. 
> 
> How does either the rotating conductor, or the external circuit,
> "know" and why do they "care" about what has happened with the
> un-linked external magnetic circuit? 
> 
> Still mind blown.
> Robert Stirniman
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 15:49:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA18356; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 17 Oct 96 17:35:57 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Message-ID: <961017213557_76016.2701_JHC114-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"iKQrW1.0.fU4.nvgPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1652
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde writes:

>>Small tesla coil such as those used to purify air inside refrigerators and so
forth. 

I think Edmund Scientific sells these small units, but quite a few people like
to build them as a hobby.<<

Yep, Edmund catalog # C70301, a 50,000 Volt Tesla coil sells for $199.00 plus
shipping from:

Edmund Scientific Co.
101 E. Gloucester Pike
Barrington, NJ  08007-1380
ph. 609/573-6270
fx. 609/573-6295

Standard (UPS) shipping charge for this item is $14.25, two-day is $20.00, and
over-nite is $29.50 (NJ residents must add 6% sales tax.)  Street address
required.  All prices US$.

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 15:59:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA18891; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <961017180851_545444291@emout14.mail.aol.com>
To: tlpst15+@pitt.edu, zap@dnai.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        101544.702@compuserve.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com, CldFusion@aol.com,
        vortex-l@eskimo.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Subject: test
Resent-Message-ID: <"qBlzf.0.1d4.9ygPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1653
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Test of an E-Mail with an embeded link. This is the first time I have tried
HTML in an 
E-mail.

See home page at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusmar
 Tests</A>


Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 21:02:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA17213; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610171931.MAA00596@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961017001426.006eda40@mail.localaccess.com> from "epitaxy@localaccess.com" at Oct 16, 96 05:14:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"n9PY_3.0.jC4.5kePo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1648
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> 
> I could fax you the paper on these homo' experiments with pictures if you
> give me your fax#.
> 

Yes. Thanks.     Fax:  702-736-5035

Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 23:11:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA11143; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 96 23:38:27 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961015154502.48575052@mail.airmail.net>
X-Sender: danyork@mail.airmail.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Dan York <danyork@iadfw.net>
Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
Resent-Message-ID: <"SWrL-.0._j2.OT6Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1613
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:25 AM 10/14/96 PDT, you wrote:
>*** Reply to note of 10/13/96 20:45
>From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
>Subject: Re: TRYING TO GET MILEY'S PAPER ON THE INTERNET
>John, wouldn't you know that I'd leave all copies of the paper at home
>today. I'll write you tonight, but I don't think Miley put "copyright"
>on this one...(That might be intentional.) So with some feedback from
>the source, (i.e. a reply from Miley) we might have it. (Then again
>as was suggested elsewhere, CETI might just post it on their web. Then
>all you'd have to do is a link.) MDH
>

There is not a copyright notice on Miley's paper but it does not matter.
Years ago the law was that a work was put into public domain if it was
published without a copyright notice.  Copyright law was changed a long time
ago and you can no longer determine anything by the lack of a formal
copyright notice.  

A work is to be considered as copyrighted material unless the author
expressly states that it is in the public domain.  You do not have the right
to post the paper on the internet without Miley's permission.  Under current
copyright law an original work is considered copyrighted at the moment it is
fixed. Writing the words "copyright" on the original work is a good idea but
not required. 

Since Miley gives Co-author status to James Patterson and states in the
acknowledgments that the work was supported by a grant from CETI then I
BELIEVE you need to get the permission of both Miley AND Patterson before
you can proceed to re-publish their work. 

Dan York
 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 17 23:24:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA29107; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610180620.XAA17537@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Electron Field Generator, Part 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"aFxr53.0.f67.e7oPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1654
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Some additional info from the book "Towards a New Alchemy", in reply to some
of the vortex-l questions:

Flanagan's, Electron Cascade Generator (Reg.) is totally different than the
current state of the art in pollutant reducing systems, it seems to be a
breakthrough. I do not know if you can purchase a unit, I'm checking with
Flanagan to see if it is available. He has invented so many new devices with
several being breakthroughs, like the Neurophone, that his time seems to be
booked in R&D.

In some of the current or early air purification technologies used a
powerful ionizer (like a tesla coil) which applied 20 kv negative volts to
an antenna-like needle which would attract positive ions and convert them to
negative ions. The problem was that the negative charged particles are also
attracted to the walls and drapes which are also positively charged which
resulted in becoming plated with black soot over several months of
operation. This problem is eliminated by this novel approach of a cascade
electron generator.

The device is simplicity itself being an emitter, of a sandwich of alternate
dielectric and metal plates, driven by a high frequency (44 khz) high
voltage source (24 kv). In Flanagan's second patent he found that the
toroidal electric field, developed around the emitter, increased
substantially by doping the insulator with non-dielectric materials like
silicon carbide (75 mesh granules). At a distance of 10 cm from the emitter
the following measurements were made with a Keithly Electrometer and an
ion/electron probe:

Pure Epoxy dielectric                   2.98 x 10 to 11th electrons/cm2
Epoxy with silicon carbide              4.76 x 10 to 11th electrons/cm2

The dielectric slabs were circular being 80 mm in diameter and 15 mm thick.
The plates were 63 mm in diameter. 

Another aspect of this negative electron generator is that the electrons
will create the cascading effect even through solid walls and if the walls
are made of a dielectric materials, the generator will create stresses and
cascading effects on the other side of the wall.

Flanagan's explaination for how the generator worked could also explain how
energy is transfered in a thunderstorm and in a lighting bolt by this stress
field. The air, as a non-conductor within a thunderstorm, builds a
dielectric stress field which is impacted by a combination of a built-up
electric charge and the falling rain to create a cascade of electrons. With
these electrons out of their orbits, the air now acts like a conductor
resulting in a flow of negative electricity from the cloud to the earth in
the form of a lightning bolt.  In storms without lighting, the same cascade
effect occurs to a lesser extent.

Another advantage of this design is that it eliminates electrostatic
induction in the enviornment like computer rooms and electronic assembly
areas where a static free enviornment is essential.

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 00:16:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06676; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 15 Oct 96 06:55:06 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Flat wings will work just as well.
Message-ID: <961015105506_100433.1541_BHG98-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mjxrh.0.5e1.PsyOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1606
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I've had two long phone calls from Jed Rothwell, who is at the ICCF6 CF
conference in Hokkaido.  I'm rather reluctant to pass on too much of what is
obviously second-hand information, so *please* take anything I say as being
hearsay *only*.  Jed will undoubtedly post a better report, maybe here,
certainly in Infinite Energy.

Two points stood out, though, as being worth passing on.  One is that the NHE
people (the funded researchers in Japan) do seem to be making a serious mess of
things.  The Ikegami paper published in Japan four years ago spelled out four
essentials for reproducing the Fleischmann-Pons effect with bulk palladium.  Two
of these are the loading level of
deuterium in the palladium metal, and the necessity for the experiment
to be done at 70C or higher.

It is well-known that loading is difficult to measure, but perhaps less
well-known that this difficulty has led meany in Japan to run at lower,
more easily measured loadings.  Pity about that, because of course the
experiment won't work.

Now I hear that worker after worker got on his hind legs and reported null
results with elaborate and highly precise flow calorimeters - much to the
delight of Douglas Morrison.  But they all were working at 20C!!! Apparently,
frantic retro-fitment to allow flow calorimetry at elevated temperatures is no
underway in more than one NHE lab.  Ho, hum.

Seems scarcely credible, eh?  But reports from the French atomic energy
research people (among othrs) have shown that when they actually
*replicated precisely* the F&P 'boiloff' experiments, then they
(usually) worked fine.

Closer to home, Miley says that glass beads don't work worth a damn. 
I'm afraid we have been caught in the old trap, where "to assume makes
an ass out of you and me".  Replicating the Wrights with flat wings
doesn't work, and neither do glass beads work in a Patterson cell.

Apparently, my suggestion that the nickel be measured quantitatively
after a run, using standard chemical measurement, has gone down well
with all concerned.  Whether they will try it or not is another matter.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 01:24:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA29540; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae8cde230419@[204.17.242.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:24:46 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Checks on Miley using NMR
Resent-Message-ID: <"BlANh2.0.UD7.yrpPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1655
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Eliminating contamination concerns is where I think NMR may be very useful,
especially if the electrolysis is carried out using two thin film
electrodes.  All the variables except the total concentration of the
specific nucleus of interest inside the electrodes prior to electrolysis
can be eliminated if the entire cell is monitored dynamically in an NMR
sample chamber throughout the electrolysis process.

A candidate element for such monitoring may be 43Ca, which has a natural
abundance of only 0.135 %.  This would be feasible if 43Ca is generated in
a nickel / potassium carbonate cell.  It should be possible to build an NMR
test chamber of 0.25 T using readily available permanent magnets.  Such a
chamber would provide a resonant frequency for the 43Ca nucleus of 717,200
Hz.  By monitoring in situ all variables are controlled, except maybe 43Ca
hidden in the electrode metallic film initially by the shielding effect of
the electrode metallic films.  A control for this can be obtained by using
cells without applying electrolysis.  Both the active and control cells
would have acid or a strong base added at the test conclusion to dissolve
any remaining electrode film. The acid or base would be kept within the the
test chamber for the duration of the test, but kept isolated from the
electolyte until the end of the test.  Since NMR readily registers isotopes
in either dielectrics like glass, or in solution, it is therefore possible
to rule out contamination theories.

Unfortunately 43Ca has a low sensitivity.  Other isotopes afford much
higher sensitivities, high enough that amateur built test equipment may be
sufficient to register the transmutations clearly.  The problem is finding
a process and product istotope easily identifyable through NMR, and where
the process also works in a strong magnetic field.  The following is a list
of high NMR sensitivity isotopes, their relative abundance in nature, and
their NMR resonance frequency (MHZ) in a 1 T field:

Isotope   Abundance   MHz at 1 T
-------   ---------   ----------
1H        99.985      42.5764
2H         0.015       6.53573 (low sensitivity)
3H          -         45.4137
7Li        92.5       16.5478
19F       100         40.0765
27Al      100         11.1028
45Sc      100         10.3588
51V        99.750     11.2130
53Mn      100         10.5760
59Co      100         10.077
65Cu       30.83      12.1027
71Ga       39.892     13.0204
87Rb       27.835     13.9807
93Nb      100         10.4520
99Tc       -           9.63
113In       4.3        9.3652
115In      95.7        9.3854
121Sb      57.36      10.2549
141Pr     100         13.0355
143Pm       -         11.6
151Eu      47.8       10.6854
165Ho     100          9.0881
180Ta       0.012      4.04
185Re      37.40       9.717
187Re      62.60       9.817
203Tl      29.524     24.7310
205Tl      70.476     24.9742
209Bi     100          6.9628
237Np        -         9.57



Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 02:15:44 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA17464; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 02:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae8cf3a61218@[199.165.120.37]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:19:28 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"ke9-F.0.nG4.2fqPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1656
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>I just do not have time right now to reconstruct the gadget.  I was
>>recently doing high voltage electrolyis experiments when I destroyed some
>>20,000V diodes in a 0 - 7,500 V circuit which was only operating at 3,500
>>V. This is mind boggeling, unless there was something wrong with the
>>diodes.  The electrolysis cell was nothing but a capacitor in the HV
>>circuit.  Losing the power supply was a real loss. I have a number of
>
>Did the diodes die during a sudden discharge?  Current too high.  Need
>resistors in series to protect them.

The failure was slow.  The only current through the diodes was through a 10
Mohm resistance ladder used to measure voltage by measuring the current
through a leg off the ladder.  There was no DC current to the electrolysis
cells (a 300 mA meter was in that leg.)  The diodes were rated at .1 A and
20,000 PIV.  The diodes were cool to the touch after the failure, but the 2
W resisters in the ladder were hot, as expected.

The input AC was increased gradually using a variac to drive the HV
transformer.  Everything worked normally up to about 2000 V, but there the
voltage output was not in proportion to the input.  It was as if the diodes
started reverse conducting.  Total failure occurred at about 3500 V, as
measured by a microammeter in the resistance ladder, which showed the DC
voltage (current) rapidly drop off to zero.  I thought maybe the resistance
ladder failed, but the diode reverse resistance as measured with a DMM was
permanently altered from infinity to roughly the same as the forward
resistance of the diode.  I repeated the process after replacing the failed
diode and it worked the same.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 03:06:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16421; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A1DE2@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us" <dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>,
        Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Surface tension
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 08:53:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"vA70q2.0.N04.CIxOo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1605
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

David
How are you cleaning your capillary tubes before testing them?
I would expect that your tests would critically depend on this, and
somehow you need to have a uniform surface before testing them.
Hank Scudder

 ----------
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us
To: herman@college.antioch.edu
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Surface tension
Date: Thursday, October 10, 1996 10:39PM

Dear John Schnurer,

I ran a pretest on deionized water in the set of Capillary tubes.
The inner diameters are (.5mm, 1.0mm, 1.25mm, 1.5mm) about 3 inches
long.
The 0.5 mm tube had a 16 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The 1.1 mm tube had a 10 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The  1.25 mm tube had a 22 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.
The 1.5 mm tube had a 6 mm rise plus or minis 1mm.

Can you explain why the 1.25 mm tube had the highest rise?
I thought the smaller the tube the higher the  deionized water would
rise
in the Capillary tube.
Maybe the Moleculare bonds in the deionized water stop it from going
higher
in the 0.5 mm tube.

The surface tention I think should be (the inner diamiter times pi times
the rise).
If this is so the surface tention mm squared is:

The 0.5 mm tube had 25 mm squared.
The 1.1 mm tube had 34.5 mm squared.
The 1.25 mm tube had 86.4 mm squared.
The 1.5 mm tube had 28.3 mm squared.

>        3 main forces control curvature of meniscus in 10 mm tube;
>
>        Capillary tries to draw water up sides
>        Air pressure pushes down
>
>        ***** Surface tension *** is the "skin" which will try to balance
>these forces.
>
>
>        Have you folks ever made a camera obscura?
>
no
>
>        We could probably easily project image of meniscus on wall,
>ceiling or slide projector screen in semi-darkened room.
>        Then the effect would be easily seen and photographed.
>        This type of highly visible demonstration in in my opinion very
>useful and important in class room.
>
>                                        JHS
>
>
Will run more tests next week and post results when I get some students
involved in it.

>> >       water
>> >       water and vinegar
>> >       water and baking soda
>> >       water and soap
>> >       water and rubbing alcohol
>> >       water and antifreeze (Ask Doty for help with this one)
>> >       water and sugar
>> >       water and ammonia (windex)
>> >       water and wiskey..If you dad says OK.
>> >       water and dirt
>> >       water and windshiield washer fluid
>> >

************************************
*                         David Doty
*
*         340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                  *
*                  home 503 266 3969                           *
*         Custodian at Ackerman Junior High              *
*              Canby School District 86                         *
*  CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher *
*  Looking for Science Projects for students to do.  *
*  http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html  *
************************************


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 07:21:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA18825; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae8d38aade37@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <199610172006.NAA00661@shell.skylink.net>
References: <961014221555_211003247@emout01.mail.aol.com> from
 "Puthoff@aol.com" at Oct 14, 96 10:15:56 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:16:14 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"UvlP8.0.1c4.65vPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1657
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

  There have been some questions as to why a HPG generates no voltage when
the electric and magnetic circuit are both rotating.  To answer this one
needs to evaluate the curl of the electric field or curl E.  When this term
is zero the induced EMF around a closed circuit will be zero.  The velocity
will be given by    v = w cross r or the cross product of the angular
velocity vector, w, with the radius vector, r.  Now the Lorentz force term
from the rotation velocity gives an induced electric field of  v cross B
with B the magnetic field.  The curl of this field is then

curl(v cross B) = (div B)v+(B dot grad)v-(div v)B-(v dot grad)B

since div B and div v are zero we have

curl(v cross B) = (B dot grad)v-(v dot grad)B

evaluating the first term on the LHS gives

(B dot grad)v = w cross B

So if only the electric circuit is rotating there will be a net EMF but
when the magnet is rotating the vector potential, A, will be changing in
time and there will be an additional term from the induced electric field
-dA/dt with curl given by

curl(-dA/dt) = - d(curl A)/dt = -dB/dt

and the total curl is

curl(v cross B-dA/dt) = w cross B-(v dot grad)B-dB/dt
                                  = w cross B-DB/Dt

where DB/Dt denotes the convective derivitive.  This last term is just the
time derivitive of the magnetic field in the rotating frame and it is zero
if the magnetic field and electric circuit is rotating together.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 07:23:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA19048; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: talk@sas.org
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: web space?  How about a list?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961018071512.6883F-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"JmDgC3.0.Qf4.36vPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1658
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, brian holton wrote:

> hey, some museum exhibit folks want to have a web site where information 
> on vendors and construction on exhibit information is shared.

OK, I created an email-list discussion group for discussing interactive
science exhibits.  To subscribe, send a BLANK email message to
webhead-L-request@eskimo.com, with the single word "subscribe" in the
subject line of the message header.  No quotes around "subscribe." 

No traffic there as yet (too new!) so hop on board and introduce yourself,
ask questions, etc., to get a conversation started. 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 08:30:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA03466; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A5A6B@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "hheffner@anc.ak.net" <hheffner@anc.ak.net>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:04:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"timfA2.0.4s.luvPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1659
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace
Call up an application engineer at the manufacturer, and
tell him your experience. At least he will probably send you
some free samples. If you send the failed diodes back to the
manufacturer, they might examine them as to causes of failure,
and send you a report. We have done this several times at
Rocketdyne.
Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Date: Friday, October 18, 1996 2:19AM

>>I just do not have time right now to reconstruct the gadget.  I was
>>recently doing high voltage electrolyis experiments when I destroyed some
>>20,000V diodes in a 0 - 7,500 V circuit which was only operating at 3,500
>>V. This is mind boggeling, unless there was something wrong with the
>>diodes.  The electrolysis cell was nothing but a capacitor in the HV
>>circuit.
<snip>
Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 09:26:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17572; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:51:19 -0400
Reply-To: bpaddock@execpc.com
Message-ID: <382ZyUQy8EPN092yn@execpc.com>
 <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A4759@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A4759@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
Lines: 17
Resent-Message-ID: <"LdXqB2.0.RI4.TkwPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1660
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Rick, Robert
>	I bought one of these gadgets and put it in my office at GE.
>The office had metal walls. After a few days, the wall was black.

I can tell that you didn't read the book.  ;-)

As the book described that was the whole point of Dr.
Flanagan's particularly device, that it would *NOT* leave the
walls black, while cleaning the air.

-- 
For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at:
    //www.execpc.com/~bpaddock/ or http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock
Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine,
Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited,
Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experiment.
:

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 09:39:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA19079; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: RMCarrell@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:13:39 -0400
Message-ID: <961018121338_129347893@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"gy4U-1.0.1g4.IrwPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1661
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

What you are also talking about are negative-ion generators which you can buy
to generate a local cloud of negative ions which are generally agreeable with
animals and makes them feel good (positive ions tend to be depressing). These
will also charge dirt particles in the air which then preciptate over
everything nearby. I believe there are some models which provide a charged
target on the device to attract the particles so it gets dirty instead of the
nearby furniture. 

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 12:37:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10953; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: RMCarrell@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:28:19 -0400
Message-ID: <961018152818_336747454@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Flat wings will work just as well.
Resent-Message-ID: <"k_WSW2.0.-g2.ofzPo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1662
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In a message dated 96-10-18 03:16:35 EDT, Chris wrote:

<< 
 Closer to home, Miley says that glass beads don't work worth a damn. 
 I'm afraid we have been caught in the old trap, where "to assume makes
 an ass out of you and me".  Replicating the Wrights with flat wings
 doesn't work, and neither do glass beads work in a Patterson cell.
  >>

In his paper reprinted in IE #9, Miley's opening paragraph begins
"Experiments using 1-mm plastic and glass microspheres...."; at the beginning
of the last paragraph on that page, the second sentence again refers to glass
microspheres; the last paragraph on p 27 also referes to glass microspheres. 

This could simply mean that plastic and glass micrspheres were both used in
the experiments. I didn't find indications in the paper that glass doesn't
work.

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 14:09:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA00758; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.194743130096292FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 18 Oct 1996 13:43:13 PDT
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Miley's paper, To be glass beads or not to be glass beads,
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/18/96 13:43:46 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"36F1F3.0.jB.qn-Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1663
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Miley's paper, To be glass beads or not to be glass beads,
That is the question...
-
I think this is one of those cases were there is so much info to be discussed,
that not all of it gets put out. My take on this, Mike, from what I know is
that Miley DID try glass beads with Ni, and got a nul result. There may even
be a little hidden politics here as that info may come out later, as the
"critics" heat up. I.e., a nul result with glass beads is somewhat of a control
... MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 15:27:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA19321; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610182142.OAA01116@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Homo data
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961017001424.006ea85c@mail.localaccess.com> from "epitaxy@localaccess.com" at Oct 16, 96 05:14:24 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"-c3ZI1.0.bj4.1m_Po"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1664
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> 
> Give me your fax# and I will splurge on LD call to you.  Maybe you can scan
> in the pictures for the other guys on your www page. 


Yes thanks. Please send, I'm very interested in seeing this.

Fax: 702-736-5035

Robert

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 15:54:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29390; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 18 Oct 96 18:35:16 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: MILEY'S PAPER, HOW TO GET IT...
Message-ID: <961018223516_100433.1541_BHG56-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"WSdjS1.0.7B7.mP0Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1665
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry,

 > Thank you!  This does seem to be a more humane place to discuss
 > new science than the CIS Science Forum.  I guess the sysop's
 > warning keeps FERvid comments to a minimum.

Which reminds me, I have an "absolutely fabulous" posting for him.  He
lurks here, you know - and he lurks the CIS Encounters forum under the
name of Tsing (with two initials which I forget).

 > I thought I'd lurk a bit before making a total fool of myself. <g>

Don't be shy.  You and Rick have some interesting ideas on the
Podkletnov stuff.

 > Ah, yes.  "Homely" means "a likeable person" in the UK.

Not quite.  I think I prefer its meaning in your own subset of the
language.

Chris
(at least he'll see and welcome the implied insult)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 17:07:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA20249; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Miley's paper: Sodium based electrolyte
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 23:55:31 +0000
Message-ID: <19961018235529.AAA14504@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"rnGAM1.0.Jy4.aa1Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1666
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A little nugget of information revealed in Miley's paper (IE, vol 2, No 9,
p. 30) was the comment that "unpublished results (J. Patterson, 1996b)
indicate that operation with a Na-based electolyte (vs. Li) results in
similar heating rates."  Heretofore, Mills & Kneizys claimed that a sodium
carbonate electrolyte did not give excess heat with a Ni electrode.  He
explained that "no electrolytic reaction of ~27.21 eV is possible for
sodium, thus these experiments represent controls...." (R. L. Mills & S. T
Kneizys, Fusion Technology, vol 20, Aug. 1991, p. 65).  It appears that the
shrinking hydrogen suborbital theory has bitten the dust.

Ed Strojny  

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 21:49:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA27935; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 23:39:15 -0500
Message-Id: <9610190439.AA20702@dsm7.dsmnet.com>
X-Sender: dtmiller@dsmnet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: "Dean T. Miller" <dtmiller@dsmnet.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"5wSyM1.0.Pq6.bk5Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1667
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Rick Monteverde writes:

>>Small tesla coil such as those used to purify air inside refrigerators and so
forth. 
  I think Edmund Scientific sells these small units, but quite a few people like
to build them as a hobby.<<

What you guys are really talking about is a negative ion generator.  This is
what ionizes the pollutants in the air and gives the 'fresh' smell of
mountain or after-a-thunderstorm air.

Generators are made in many varieties, and I have them as stand-alone,
automotive and combined with a fan/filter.  Most of them do work well, and
the good ones generate negative ions and have a positive collector plate so
the walls don't get too dirty.

They generally cost in the range of $20 to $100 depending on size, number of
electrodes that generate the ions, filters, etc.  You can get them most
anywhere (K-Mart, Target, Damark, etc.).


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 18 22:51:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA22239; Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Resent-Message-ID: <"k51r3.0.IR5.Qj6Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1668
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 12:13 PM 10/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
[snip]
I believe there are some models which provide a charged
>target on the device to attract the particles so it gets dirty instead of the
>nearby furniture. 
>
>Mike Carrell

Correct for current technology. Patrick Flanagan's device is different at
the emitter. A simple but brilliant design. Check out my Part 2 info and the
book (the patent is is the appendix).

BTW I checked with Patrick and his Electron Cascade Generator (R) is not
currently being manufactured.

Michael Randall

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 01:10:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA08222; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 01:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 01:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <9610190807.AA20240@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 01:20:36 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
Subject: Re: Surface tension HS
Resent-Message-ID: <"3SrHM1.0.M02.Io8Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1669
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Hank Scudder said

>How are you cleaning your capillary tubes before testing them?

I was just run tap water through the tubes then deionized water.

=46rank Stenger said

=46or consistant results, the capillary tubes should all be
cleaned with something like sodium triphosphate.  With this done,
with clean water, the capillary head should be proportional to
1/D (where D =3D tube i.d.).

 I will get some sodium triphosphate and develop a better cleaning
procedures and rerun the test next week.  Thanks for your help in
developing better glass cleaning procedures.

>Hank Scudder said
>I would expect that your tests would critically depend on this, and
>somehow you need to have a uniform surface before testing them.

I agree the data below is not very consistant so something is happening
to the surface of tubes.
--------------------------------------------------
(repeat for those who have not read my data so far)
In Deionized water

The first data was 0.5 mm tube raised 16 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 10 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 22 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 6 mm.

The second data collected was 99 ml deionized water and 1 ml ethyl alcohol.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 34 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 23 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 21 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 8 mm.

The next sample was 63 ml  deionized water and 1 ml Amnonia.
The recomened dilution for window wash was 1 Tsp/ Qt =3D
15 ml/950 ml =3D 1 ml/63ml ratio dilution.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 30 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 28 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 23 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 20 mm.

The next sample run was Paulsen & Roles 64 to 1 Glass Cleaner (GC)
containing isoprocal alcohol.  I mixed 1ml GC /64 ml deionized H20.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 17 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 12 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 10 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 9 mm.

I then tried to get a new base line on deionized water by its self 3 times
rensing between measurments.

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 38 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 20 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 23 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 19 mm.

Same beaker new deionized water

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 37 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 22 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 22 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 19 mm.

A new beaker with deionized water

The data was 0.5 mm tube raised 31 mm, 1.1 mm tube raised 19 mm,
1.25 mm tube raised 24 mm, 1.5 mm tube raised 17 mm.
--------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
*                 David Doty <dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>               *
*                        Custodian at Ackerman Junior High
*
*                               Canby School District 86
*
*                                45=BA 15' N, 122=BA 41' W
*
*                               home (503) 266-3969
*
*                       340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013
*
*             CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher               *
*             Looking for Science Projects for students to do.              =
  *
*             http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html                *
***********************************************=20


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 05:04:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA24068; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 05:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 05:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:02:44 GMT
Message-ID: <3270b074.27970118@mail.zip.com.au>
References: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"bbxhl2.0.-t5.QDCQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1670
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Michael Randall wrote:

>At 12:13 PM 10/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>[snip]
>I believe there are some models which provide a charged
>>target on the device to attract the particles so it gets dirty instead =
of the
>>nearby furniture.=20
>>
>>Mike Carrell
>
>Correct for current technology. Patrick Flanagan's device is different =
at
>the emitter. A simple but brilliant design. Check out my Part 2 info and=
 the
>book (the patent is is the appendix).
>
>BTW I checked with Patrick and his Electron Cascade Generator (R) is not
>currently being manufactured.
>
>Michael Randall
>
=46rom where can "Toward a new Alchemy" be purchased?=20

Is there enough detail provided in the book to reproduce an=20
"Electron Cascade Generator" to experiment with?=20

5kv @ 25kHz shouldn't be too difficult to generate but is the
waveform critical? The voltage? Electrode geometry?

I think most of us would enjoy the occasional breath of=20
"fresh mountain air", particularly if we don't have to cope
with particulate precipitation as well!

Cheers,
Alan

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
                                      - Michael Sinz
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 10:14:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10468; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 19 Oct 96 13:07:39 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Negative Gravity?
Message-ID: <961019170738_76016.2701_JHC37-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"SYcGj3.0.QZ2.TkGQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1672
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Following is an edited post to Rick Monteverde from CIS Science Forum.  It
received little response there and is presented here for your
comment/entertainment:
                      #####################################
Rick,

After reading many of the AG papers which propose a theory of an electromagnetic
explanation of gravity I'm wondering if there might not be some truth to this
all.  Podkletnov said that he saw a minute shielding effect (0.05%) due to a
superconductor alone.  Li states that, even at zero temperature, the nuclei of
the lattice ions cannot exhibit zero motion since this would violate the
uncertainty principle; so, she proposes an orbital motion about the lattice zero
point which exibits the characteristics of a vortex with increasing angular
momentum with decreasing radius.  While this rotational mass might generate a
gravitomagnetic field of sufficient intensity to explain the superconductor
shielding of the magnitude observed by Podkletnov in the superconductor alone,
providing that her theory of an 11 order increase due to the magnetic field
penetration is accurate, I cannot fathom how the rotation of the lattice ions
could explain a 2% reduction in the weight of the sample.  However, there could
be another possible explanation.

Lindsay, et.al., as I recall, in some of the inflationary universe theories (of
which I tend to reject in favor of the unbounded theories <g>) proposed the
existence of a repulsive gravitational force in the early stages of the
universe.  The basis of such theories, to my understanding, was the creation of
a particle with mass but zero spin.  He demonstrated that a zero spin, zero
angular momentum particle would exhibit a negative gravity.

Now, the BCS theory of superconductivity proposes (in my feeble memory) that
electrons of opposite spin combine to form what is referred to as the Cooper
pair.  Such a hybrid particle would exhibit zero spin and zero angular momentum.
Given this, is it likely that, also given the "proper" dynamic magnetic field,
that the Cooper pairs could achieve a coherence such that they exhibit the same
negative effect as Podkletnov claims in his experiments?

[end crosspost]

Podkletnov's dynamic field had a frequency of 1 MHz.  He states that the maximum
shielding effect occured during spin-down of the disk to 3000 RPM (or 50 cps).
Since this posting, Fredrick Sparber has conjectured that a dynamic field of 10
MHz might cause an increase in the effect.

What puzzles me is why does a macroscopic spinning of the disk have any effect
at all?  Does this result in some type of heterodyne interaction with the
applied field and the field of the laboratory's reference frame?  Would the
"proper" dynamic field have the same effect with no disk rotation?

Li's theory of superconductivity states that the current due to the Cooper pairs
is a result of a "dragging" of the paired electrons as the ions rotate about
their zero point in the crystal lattice.  Is there a microscopic synchronization
of the lattice ions due to the macroscopic rotation of the disk?

What is the effect due to temperature?  It seems that the disk has to be well
below the critical temperature (to around 40K) for the effect.  Is the lattice
ion rotation quantized wrt temperature?

Finally, has anyone tried BiSrCaCu2O9 SC disks?  Is the shielding effect the
same given similar conditions? 

Questions, questions.

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 10:27:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14194; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <32689424.53B2@loc100.tandem.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 09:41:08 +0100
From: Bob Horst <bhorst@loc100.tandem.com>
Reply-To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, To be glass beads or not to be glass beads,
References: <EPRI.MHUGO.194743130096292FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Mb65V1.0.dT3.XyGQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1674
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark Hugo, Northern wrote:
>  from what I know is that Miley DID try glass beads with Ni, and got a
>  nul result. There may even be a little hidden politics here as that
>  info may come out later, as the "critics" heat up. I.e., a nul result
>  with glass beads is somewhat of a control


He may have seen a null result for excess heat with glass beads, but I 
do not think it was a null for reaction products.  When I spoke with 
Miley this summer, he said he still saw transmutations with other 
substrates and that they were diffferent with different substrates.  
Assuming he correctly ruled out contaminants embedded in the substrate, 
this might indicate that the effect is triggered at the junction of 
dissimilar materials.

-- Bob Horst

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 12:18:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA03322; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 15:09:36 -0400
Reply-To: bpaddock@execpc.com
Message-ID: <wdSayUQy8EXJ092yn@execpc.com>
References: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
 <3270b074.27970118@mail.zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3270b074.27970118@mail.zip.com.au>
Lines: 47
Resent-Message-ID: <"FqC7g3.0.qp.aaIQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1675
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>Correct for current technology. Patrick Flanagan's device is different at
>>the emitter. A simple but brilliant design. Check out my Part 2 info and the
>>book (the patent is is the appendix).
>>
>>BTW I checked with Patrick and his Electron Cascade Generator (R) is not
>>currently being manufactured.
>>
>>Michael Randall
>>
>From where can "Toward a new Alchemy" be purchased? 

Look at http://www.earthpulse.com, or follow the links at my
web site, under the Neurophone page.

>Is there enough detail provided in the book to reproduce an 
>"Electron Cascade Generator" to experiment with? 

The patent is included in one of the appendixes.

Here's what Dr. Flanagan had to say when asked about his
device producing Ozone:

-----
Date: 19 Oct 96 00:32:37 EDT
From: Patrick Flanagan <71650.60@CompuServe.COM>
To: Bob Paddock <bpaddock@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator (fwd)

The EFG does not generate ozone but makes free electrons.

Ozone kills by oxidation, leaving free radicals behind.

Free electrons kill by electronic reduction -- the opposite of ozone.

My Electron Field Generator kills viruses, bacteria, odors and eleminates dust
from the air.

Patrick
-----

-- 
For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at:
    http://www.execpc.com/~bpaddock/ or http://www.net/bpaddock
Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine,
Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited,
Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experiment.
.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 13:22:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA15952; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 13:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 13:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 16:16:49 -0400
Message-ID: <961019161648_1414295640@emout14.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"uW1qY1.0.7v3.ITJQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1676
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman says:
"He finds output when the full magnetic circuit does not rotate,
and finds that there is no output when the full magnetic circuit
does rotate. In neither case is there any flux linkage with the
external circuit. 

How does either the rotating conductor, or the external circuit,
"know" and why do they "care" about what has happened with the
un-linked external magnetic circuit? 

Still mind blown.
Robert Stirniman"

Interesting - I'll have to put my thinking cap on.

Hal Puthoff

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 13:22:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA16154; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 13:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 13:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 19 Oct 96 16:16:29 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, To be glass beads or
Message-ID: <961019201628_100433.1541_BHG91-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"AuIEA3.0.9y3.JUJQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1677
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 >  When I spoke with Miley this summer, he said he still saw
 > transmutations with other substrates and that they were diffferent
 > with different substrates.  Assuming he correctly ruled out
 > contaminants embedded in the substrate, this might indicate that
 > the effect is triggered at the junction of dissimilar materials.

It might be worth mentioning that the Kucherov/Savvatimova
glow-discharge CF reports suggest that new elements might be formed at
the grain boundaries of the host metal.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 15:31:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04554; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae8ee513c030@[204.17.242.67]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:35:28 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"CNtHZ.0.071.cPLQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1678
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>I could fax you the paper on these homo' experiments with pictures if you
>give me your fax#.
>
>

Thanks much!  My fax is on my home phone 907-746-0820, which is often busy
due to my son or myself being on internet.  If I hear a fax poll upon
answering the phone I just run to the fax and press start.  I'll leave the
fax on and the answering machine off unitl I get your fax.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 20:40:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA23668; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 20:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 20:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 19 Oct 96 23:36:23 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Message-ID: <961020033622_76016.2701_JHC101-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5Kygw2.0.kn5.UwPQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1679
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Hal Puthoff says:

>>Interesting - I'll have to put my thinking cap on.<<

Is that the one with the little turboprop on top?

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 20:44:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25320; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Puthoff@aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:41:56 -0400
Message-ID: <961019234156_1711901569@emout19.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"e55td2.0.YB6.x-PQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1680
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry asks:

"Hal Puthoff says:

>>Interesting - I'll have to put my thinking cap on.<<

Is that the one with the little turboprop on top?"

Yes, the one with day-glo colors!

Hal

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 19 23:51:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA24967; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961020065827.006d7d70@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:58:27 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"qwAZ43.0.066.XkSQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1681
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

At 11:36 PM 10/19/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Hal Puthoff says:
>
>>>Interesting - I'll have to put my thinking cap on.<<
>
>Is that the one with the little turboprop on top?
>
>Terry
>
>

Mine is pyramid shaped, with an all-seeing eye, but hasn't been 
working lately.  (still under warrenty).
Gary

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 00:49:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04517; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 00:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 00:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 20 Oct 96 03:46:44 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Negative Gravity?
Message-ID: <961020074644_76216.2421_HHB44-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"rD_WS3.0.Q61.raTQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1682
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry asked:

  > "Is there a microscopic synchronization of the lattice ions due 
  > to the macroscopic rotation of the disk?"

Hmm...got some grass seed and an old turntable?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 01:12:58 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA06790; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 01:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 01:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3269DF1D.55A0@rt66.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 01:13:17 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
CC: wireless@rmii.com, jechampion@aol.com
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
References: <v01530500ae8cde230419@[204.17.242.65]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"SN-Xx.0._f1.VvTQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1683
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace, what a great idea!  What are the NMR parameters for measuring
He3 and He4, Li6 and Li7, Be9, B10 and B11, and C12, C13, and C14?  I
have reason to believe these are produced in high-voltage sparks on
carbon electrodes in high vacuum.

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 05:02:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA07105; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:58:28 GMT
Message-ID: <327007dd.30844532@mail.zip.com.au>
References: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net> <3270b074.27970118@mail.zip.com.au> <wdSayUQy8EXJ092yn@execpc.com>
In-Reply-To: <wdSayUQy8EXJ092yn@execpc.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"u2Fjg.0.tk1.TGXQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1684
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Bob Paddock wrote:

[snip]
>>From where can "Toward a new Alchemy" be purchased?=20
>
>Look at http://www.earthpulse.com, or follow the links at my
>web site, under the Neurophone page.
>
>>Is there enough detail provided in the book to reproduce an=20
>>"Electron Cascade Generator" to experiment with?=20
>
>The patent is included in one of the appendixes.
>
[snip]

Many thanks, Bob. I checked out the earthpulse site and I
have ordered the book. I should hopefully have it in a week
or two (snail mail, y'know).

>Here's what Dr. Flanagan had to say when asked about his
>device producing Ozone:
>
[header snipped]
>
>The EFG does not generate ozone but makes free electrons.
>
>Ozone kills by oxidation, leaving free radicals behind.
>
>Free electrons kill by electronic reduction -- the opposite of ozone.
>
>My Electron Field Generator kills viruses, bacteria, odors and=20
>eleminates dust from the air.
>
>Patrick
>-----
Now, as to detection, does anyone in the group know any
objective way of detecting the presence of ozone?

Presence of dust could be checked for with a normal=20
electrostatic precipitator.

Would a free-electron field have any adverse effects on,
say, computer and other sensitive electronic and electrical
equipment in the vicinity?

Cheers,
Alan

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
                                      - Michael Sinz
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 05:28:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09140; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:25:41 +0000
Message-ID: <19961020122539.AAA25694@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"fn5YN.0.kE2.bfXQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1685
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:58 AM 10/20/96 +0000, you wrote:
>--
>Now, as to detection, does anyone in the group know any
>objective way of detecting the presence of ozone?
>
>
>Alan
>
>======================================================
>Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
>                                      - Michael Sinz
>======================================================
>
Ozone has a very distinctive odor; once you characterize that odor you will
recognize it anywhere.  How do you become familiar with the ozone smell?  I
learned of it from ozone generators.  A Xerox machine in full operation
generates some ozone.  The level of detection by the nose is about 2 ppm, at
higher concentrations ozone is irritating and injurious.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 06:20:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13490; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:16:16 GMT
Message-ID: <32722509.38312860@mail.zip.com.au>
References: <19961020122539.AAA25694@LOCALNAME>
In-Reply-To: <19961020122539.AAA25694@LOCALNAME>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"BHXBu.0.iI3.IOYQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1686
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:25:41 +0000, you wrote:

>At 11:58 AM 10/20/96, Ed Strojny wrote:
>>--
>>Now, as to detection, does anyone in the group know any
>>objective way of detecting the presence of ozone?
>>
>>Alan
>>
>Ozone has a very distinctive odor; once you characterize that odor you =
will
>recognize it anywhere.  How do you become familiar with the ozone smell?=
  I
>learned of it from ozone generators.  A Xerox machine in full operation
>generates some ozone.  The level of detection by the nose is about 2 =
ppm, at
>higher concentrations ozone is irritating and injurious.
>
>Ed Strojny
>
Sorry, Ed. I should have been more specific.

Now, as to detection, does anyone in the group know any
*O*B*J*E*C*T*I*V*E* way of detecting the presence of ozone?

I am well familiar with the SUBJECTIVE detection of ozone.=20
Just about every photocopier/laser printer ever made produces=20
the stuff, some much more than others. What I would like is a
totally objective way of quantitising ozone's presence.

Cheers,
Alan


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
                                      - Michael Sinz
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 06:29:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14241; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae8fd1183caa@[204.17.242.77]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 05:32:54 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Surface tension HS
Resent-Message-ID: <"SL05u2.0.RU3.VYYQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1687
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>Hank Scudder said
>
>>How are you cleaning your capillary tubes before testing them?
>
>I was just run tap water through the tubes then deionized water.
>
>Frank Stenger said
>
>For consistant results, the capillary tubes should all be
>cleaned with something like sodium triphosphate.  With this done,
>with clean water, the capillary head should be proportional to
>1/D (where D = tube i.d.).
>
[snip]

I would suggest, as a control, that every tube be tested with distilled
water or some other standard solution, and then dried prior to tests with
other substances.  A quick drying solution, like 100% alcohol, might make a
good standard.

This would be a good quick check for cleanliness, tube dimension
variations, etc.  You might find some irregular tubes that should not be
used.

If you get the same hight for all tubes of a given size during the
preliminary control test, then the subsequent results can then be depended
upon to be strictly a function of the solutions tested or the test
procedure.  The control test would have to be repeated after any use of a
tube and subsequent cleaning


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 06:46:01 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16901; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 06:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:38:43 -0400
Reply-To: bpaddock@execpc.com
Message-ID: <jtiayUQy8IDG092yn@execpc.com>
References: <199610190546.WAA19046@andorra.it.earthlink.net>
 <3270b074.27970118@mail.zip.com.au> <wdSayUQy8EXJ092yn@execpc.com>
 <327007dd.30844532@mail.zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <327007dd.30844532@mail.zip.com.au>
Lines: 20
Resent-Message-ID: <"4Xzyb.0.x74.SoYQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1688
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>Would a free-electron field have any adverse effects on,
>say, computer and other sensitive electronic and electrical
>equipment in the vicinity?

As you will see when the SMAIL-Person brings the book one of
the reasons for the device is to use it in such an
environment to keep down static discharge.  The latest and
greatest CPU/Memory devices can be damaged by very little in
the way of static discharge.  So it would help rather than
hurt.  Of course you would not want to lay your floppy disks
near the the thing.... ;-)

-- 
For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at:
    //www.execpc.com/~bpaddock/ or http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock
Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine,
Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited,
Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experiment.
:

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 08:17:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA29811; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 08:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 08:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 08:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961020065827.006d7d70@mail.eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961020081002.10260D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FNeKl.0.iH7.R7aQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1689
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Gary Hawkins wrote:

> At 11:36 PM 10/19/96 EDT, you wrote:
> >Hal Puthoff says:
> >
> >>>Interesting - I'll have to put my thinking cap on.<<
> >
> >Is that the one with the little turboprop on top?
> 
> Mine is pyramid shaped, with an all-seeing eye, but hasn't been 
> working lately.  (still under warrenty).

Did you know that the thinking cap is a "valid" radionic device?  If the
Hieronymous machine actually works, then the thinking cap plans in the
book PSIONICS 101, C. Cosimano, 1987, Llewellyn St. Paul, probably result
in a functioning device.

Just trying to keep things on a serious footing here.  ;)   !

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 09:27:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA14694; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610201624.JAA05325@hungary.it.earthlink.net>
X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Randall <mrandall@earthlink.net>
Subject: Don Smith's, Electrical Energy System
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tmx312.0.Wb3.c9bQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1690
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I received the new (to me it was new) and fascinating work of Don Smith, his
ITS Symposium Workshop video and 1996 edition of his book "An Answer to
America's Energy Deficit," both available at the ITS bookstore. The video
(2.5 hrs) is a must view for those interested in how to build a Smith
unit(s). He showed lots of pictures of his units  An early unit schematic is
in the book (five editions). His latest design a 30kva is commercially
manufactured in Japan and other parts of the world (not in the USA yet), and
his advanced design is solid state device (not discused due to commercial
aspect of his technology). All of the devices needed to be grounded to earth
to work at high energy output. Some of his theory is explained in the ITS
journal Apr/May/Jun 1996. D'Arsonval experimented with this back in 1800's
and the orignal notes of Maxwell's equations showed this (electron pair). 

Don said that some of his schematic and info is on the Internet over in
Holand, England and Japan. Has anyone seen it? 

Does anyone know where I could get more info from Japan? He said that within
6 months to a year it will be available in the USA from Japan. 

He encourages others to build a unit. So far only 6 out of 100 researchers
who tried building a unit succeeded.

Michael Randall
  

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 10:24:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25960; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961020173027.006bc870@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 10:30:27 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
Resent-Message-ID: <"bCGaw1.0.YL6.t-bQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1691
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:14 AM 10/20/96 -0700, you wrote:

>Did you know that the thinking cap is a "valid" radionic device?  

As I'm told, that's where the dunce cap concept came from.  
Dumb kids were placed in a corner with the cap on when they 
were exceptionally stupid, a cap shaped like a cone, to bring 
cosmic energy down on them from above.  Einstein flunked math 
in fifth grade or something.  Maybe they finally used one on him.
Makes plants grow faster too.  But let's not talk about witches. :> 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology                   Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                        Seattle, WA


|            The Great Perpetrator Shortage of the 1990's         |
|        					                  |
|    Sadly, overly zealous victimhood status hunters resulted     |
|     in not enough perpetrators to go around for everybody       |
|  so they had to begin feeding on each other, a gruesome sight.  |

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 13:04:01 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA27127; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326A85FD.F76@rt66.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:05:17 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Horace Heffner <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
CC: little@eden.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, wireless@rmii.com
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
References: <v01530501ae8fd41ff2c8@[204.17.242.77]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"c3ISP3.0.jd6.FLeQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1692
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks, Horace, for the NMR data, and sources in the CRC Handbook. 
Would you post for us a general description on how to cheaply do NMR on,
say, a 1-10 cc volumn?  Can we easily do NMR on a 2 cm wide by 20 cm
long mercury discharge SiO2 tube?  I have some that Toby Grotz ran some
Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge processes on, creating many-fold light
output, and eroding the cathode.  I'd like to get a competent friend to
run non-destructive tests, comparing the used versus unused tubes,
searching for as many elements as possible, particularly the noble
gases.  Can you do this?  How sensitive?

Toby Grotz
Wireless Engineering
760 Prairie
Craig, CO 81625
970-824-6834     fax 7864

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 13:59:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA07336; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vF4ua-000GtEC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Hieronymous machine - Beaty
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:55:28 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"TRpNm.0.Xo1.D7fQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1693
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A



----------
> From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: Spinning magnetic fields
> Date: Sunday, October 20, 1996 11:14 AM
>
(snip)
 
> Did you know that the thinking cap is a "valid" radionic device? 
If the
> Hieronymous machine actually works, then the thinking cap plans in
the
> book PSIONICS 101, C. Cosimano, 1987, Llewellyn St. Paul, probably
result
> in a functioning device.
> 

Back in the 60's or 70's, J. W. Campbell, Jr. ran many editorials in
"ASTOUNDING"
science fiction mag. with the Hieronymous machine as subject.  As I
recall, it was
an electronic device to amplify psionic effects.  I think the circuit
used at least one
triode - maybe more.  After several editorials, it started to become
clear that some
experimenters were getting "action" from the machine EVEN WHEN IT WAS
TURNED OFF!  Soon, at least one experimenter began using ONLY A
SCHEMATIC
OF THE MACHINE instead of the actual circuit!  Reports were that the
schematic
worked as well as the real circuit -- that it was really the
connectivity of the systen -
not the wires - that did the trick!

Now, we could save Horace a lot of work if we could come up with some
OU devices
that would function FROM ONLY A DRAWING OF THE DEVICE!  

WAITING FOR INPUT AT THE DRAWING BOARD----------------- Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 19:21:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12822; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hieronymous machine - Beaty
In-Reply-To: <m0vF4ua-000GtEC@netra.interlaced.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961020184648.8575D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"xykgk1.0.B83.WejQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1694
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote:
> TURNED OFF!  Soon, at least one experimenter began using ONLY A
> SCHEMATIC
> OF THE MACHINE instead of the actual circuit!  Reports were that the
> schematic
> worked as well as the real circuit -- that it was really the
> connectivity of the systen -
> not the wires - that did the trick!
> 
> Now, we could save Horace a lot of work if we could come up with some
> OU devices
> that would function FROM ONLY A DRAWING OF THE DEVICE!  
> 
> WAITING FOR INPUT AT THE DRAWING BOARD----------------- Frank Stenger

This may have already been done.  No, wait, I'm serious!  ;)  The Keely
devices and the Hendershot device are infamous for only functioning while
in the immediate proximity of their inventors.  So, if psi and PK effects
are real, then one severely confusing, obfuscating effect in o/u research
might arise when the inventor's subconscious mind reaches out and fulfills
his/her goal by inputting excess energy and running the turbine, or
creating oscillations and lighting the bulbs, etc.  There's a chance that
the Hendershot device is not an o/u discovery, but is more like a
Hieronymous device schematic, and only functions because the inventor
believes it should, and PK makes the belief real.

So, rather than building a power plant by harnessing Fort's little PK
girls to 'will' a huge turbine into motion, maybe all we need is a large
population of micro-PK people who supply energy by seriously believing in
conservation-violating transformer nonlinearities in a huge power
oscillator circuit.  Run the whole damn country by placebo effect.

To test for this phenomena, whenever we attain an o/u effect, we should
have a confederate perform various unexpected hiccup-cure procedures (leap
out and scare us) and note whether sudden distractions and upsets in the
inventor's mind causes transients in o/u output. 

- Bill B. (with tongue only halfway in cheek!)



 PS   conventional generators may already function by this effect, the
      difference being that they are powered by the psychic powers of huge
      numbers of believers in Conservation of Energy!

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 21:10:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA11553; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326AF695.5193@rt66.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:08:47 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Hieronymous machine - Beaty
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961020184648.8575D-100000@eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"wYVcd1.0.Rq2.9QlQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1695
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Well, Bill, if only you knew how right you are...after all, we only
experience our experience as events in our own consciousness, including
the frameworks of time and space, of assumed casuality, of enduring
objects with identities of their own...these very words only exist for
you, the reader, as little black marks on whitish background in the
visual domain of your own consciousness, or little white marks on
blackish background of your own consciousness...that's why these little
events more or less diminish suddenly when you allow the sensations
called, "feeling my eyelids come down"...so what is this consciousness
itself?...the technical term in philosophy for the direct experience of
events in consciousness "as" events in consciousness is "qualia"...so,
to explain these extremely varied and variable qualia, we assume the
reality  of the daytime external social world and physical universe,
along with those human social conventions, "time", "space", and
"knowledge"...but the mystery is fundamental...consciousness itself is a
complete unknown...if consciousness itself is a complete unknown, then
what grounds are available to set any limits on what this unknown might
allow, be, and do?...if no limits can be established, then is this not
about the same as admitting that consciousness itself is
unlimited...then is this not in turn about the same as admitting that
consciousness is actually infinite...if consciousness itself is actually
infinite, then must it then be so that your consciousness, the one which
right now magically holds these little marks and creates these meanings,
is already intrinsicly, innately, permanently, and irrevokably infinite
"now", therefore infinite in the "past", therefore infinite in the
"future"...so  how is it that there seems to be repetitive experiences
of an ordinary, limited reality?...it must be that repetitive
experiences of an ordinary, limited reality must be infinity in drag,
infinity disguised...no wonder, then, that all sorts of "anomalies" keep
popping up in all areas of experience...ordinary, repetitive, limited,
"normal" experience itself is "anomalous"...if considering this right
now makes you feel a little strange, then good!, this missive has
achieved its mission...take a look at "The Nature of Personal Reality"
by Jane Roberts, or "Time, Space, and Knowledge" by Tarthang Tulku,
Rinpoche of Nyingma Institute, Berkeley, California, if you're ready for
metaphysical adventure.

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 20 21:42:48 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA19329; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326AFF0B.2C93@skypoint.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 23:41:47 -0500
From: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com>
Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"yI2XC.0.wj4.hulQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1696
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In an important clue, Miley in his pre-print published in the #9 I.E.
tells us that though nearly 40% of the base Ni was transmuted into other
elements or isotopes, that relatively speaking, external energy input or
output was negligible on the nuclear event scale. (About a half watt
power output.)

In such transmutation cases (insignificant energy inputs/outputs) the
average binding energy of the inputs *must* equal the average binding
energy of the outputs.  This means that the isotopic/elemental
distribution of the outputs cannot just be any random mix.

It means we can compare the average binding energies of the inputs
and outputs as yet another cross-check against random data leaking
into the results, including contamination.

Unfortunately we do not know all the inputs.  Fortunately, an obvious
guess gives a very nice result!

In Table 2 under the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) column, Miley
lists the ratio of major elements found in a 10 bead sample after
the run -- in which the base material was initially Ni.

By multiplying the percentage of the new element by its binding energy
(per nucleon), summing these for each new element and comparing against
the binding energy of a Ni nucleon, a difference value is found that
must be made up by the other input product(s) -- assuming, of course,
that Ni is one of the inputs.

This equation is just balanced at 2 H's per Ni (2.08, actually, but
I also only used the major isotopes of the elements listed in Table 2
since the specific isotopes were not given.)

Now my math may be in error for all the above, but I believe the general
concept is sound -- that massive transmutations, lacking significant
external energy exchanges, *must* have their average input binding
energies match their average output binding energies.

-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 01:01:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA19997; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 01:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 01:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:59:54 -0700
Message-Id: <199610210759.AAA02835@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com>
From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )
Subject: Miley's final remarks at ICCF-6 oral presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"Li9sq3.0.Nu4.SsoQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1697
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

October 20, 1996 Sunday

 
Miley's ICCF-6 oral presentation final remarks viewgraphs
on the microsphere report. Given Oct. 15, 1996 8:00-8:47, Q&A of 8
minutes. 

                             Results

Large product yield observed - over 50% of material in film after run.

Radiation emissions - (only soft /< 20 KEV X-rays or Betas found to 
date ~ issue uncertain.

Impurity issue (problem in 10:1 electrolyte to film volume ratio) all 
impurity source envisioned to date ruled out.

Production rates for Fe & high yield elements approach 0.1 milligrams 
per 1000 microspheres.

Isotopes ratios deviate from natural - but issues remain.

Systematics reasonably consistant with Mizuno et al's Pd data.

                         Comment - Theory

Data obtained provides key guidelines (criterion) for any theory.

Theoretical model must account for both/and Q reactions REFEX (REaction 
in a Film Excited compleX)  proposed to explain reactions consistant 
with SEL theory for barrier penetration.

(Miley has no theory at this point -AK-)

                           Conclusions

Large yields appear possible in thin films

While expected nuclear features, e.g., energetic radiation, large 
isotope shifts in high concentrations elements, heat correlations with 
all +Q reactions, etc. do not appear, there appears to be no other 
explanation for there (these? -AK-) observation.

Systematics seen to fit with growing body of observations with others.

Much more work needed to show reproducibility and conclusively prove 
nuclear origin. 

                                 
                           Future Work

Establish excess power  -  production rate correlation.

Establish reaction rate variation with position in packed bed.

Study products not covered, especially gases like He-4, Xe.

Firmly establish radiation emission characteristics both during 
operation and from microspheres following a run..

Study cell and electrolyte variations.

Continue to study any possible impurity sources.

Refine analytic methods (NAA, EDX, AES, SIMS, SEM, etc.) e.g., absolute 
calibration of SIMS for NI microspheres; study average Vs local 
element/isotope variations.

Work with others to demonstreate reproducibility by independant groups.

Using guidelines from experiments, develop a theory such as RIFEX. 
(REFEX? -AK-)

-AK-











From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 03:42:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA05015; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 03:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 03:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Electron Field Generator
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:41:43 GMT
Message-ID: <327052c8.4226156@mail.zip.com.au>
References: <3.0b36.32.19961021042943.006af6d8@world.std.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0b36.32.19961021042943.006af6d8@world.std.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"OSKUl3.0.DE1.SDrQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1698
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Mitchell Swartz wrote:

[snip]
>>>>Now, as to detection, does anyone in the group know any
>>>>objective way of detecting the presence of ozone?
>>>>
>>>>Alan
>
>  what sensitivity do you need?   in what background?
>
Just thinking in terms of reproducing the Electron Field Generator
and testing out the claims of no ozone production. So background
would be ambient air, sensitivity probably fairly high.

Cheers, all
Alan

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
                                      - Michael Sinz
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 05:32:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA16947; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 05:28:54 PDT
From: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9610211228.AA21538@joshua.math.ucla.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Resent-Message-ID: <"AXz8Q1.0.h84.JosQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1699
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


The subject of biological transmutation came up in this
group a few weeks back, and flew about as far as a platinum balloon
(which is even less than a lead balloon).

I will agree that IF transmutation a'la Miley is  endemic (which
seems unlikely), then it has most likely been harnessed by 
biologicals, particularly bacteria. Thus searching for a 
biological transmutation reactor would seem reasonable for those
prone to accept Miley's results as transmutation.

But, there is no real need to guess in this regard---the entire
book by Louis Kervran, "biological transmutation", is devoted
to the subject, and claims to present a number of experiments verifying
the effect. Further, even as CF experiments go these are quite simple,
as hey require simplying growing some animals on a controlled diet,
then digesting  them and all their excrement in acid and doing
a chemical assay (the animals in question may be mice or
bactria, as Kervran describes in his book).

NOw, having read Kervran book recently, I'm not overly impressed
by his science, and I see several obvious holes in his techniques
to the extent they are presented in the book (i.e., the book
does not go intro great experimental detail), though Kervran claims
to have eliminated these objections in his work.

Howver, the question I have is "why hasn't anyone replicated Kervrans
simple, low cost experiments?". A quick scitation check shows no
scientific references to his work in the 12 years after the US 
publication of his book, so it seems no scientists ever took it
very seriously.

But beyond the scientific community, why don;t any members of this forum
try to replicate Kervrans work? It seems considerably more
plausible than many of the outright speculations that pass through here...
after all, it is at least supposedly based oon many repeatable 
experiments (of Kervran...), and beyond that it is _cheap_. His
experiments with mice or bacteria could be repliated for a few hundred
dollars (most going to the cost of the final chemical assays), in 
a few weeks time, with no expensive equipment.

So---is anyone here will to  try to replicate a Kervran experiment?
If not, why not? My own plate if full with my existing CF experiments
of which you are all aware (see http:\\www.math.ucla.edu\~barry),and
moreover I don't find Kervrans science that compelling---those are
my excuses. But I would think that, just to name a few names, Horace H
might like to undertake such a low cost, potentially earth-shaking
experiment, or, say, Scott Little at EarthTech would jump at the
chance to test such a simple CF reactor (a plate of bacteria!).

I guess I'm just a bit amazed that a group such as this would go
bonkers over Miley or Potapov, but ignore the exisitng work of Kervran.

Comments?

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 09:34:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA12184; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000A7780@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Barry Merriman <barry@math.ucla.edu>, Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:12:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"9To7Q2.0.I-2.TAwQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1700
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Barry
	I can only speak for my own motivations, but I suspect
it is common to many Vortexians. I am an engineer, motivated by
Hard Science, and know very little about the softer Biological
sciences. I can run CF experiments, with a minimum of new
knowledge required. I don't know anything about raising rats, or
even bacteria, killing them, processing their waste products, etc.
I also suspect my wife would have a fit if I started raising mice in
the guest room. Electronics is one thing, biology another. In the
academic world, it may be easier to do this, especially if the school
has an agricultural section. Maybe you could interest someone at
UC Davis in doing experiments along these lines?
	There was a post a couple of weeks ago to you about
replication of Joe Champion's stuff. I never saw any answer, and
I just checked your home page, and did not see anything new there.
Are you working along these lines, and can you talk about what you are
doing? Any results yet?

Regards
Hank Scudder

 ----------
From: Barry Merriman
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Date: Monday, October 21, 1996 5:28AM


The subject of biological transmutation came up in this
group a few weeks back, and flew about as far as a platinum balloon
(which is even less than a lead balloon).

I will agree that IF transmutation a'la Miley is  endemic (which
seems unlikely), then it has most likely been harnessed by
biologicals, particularly bacteria. Thus searching for a
biological transmutation reactor would seem reasonable for those
prone to accept Miley's results as transmutation.

But, there is no real need to guess in this regard---the entire
book by Louis Kervran, "biological transmutation", is devoted
to the subject, and claims to present a number of experiments verifying
the effect. Further, even as CF experiments go these are quite simple,
as hey require simplying growing some animals on a controlled diet,
then digesting  them and all their excrement in acid and doing
a chemical assay (the animals in question may be mice or
bactria, as Kervran describes in his book).

NOw, having read Kervran book recently, I'm not overly impressed
by his science, and I see several obvious holes in his techniques
to the extent they are presented in the book (i.e., the book
does not go intro great experimental detail), though Kervran claims
to have eliminated these objections in his work.

Howver, the question I have is "why hasn't anyone replicated Kervrans
simple, low cost experiments?". A quick scitation check shows no
scientific references to his work in the 12 years after the US
publication of his book, so it seems no scientists ever took it
very seriously.

But beyond the scientific community, why don;t any members of this forum
try to replicate Kervrans work? It seems considerably more
plausible than many of the outright speculations that pass through
here...
after all, it is at least supposedly based oon many repeatable
experiments (of Kervran...), and beyond that it is _cheap_. His
experiments with mice or bacteria could be repliated for a few hundred
dollars (most going to the cost of the final chemical assays), in
a few weeks time, with no expensive equipment.

So---is anyone here will to  try to replicate a Kervran experiment?
If not, why not? My own plate if full with my existing CF experiments
of which you are all aware (see http:\\www.math.ucla.edu\~barry),and
moreover I don't find Kervrans science that compelling---those are
my excuses. But I would think that, just to name a few names, Horace H
might like to undertake such a low cost, potentially earth-shaking
experiment, or, say, Scott Little at EarthTech would jump at the
chance to test such a simple CF reactor (a plate of bacteria!).

I guess I'm just a bit amazed that a group such as this would go
bonkers over Miley or Potapov, but ignore the exisitng work of Kervran.

Comments?

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 09:53:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17789; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 11:12:32 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no replic
Message-ID: <961021151231_100433.1541_BHG36-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"zzGZ-1.0.qL4.0TwQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1701
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Barry,

I would tend to support the idea of checking on biotransmutations - at
least insofar as the simple ones like allowing a fertilised bird's egg
to mature and then assaying it before it hatched, then comparing that
with the results from an undeveloped one.

It would be easy enough to compare (for example) the K, Ca, P, Fe, and S
from the two.

There is one problem which might be overlooked - the need for a license
to work with animals.  Even chick embryos might require that.  Perhaps
some friendly bio lab could be found to supply the killed eggs at their
pre-hatch point?

Plants would be easier, I suppose.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 10:53:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06341; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9164e74a13@[204.17.242.67]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:49:24 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hieronymous machine - Success!
Resent-Message-ID: <"551UF2.0.zY1.0PxQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1703
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>> Now, we could save Horace a lot of work if we could come up with some
>> OU devices
>> that would function FROM ONLY A DRAWING OF THE DEVICE!
>>
>> WAITING FOR INPUT AT THE DRAWING BOARD----------------- Frank Stenger
>
>This may have already been done.  No, wait, I'm serious!  ;)  The Keely
>devices and the Hendershot device are infamous for only functioning while
>in the immediate proximity of their inventors.  So, if psi and PK effects
>are real, then one severely confusing, obfuscating effect in o/u research
>might arise when the inventor's subconscious mind reaches out and fulfills
>his/her goal
[snip]
>- Bill B. (with tongue only halfway in cheek!)
>
[snip]

I am happy to report a successful test of the converse of the above
principle.  I sat in my 1976 Chrysler with a drawing of an obviously o-u EM
device I drew and placed the car in reverse, expecting it to back out of
the driveway.  It did not move.  I did not sit there very long waiting for
it to start as the temperature is -2 deg. F this morning. However, I did
inspect the drawing while waiting for the engine to warm up and noted that
the device was symmetrical! No energy to be obtained here!  Then I realized
the test had successfully correlated with the fact the device would not
work.  Wow, such power!  Now, back to the drwawing, maybe if I draw in a
diode here, and maybe there ...


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 10:59:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA05575; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961021175002.006d8798@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:50:02 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no replic
Resent-Message-ID: <"rHj2j1.0.vM1.rMxQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1702
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 11:12 AM 10/21/96 EDT, you wrote:

>There is one problem which might be overlooked - the need for a license
>to work with animals.  Even chick embryos might require that.  Perhaps
>some friendly bio lab could be found to supply the killed eggs at their
>pre-hatch point?
>
>Plants would be easier, I suppose.
>
>Chris
>
>

Well, while working with chickens, might as well check out 
Walter Rawls results as well, from the book "Magnetism and 
It's Effects On the Living System", where chickens that had 
been hatched from eggs that were exposed to either pole of 
a strong permanent magnet showed vast physiological and 
temperament differences, depending on whether it was the 
north or south pole that the egg had been exposed to.  It might 
say something about South American vs. North American temperaments.

The south pole (northern hemisphere) egg resulted in a robust aggressive 
bully, while the north magnetic pole (southern hemisphere) was smaller 
and fearful.  Then what of a people who developed over centuries in England, 
then moved to New Zealand or Australia?  More balanced?

Gary Hawkins 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology                   Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                        Seattle, WA


   *Unless your vote is a tie-breaker between Dole and Clinton, 
your vote is not wasted on a third party.  Vote for Harry Brown, 
the Libertarian candidate, or the National Tax-Payer's Party candidate.*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 11:20:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09753; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae916a458ce9@[204.17.242.80]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:01:16 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
Resent-Message-ID: <"mf0OY3.0.6O2.9axQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1704
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Sorry, I meant to post the following but it went eleswhere so here it is
again, if that makes sense:

>Horace, what a great idea!  What are the NMR parameters for measuring
>He3 and He4, Li6 and Li7, Be9, B10 and B11, and C12, C13, and C14?  I
>have reason to believe these are produced in high-voltage sparks on
>carbon electrodes in high vacuum.
>
>Rich Murray

Ele.  MHz at  1 T
----  -----------
3He   32.4352
6Li    6.2660
7Li   16.5478
9Be    5.986
10B    4.5751
11B   13.6626
13C   10.7081

The other isotopes you mention above do not exhibit NMR.  I should have
included 3He in the original list as it has a high sensitivity and only a
0.0001 % abundance in nature.  This would be a great indicator for
transmutation!  The carbon, glass and high vacuum environment should
provide a nice clean signal.  The big problem with 3He might be obtaining a
sample vial for calibration purposes.  You only need that for rigorous
purposes though.   If you get a peak in that vicinity when none was present
prior, and you are operating with a sealed vacuum container, that's good
enough for starters!  The list I provided was fairly arbitrary, and I must
have left out 3He due to a personal foible.  Don't know how I missed 11B,
it should give a good signal also.

I should mention the source for the above and prior NMR data is the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 74th edition, pp 9-156 to 9-158.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 11:48:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA13182; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Stirniman <robert@skylink.net>
Message-Id: <199610211801.LAA00917@shell.skylink.net>
Subject: Re: Negative Gravity?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <961020074644_76216.2421_HHB44-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Rick Monteverde" at Oct 20, 96 03:46:44 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"K4Acw.0.tD3.2nxQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1705
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> Terry asked:
>   > "Is there a microscopic synchronization of the lattice ions due 
>   > to the macroscopic rotation of the disk?"
> Hmm...got some grass seed and an old turntable?
> - Rick Monteverde

I don't get the grass seed joke -- some kind of junior high
science experiment?  

Anyhow -- A small gyrocsope (or microscopic angular mometum), 
which is rotating as apart of a larger gyroscope (macroscopic 
angular momentum), will precess until it's axis is in alignment 
with the larger rotating body.

Some examples:

A freely gimballed gyroscope on the earth's surface will
always precess into alignment with the earth's polar axis.
In free energy schemes, based on using gyroscopes to tap
the kinetic energy of the earth's rotation, this is know as
the "polar alignment problem". There is a patented invention
which claims to beat this problem. But that's another story.

In the Barnett effect, it is found that spinning a magnetic
material, such as an iron bar, causes the material to develop
a magnetic field, due to alignment of the angular momentum
of the unpaired electrons with the macroscopic spin axis.

In the inventions of Henry Wallace. The angular momentum of
the spin of unpaired nuclei are aligned with the spin of a
macroscopic disk of material (such as copper or bismuth).
Causing generation and detection of a gravitomagnetic field.

Ning Li proposes something similar to what Wallace invented,
based on alignment of the angular momentum of the nuclei 
(lattice ions) in a rotating superconductor. 

Regards,
Robert Stirniman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 12:53:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA08051; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 15:38:23 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no re
Message-ID: <961021193823_100433.1541_BHG103-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"pIEbM.0.jz1.r8zQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1706
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gary,

 >  Then what of a people who developed over centuries in England,
 > then moved to New Zealand or Australia?  More balanced?

At the risk of being taken seriously (which should happen very rarely) I
would point out that Australians are regarded as very well-balanced
indeed - by having a chip on each shoulder...

Also worth mentioning is the simple fact that any 'positive' results obtained
from chick embryos or other biological systems will be ignored or laughed off.
Sheesh, even *I* would be hard to convince.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 13:41:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA17506; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae918b805af3@[204.17.242.74]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:20:42 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
Resent-Message-ID: <"7_v4i1.0.QH4.ifzQo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1707
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Here's another delayed "post" that went elsewhere previously:


>Thanks, Horace, for the NMR data, and sources in the CRC Handbook.
>Would you post for us a general description on how to cheaply do NMR on,
>say, a 1-10 cc volumn?  Can we easily do NMR on a 2 cm wide by 20 cm
>long mercury discharge SiO2 tube?  I have some that Toby Grotz ran some
>Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge processes on, creating many-fold light
>output, and eroding the cathode.  I'd like to get a competent friend to
>run non-destructive tests, comparing the used versus unused tubes,
>searching for as many elements as possible, particularly the noble
>gases.  Can you do this?  How sensitive?
>
>Toby Grotz
>Wireless Engineering
>760 Prairie
>Craig, CO 81625
>970-824-6834     fax 7864
>
>Rich Murray

As to the "competent friend" part, that is not I.  No competence here, just
luniacal drive.  Also, I am retired and working on a very small budget and
have almost no resources.  You might find someone at a university with an
old NMR spectrometer handy.  They used large electro magnets, so aren't
much in vogue I would think.

Warning, what follows is off the top of my head and written just to get
some discussion going on this problem.

As to "can you do this?" I have been asking myself the same question off
and on for some days now.  It should not be very difficult to pick out just
one peak for analysis during a run, especially if a sample of the isotope
to be measured is available for calibration.  I recall reading about a
magnetometer in the Scientific American Amateur Scientist section many
years ago.  This used the proton NMR frequency to measure the earth's
magnetic field.  The protons supplied were in a gallon of water wrapped
with 2 purpendicular coils of wire.  Of course the frequency was very low
with the earth's field only on the order of about a gauss, and water
provides its own shielding as well.  However proton NMR sensitivity is
high, and there was a whole gallon of H2O to work with.

The signal should be much stronger using a permanent magnetic field of
about .25 T or 2500 gauss.  This permits a small sample size and good
signal.

Suppose you build a sample chamber with the magnetic field going through
the chamber left to right.  Let's say the sample tube is placed into the
sample chamber veritcally,  so the portion of the tube to be analyzed is
positioned in the chamber, which is about 2 cm on a side.  I would wrap the
parallel stimulation coils around the top and bottom of the sample chamber
ends so that the sample tube goes directly through the two stimulation
coils.  Front and back would then be receiver coils which are identical to
the stimulation coils, but purpendicular to them.  The receiver coil would
then be run through the equivalent of a radio tuner.  The signal would be
amplified, and then fed through a frequency control and gain control to a
DMM.  The frequency control is optional, but may improve the resolution.

Next the stimulation or excitation frequency.  You want this frequency to
be accurately controllable and digitally measured if possible.  Many DMM's
have digital frequency counters.  It should be possible to manually vary
the input frequency and measure the output "volume" from the receiver
coils.

So the basic materials are a variable frequency oscillator, 2 DMM's, one
with frequency measuring in the 10 MHz range, some strong magnets, and a
good "C" magnetic flux circuit.  I have thought about using a milling vice
for the flux circuit.  This way the flux could be varied and the chamber
easily opened, closed, or repositioned with accuracy.  Recalibration would
have to occur after any such repositioning though.

Maybe the biggest problem is getting a clean uniform magnetic field.  The
more variation in the field strength accross the sample chamber the wider
and therefore less distinct the peaks.  This should not be too big a
problem in that the experiments involve only very simple compounds, so most
peaks should be well isolated from their neighbors.

Resolution should be at minimum in parts per million, but possibly into the
parts per billion range.  The resolution is determined in the calibration
phase.  One big advantage of transmutation experiments is being able to
watch a specific peak grow from nothing.  It should be fairly easy to get a
definitive answer if the answer is yes - transmutations are occuring.

As the frequency is varied across a peak current in the stimulation coil
should increase and then decrease as the resonant frequency is passed. The
current in the receiver coil should be maximum after lingering on the
resonant frequency and then dropping the stimulation altogether or sliding
the frequency up or down.  The delayed current is due to the realxation or
"winding down" of the precessing nucleii that occurs when the resonant
frequency stimulation dissappears.

There are various other methods for NMR.  Maybe there are a bunch of good
ideas or corrections about all this from vortexians.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 15:36:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA18936; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 18:10:15 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Negative Gravity?
Message-ID: <961021221014_76216.2421_HHB64-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"2ShLt1.0.jd4.VK_Qo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1708
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman wrote:

   >  I don't get the grass seed joke -- some kind of junior high
   >  science experiment?
   >  
   >  Anyhow -- A small gyrocsope (or microscopic angular
   >  mometum), which is rotating as apart of a larger gyroscope
   >  (macroscopic angular momentum), will precess until it's
   >  axis is in alignment with the larger rotating body.
   >  
   >  Some examples:
   >  
   >  A freely gimballed gyroscope on the earth's surface will
   >  always precess into alignment with the earth's polar axis. In
   >  free energy schemes, based on using gyroscopes to tap the
   >  kinetic energy of the earth's rotation, this is know as the
   >  "polar alignment problem". There is a patented invention
   >  which claims to beat this problem. But that's another story.
   >  
   >  In the Barnett effect, it is found that spinning a magnetic
   >  material, such as an iron bar, causes the material to develop a
   >  magnetic field, due to alignment of the angular momentum of
   >  the unpaired electrons with the macroscopic spin axis.
   >  
   >  In the inventions of Henry Wallace. The angular momentum of
   >  the spin of unpaired nuclei are aligned with the spin of a
   >  macroscopic disk of material (such as copper or bismuth).
   >  Causing generation and detection of a gravitomagnetic field.
   >  
   >  Ning Li proposes something similar to what Wallace invented,
   >  based on alignment of the angular momentum of the nuclei
   >  (lattice ions) in a rotating superconductor.
   >  
   >  Regards, Robert Stirniman
   
Grass seed refers to the messages recently on either this list or freenrg
regarding an experiment which supposedly places a tray of sprouting grass over
a rotating turntable (tray not rotating, and allegedly shielded from air
current effects). The grass is reported to grow tilted towards the axis of the
rotating platform below. 

Chris Tinsley also mentions Wallace in his article in Infinite Energy V2,#9t.
I've noticed the similarities among these things also.

 It seems from my understanding of it that the gravitational effects in Li's &
Torr's theory only arise when there are supercurrents consisting of paired
electrons that have lost their net magnetic moment and QM spin due to the
pairing, thereby bringing out a non-magnetic effect to counterbalance their
still substantial KE. But aren't the currents which give rise to magnetism in
solids essentially a multitude of tiny supercurrents? It seems reasonable to me
then that the alleged gravitational effects seen above a superconductor would
also be detectable above a room temperature material having such currents
associated with it under certain conditions. Maybe the cold helps, where the
lattice ion's thermal motions are down to low levels which allow any rotational
motion to loom large in the equation of the total KE of the ions. Li's focus in
the papers is the rotational motion that is theoretically left over at 0T.
There might be a way to achieve the effect in room temperature materials too,
by inducing larger amplitude rotations of the ions about their neutral center
points, large enough to loom large again amidst all the random motion, by means
other than simple macroscopic rotation. Rotating EM fields perhaps? Perhaps a
bismuth sample in a strong magnetic field, preferably chilled, with an EM field
of the proper polarization and orientation rotating or pulsing (especially near
the ion acoustic resonance frequency?) might get the lattice ions moving in the
right direction.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 17:02:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06706; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 19:20:21 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Negative Gravity?
Message-ID: <961021232020_76016.2701_JHC88-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"_RYTI2.0.fe1.vO0Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1709
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Robert Stirniman writes:

>>The angular momentum of
the spin of unpaired nuclei are aligned with the spin of a
macroscopic disk of material (such as copper or bismuth).
Causing generation and detection of a gravitomagnetic field.<<

Ah, intriguing.  Perhaps you can help me with some larger questions?

What is the magnitude of the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth?  How does the
gravitomagnetic field affect normal mass as opposed to the gravitoelectric
field?  Is not the larger interaction of masses due to a negative
gravitoelectric potential?

Thanks for your consideration.

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 17:13:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06852; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 19:20:15 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Message-ID: <961021232014_76016.2701_JHC88-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"jaQcc.0.wg1.FP0Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1710
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Henry,

>>There was a post a couple of weeks ago to you about
replication of Joe Champion's stuff.<<

Forgive my ignorance, because I have just joined this list; but, did Champion's
experiments relate to laying hens?

My home town was once known as the poultry capital of the world.  Not a renown
for which its inhabitants are particularly proud; however, there is a local
folklore which might be of interest.  It regarded the strength of eggshells.
Fred Haley, owner of an egg farm of high production, became embroiled in an
argument with a competitor regarding the benefit of a high calcium diet for his
layers.  To prove his point, Fred fed one group of his layers a diet totally
depleted of that element and compared the strength of those eggs with a group of
hens fed the normal diet.  Initially, the eggs produced by the deprived fowl
were a bit weaker than those from the normal brood; however, after a few weeks,
the eggs from the experimental group recovered their strength.

The remarkable thing was that, soon thereafter, the experimental eggs developed
shells which were ACTUALLY STRONGER than the control group.  His opponent
conceded the bet but said that his calcium deprived hens would have such fragile
bones that they could not walk.  Several birds sacrificed their lives in the
name of science but a qualitative examination showed no difference in the
strength of the birds' bones with the different diets.  While not a scientific
experiment, it was covered in the local newspaper.

BTW, Fred also discovered that feeding his hens marigold petals resulted in
yellower yolks, an idea stolen by Frank Perdue. <G>

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 17:35:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21735 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au  Mon Oct 21 17:33:56 1996
Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA21612 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.0/8.8.0) id KAA08776 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:30:57 +1000 (EST)
Old-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:30:57 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave DAVIES <daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199610220030.KAA08776@nimbus.anu.edu.au>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no re
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> 
> Gary,
> 
>  >  Then what of a people who developed over centuries in England,
>  > then moved to New Zealand or Australia?  More balanced?
> 
> At the risk of being taken seriously (which should happen very rarely) I
> would point out that Australians are regarded as very well-balanced
> indeed - by having a chip on each shoulder...

Are you fishing for an argument? 
> 
> Also worth mentioning is the simple fact that any 'positive' results obtained
> from chick embryos or other biological systems will be ignored or laughed off.
> Sheesh, even *I* would be hard to convince.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
Seriously though:), do you really need a permit to boil an egg down there?

My memory of the bio-trans. stuff was that it seemed both poorly conducted
and poorly reported. Have to be looked at again though if kitchen table
transmutation is possible.

Coming out of hibernation its good to see vortex-l still in an upbeat mood.
Lots of interesting reports and ideas. If this is millenial fever is sure
is a fascinating trip.

dave

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 17:53:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13251; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 21 Oct 96 19:50:16 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin
Message-ID: <961021235015_100060.173_JHB72-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"c33qI3.0.zE3.ap0Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1711
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Vortexians,

I was saddened to read in today's Daily Telegraph (London) that Tony Griffin has
died.  He was aged only 75, and had been one of the most highly decorated naval
officers in the British Navy.  He was not only Controller of the British Navy,
but also Third Sea Lord, responsible for the Navy's ships and materiel, and for
the whole current structure of our fleet.

Quite a guy!!

His obit takes up 1/3 of a full sized page, about 20 col. inches, and the
penultimate paragraph runs as follows:

"Latterly he was much involved in the design of an engine which used water as
fuel, converting his garage into a labyrinth of tubes, bubbling vats of water
and electric wires.  He believed himself to be on the verge of a breakthrough."

As you know, Tony Griffin was convinced that Stanley Meyer's pulsed HV
electrolysis was genuine, and he spent a great deal of time Stateside with
Meyer.  What a pity Meyer is such a plonker!

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 18:22:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA18791; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:59:20 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no re
In-Reply-To: <961021193823_100433.1541_BHG103-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961022095742.17781B-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"VHHE92.0.Vb4.tC1Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1712
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 21 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

> Gary,
> 
>  >  Then what of a people who developed over centuries in England,
>  > then moved to New Zealand or Australia?  More balanced?
> 
> At the risk of being taken seriously (which should happen very rarely) I
> would point out that Australians are regarded as very well-balanced
> indeed - by having a chip on each shoulder...
> 

A typical reaction from a pom to explain why they can't win a cricket match.
The other side tries too hard!! :-) 

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 20:30:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA17520; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961022024301.006e52bc@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:43:01 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Resent-Message-ID: <"9oe5F3.0.dH4.NA3Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1713
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:20 PM 10/21/96 EDT, you wrote:

>bones that they could not walk.  Several birds sacrificed their lives in the

Hopefully somebody fried them up for dinner so it wasn't a total tragedy.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 21:17:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27731; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961022033010.006ed854@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:30:10 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: The Galtek Motor is Real?
Resent-Message-ID: <"rWcIs.0.3n6.ns3Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1715
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 06:20 PM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Jeff Jolett of the Az dept of energy sent the police down to Galteck and
>accused Russ Chapmann of fraud.  Russ didn't like the whole affiar.  Jeff is
>friends with one of our members Reed Huish.  Reed you have been quiet lately.
> What is up?  Russ Chapmann of Galtek expressed an interest in calling you.
> Did he call?  What happened?  What is the latest from Jeff Jolette?
>
>
>Frank Z
>
>

Talked to Reed Huish on his way through Seattle today.  He has been doing 
a lot of travelling.  He was given some trouble by Jeff Jolett himself, 
on some energy saving installations for grocery stores.  He said that 
Russ's group have decided to concentrate on their usual semiconductor 
manufacturing, encountered some difficulty from stockholders on their 
o/u claims.

No conclusion on this one yet, but RH will likely shed some light.

Gary H 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Horizon Technology                   Tomorrow's Technology Today
 http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                        Seattle, WA


   *Unless your vote is a tie-breaker between Dole and Clinton, 
your vote is not wasted on a third party.  Vote for Harry Brown, 
the Libertarian candidate, or the National Tax-Payer's Party candidate.*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 21:45:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA13161; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326C4D70.5B88@rt66.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:28:32 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy
References: <326AFF0B.2C93@skypoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"MA_2K1.0.YD3.3p4Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1716
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Wow!  Outstanding!  Brief!  Simple!  Why didn't I think of it!

Congratulations, and Thanks!

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 21:57:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA16937; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326C50F6.1C22@rt66.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:43:34 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RMCarrell@aol.com
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
References: <961021160440_1581660256@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"M80Cj2.0.Y84.K15Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1717
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Toby Grotz found an operating regime for SiO2 murcury vapor lamps that
for the same power input produced three to four times more UV and light,
and that rapidly eroded the cathode within a few hours.

Toby Grotz
wireless@rmii.com

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 22:02:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA21691; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9205cd71d8@[204.17.242.74]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:05:13 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Checks on Miley using NMR
Resent-Message-ID: <"LUExb.0.fI5.bI5Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1718
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Toby Grotz found an operating regime for SiO2 murcury vapor lamps that
>for the same power input produced three to four times more UV and light,
>and that rapidly eroded the cathode within a few hours.
>
>Toby Grotz
>wireless@rmii.com

Did he by any chance use a transformer secondary to drive the lamp and put
a capacitor in series with the primary of the transformer?


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 22:17:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA25235; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 22:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 22:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326C596E.57AE@skypoint.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:19:42 -0500
From: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com>
Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"DwaBy2.0.DA6.gX5Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1719
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is just a mathematical table of the earlier NAA analysis numbers in
my investigation that the sum of the binding energy of the inputs must
equal the sum of the binding energy of the outputs in a condition such
as Miley's where no significant energy is exchanged with the
external environment.
 
The conclusion was that the output distribution points to a limited
number of possible inputs, the most obvious fitting candidate being
2H+Ni ==> empirical distribution results + (+/-)very small energy
 
     (NAA
     Results)
     Atomic           Atomic   Per Nucleon    (* ratio)
 Ele  Ratio   A   Z    Mass    Binding Ener  Weighted B.E.
 --- ------ --- --- ---------- ------------ --------------
 Al  0.0051  13  27  26.98154   0.999316296  0.005096513
 Ag  0.0661  47 107 106.905092  0.999113009  0.06604137
 Cr  0.0594  24  52  51.940509  0.998855942  0.059332043
 Fe  0.1453  26  56  55.934939  0.998838196  0.14513119
 Ni  0.6231  28  58  57.935346  0.998885276  0.622405415
 Cu  0.0796  29  63  62.939589  0.999041095  0.079523671
 V   0.0001  23  51  50.943962  0.998901216  0.00009989
 Co  0.001   27  59  58.933198  0.998867763  0.000998868
 Zi  0.0204  30  64  63.929145  0.998892891  0.020377415
 H            1   1   1.007825  1.007825
 
                    Average non-Ni Binding Energy  0.99920658
              Delta Binding Energy (Ni's-other's) -0.000321304
 Required protium / Ni nucleon ratio to balance    0.035941162
                      Required H/Ni atomic ratio   2.084587384
 
-- 
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-699-9472 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 -   WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan    -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 23:11:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA06264; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610220547.WAA28576@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:07:44 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Miley's paper, To be glass beads or
Resent-Message-ID: <"MPrL9.0.kX1.NJ6Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1720
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 04:16 PM 10/19/96 EDT, you wrote:
> >  When I spoke with Miley this summer, he said he still saw
> > transmutations with other substrates and that they were diffferent
> > with different substrates.  Assuming he correctly ruled out
> > contaminants embedded in the substrate, this might indicate that
> > the effect is triggered at the junction of dissimilar materials.
>
>It might be worth mentioning that the Kucherov/Savvatimova
>glow-discharge CF reports suggest that new elements might be formed at
>the grain boundaries of the host metal.
>
>Chris
>
>

about where you would expect
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 23:20:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA09086; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326C682B.2D1E@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:22:35 -0700
From: Hank Scudder <hjscudde@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: hjscudde@pacbell.net
Organization: Rocketdyne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no replications?
References: <961021232014_76016.2701_JHC88-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"xrzLD2.0.uD2.-R6Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1721
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Terry Blanton wrote:
> 
> Henry,
> 
> >>There was a post a couple of weeks ago to you about
> replication of Joe Champion's stuff.<<
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, because I have just joined this list; but, did Champion's
> experiments relate to laying hens?
<snip>

Joe Champion may have laid an egg, but he is secretive and flaky enough
that nobody knows whether it is golden or not. His communications were
about transmutations, and methods to create them. He published at least
one how-to book, and several notes on his homepages which involved high
enough energy reactions, such as adding Na to liquid Pb, that I stayed
away from them since I live in a city, with very close neighbors.
Several
Vortexans have pursued some of his ideas, but very little has been
written about their results. Joe sent Jed Rothwell some samples, which
Jed had tested, with some strange results, and more testing was to be
done, but I haven't seen these results on Vortex yet.  
Joe invited a number of Vortexans (including me) to see his process work 
in August at a mine in California, but as far as I know the demo didn't
come off.
In my message to Barry, I was responding to his suggestion about why
people had not tested the biological transmutations idea. I also asked
Barry if he had tested any of Joe's ideas, which might better have been
done in a separate communication. Anyhow, I stand perplexed in LA at
this point about whether Joe's ideas work. Its probably better then
being sleepless in Seattle, but our fires sure could use some of their
rain. I can see the glow from them out my windows. The Malibu fire is
about five miles away, downwind thank goodness.
Hank Scudder

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 21 23:42:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA20706; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961022025747.006830f4@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:57:47 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Exam of some claims
Cc: eric@voicenet.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"qU18t1.0.L35.GO3Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1714
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Someone asks that his page about the claims of Dennis Lee 
be mentioned here, for anyone interested:

http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis.html


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 02:40:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA12823; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 05:36:46 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022093645_100433.1541_BHG47-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"4j3Xa2.0.D83.lO9Ro"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1722
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

I'm dragging up this hoary old problem once more:  It is stated in
various textbooks (and by Robert Stirniman here) that a cylindrical
homopolar generator will work; in other words if you have a radial field
and a cylindrical conductor then the emf developed between two brushes
an axial distance 'd' apart will be

V = B*d*omega*r

this being topologically equivalent to a disk with an axial field.

On investigation the disk configuration appears to behave exactly as
predicted, but the cylindrical one just does not.  All that is ever seen
is a small end effect.  This fits one model of the homopolar effect,
which is that the driving effect is the relative motion of the fixed and
moving circuits, and the fact that there is a discrepancy between the
flux passing *through* one as against the other.

This can be seen in a different version of the cylindrical homopolar
generator, where two cylindrical high-field magnets are placed in a tube
with like poles forced together.  In that configuration, when the
cylinder is spun axially, quite a high emf is produced from two probes
placed either side of the join.  As I see it, the point in this case is 
that the two brushes cut the field as it curves back axially from the
join.  In other words, an 'end' effect.  No such axial field cuts the
brushes to the long radial-field cylinder.  In fact, in the like-pole
variant, the emf developed can readily be changed simply by altering
the angle at which the brush leads address the cylinder - just as one
would expect from this simple model.

Further, in my view these experiments suggest that the notion that emf
can be produced by *translation* within an invariant field is false,
and that a *rotation* of an *axial* field is required.  In other words,
the long cylinder is not the topological equivalent of a disk, but the
topological equivalent of a flat plate of infinite length.  An axial
field is available from the like-pole variant, but is available only
at the ends of a long cylinder.

In support of my contention that this effect is one which has been
promoted by textbooks from previous textbooks with no actual experiment
having been done, I would point out that a high-voltage homopolar
generator would be very valuable and the cylindrical variant would be
the ideal way of producing one - yet such devices do not (to my
knowledge) exist.

At the risk of appearing tiresome, I keep coming back to this basic
point.  The homopolar effect appears to be poorly understood, yet it
seem to me the most basic of electromagnetic phenomena.  It dates to the
experiments of Faraday in the early 1830s.

Comments, anyone?

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 03:52:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA20338; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 03:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 03:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 06:49:13 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022104913_100433.1541_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"U9Tqv3.0.iz4.LSARo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1723
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

As an addendum to my previous post, I should point out that every way
I look at this makes problems.

I said that a long-cylinder homopolar generator with radial field was
really topologically equivalent to an infinite surface (implying a field
normal to its surface).  But that seems to introduce a problem too.

In that case the rest of the circuit includes the link between the
probes - the meter or whatever.  That part of the circuit is indeed
cutting the field as the surface moves beneath it, just as the two
probes to the like-poles 'short' cylinder generator cut the axial field.

All of that seems to show that the field must indeed be axial rather
than radial - which seems a bit nasty to me.  One way around the problem
would, I think, be to point out that in a radial field the actual
'quantity of flux' cut by the conductor moving through an invariant
field varies with radius.  That would mean that it would be possible
to construct a Faraday disk which gave null results by having a field
which varied in inverse ratio to its radius - and possible to have a
'long cylinder' which gave the effect because its field varied along
its length.

But I think not.  It never seems to matter how much the field varies
radially in a disk generator - my own experiments used an annular magnet
and the emf always appeared to be proportional to the total quantity of
flux cut by the conductor, and not in any way to the variations with
radius of the field strength.

So, my tentative conclusion remains the same.  It is the *quantity of
radial flux cut by a conductor per unit time* which determines the emf.  

So the emf varies with B and omega*(r2-r1).

How is it that we can remain confused by all this after 165 years?

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 04:27:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA24605; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 07:23:54 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022112353_100433.1541_BHG95-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"NNQUm3.0.J06.UzARo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1724
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

My apologies to all for clogging the bandwidth.  I wrote:

"So, my tentative conclusion remains the same.  It is the *quantity of
radial flux cut by a conductor per unit time* which determines the emf."

I meant axial flux.  Sorry 'bout that.

I'm still hopelessly confused.  Why should cutting radial flux (or flux
which is normal to a surface) be different from cutting axial flux in a
rotary manner?

Think about it.  In *both cases* we have a surface (imagine it
horizontal) with vertical flux emerging from it.  In one case we rotate
horizontally a horizontal wire around one of its end - and see an emf.
In the other, we simply pull it along the surface - nothing.

I thought the answer had to be that in the former case the external
circuit is not moving, while in the latter it had to move with the wire.

Except that the system should have some symmetry, and in both cases one
conductor is moving relative to the other.

And it seems to make no difference whether or not the field through the
fixed circuit is weaker (as must be the case in a 'long cylinder').

The question of what difference there is between a fixed and moving
magnet seems to me quite irrelevant, since in either case the actual
flux density remains constant.

Either the effect is due solely to rotation within a field, or it is
due to the interaction between the fixed and moving conductors.  And
there IS such relative motion between the fixed and moving conductors in
the case of the 'long' cylinder, yet that gives no effect.

I admit to being confused still.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 04:59:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA29386; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 07:51:02 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Meyer
Message-ID: <961022115102_100060.173_JHB72-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"nTY3X1.0.3B7.JMBRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1725
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> Could you elucidate "plonker". (english is not my first language)

What brings you to this opinion about Meyer ? <<

A plonker is a euphemism for one who is full of piss and wind and who can only
find fulfillment in their own company.  In other words talks much and achieves
little.

This opinion is derived from my own experience and that of others who have tried
either to validate Meyer's claims or work with him directly.  Those with whom I
have had direct contact, and who have paid Meyer top $$$ for his designs have
been left in mid-air without a working product.

Tony Griffin actually believed Meyer and spent a great deal of time and cash
trying to sell his designs to the British Government and other commercial
organisations.  Tony's motivation was entirely environmental improvement and the
technological advancement of the British Navy.  He had no financial involvement
in any of the projects.  I was amazed at his confidence in Meyer, knowing what
he did about the character and attitude of the man.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 07:28:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26575; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9286360067@[204.17.242.71]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 06:17:00 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"e8diP3.0.7V6.7PDRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1726
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
I would point out that a high-voltage homopolar
>generator would be very valuable and the cylindrical variant would be
>the ideal way of producing one - yet such devices do not (to my
>knowledge) exist.
>
[snip]
>
>Comments, anyone?
>
>Chris

Why would a HV HPG be very valuable?


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 08:57:14 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA23173; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b13ae92a70fd912@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:54:37 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"3OmN3.0.zf5.rtERo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1727
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris T. wrote:
>
>This can be seen in a different version of the cylindrical homopolar
>generator, where two cylindrical high-field magnets are placed in a tube
>with like poles forced together.  In that configuration, when the
>cylinder is spun axially, quite a high emf is produced from two probes
>placed either side of the join.

   This is what Faraday's equation predicts.  I don't know what you meant
by "a         DIFFERENT version of the cylindrical homopolar generator,"
since what you go on to describe sounds to me like THE cylindrical
homopolar generator.  The cylindrical rotor must be short enough that the
radial magnetic field direction does not change sign near the ends, or you
will begin to induce a canceling component of the EMF.
   If your machine has radial field penetrating the cylinder in one
direction at one end and in the opposite direction at the other end, then
the total EMF will be zero.  Stated more succinctly, the axial EMF is
proportional to the radial FLUX penetrating the moving cylinder.

>.....In fact, in the like-pole
>variant, the emf developed can readily be changed simply by altering
>the angle at which the brush leads address the cylinder.....

   Now this is puzzling (to me).  I don't understand why the EMF should
depend on the ANGLE of the brush leads.

>In support of my contention that this effect is one which has been
>promoted by textbooks from previous textbooks with no actual experiment
>having been done, I would point out that a high-voltage homopolar
>generator would be very valuable and the cylindrical variant would be
>the ideal way of producing one - yet such devices do not (to my
>knowledge) exist.

   Actually, given the usual laws, the limitations on EMF from an axial HP
are practical ones.  The EMF is proportional to (a) the rotor peripheral
speed and (b) the total radial FLUX penetrating the rotor (not to length).
Peripheral speed is limited by strength of materials.  Radial flux is
limited by saturation of iron; because, since magnetic flux is conserved
(unless someone discoverers an isolated magnetic charge), the radial flux
must have entered a central axial iron core through the ends, and the
maximum flux that can so enter is given by the the cross section area of
that core times its saturation flux.  The numbers nature deals us are such
that you don't get "high" voltage.

>.....It never seems to matter how much the field varies
>radially in a disk generator - my own experiments used an annular magnet
>and the emf always appeared to be proportional to the total quantity of
>flux cut by the conductor, and not in any way to the variations with
>radius of the field strength.

   This is as predicted by Faraday's equation.  It's the total FLUX.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 10:39:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18235; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 12:55:41 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022165541_100433.1541_BHG126-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z4Fnm3.0.qS4.SDGRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1729
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael,

 > This can be seen in a different version of the cylindrical
 > homopolar generator, where two cylindrical high-field magnets are
 > placed in a tube with like poles forced together.  In that
 > configuration, when the cylinder is spun axially, quite a high
 > emf is produced from two probes placed either side of the join.
 > 
 >    This is what Faraday's equation predicts.

Yup, just what you'd expect - but not the point I was trying to make.

 > I don't know what you meant by "a         DIFFERENT version of the
 > cylindrical homopolar generator," since what you go on to describe
 > sounds to me like THE cylindrical homopolar generator.  The
 > cylindrical rotor must be short enough that the radial magnetic
 > field direction does not change sign near the ends, or you will
 > begin to induce a canceling component of the EMF.

Wait a minute - perhaps I should describe the two variants more
carefully.  In the "short, like poles" one, then both brushes touch the
outer surface of the conducting tube with the two magnets inside. 
Naturally, the angle and the exact position determine the emf you get.

The "long" version is like this, and is described in the textbooks
(well, at least some of them).  It has a radial field emerging normal to
the surface (a bit like the one passing through the drive coil of a cone
loudspeaker).  According to the textbooks, the emf between two brushes
placed at different points along the surface of the cylinder will be a
function of B, r, omega and the brush separation distance - in other
words, like the disk its V is a function of swept area and field
strength.

Except it isn't, unless my experimental technique is badly off.

I agree about the limitations of emf available from a disk.  But if the
"long cylinder" variant did work, there would be a much higher limit.

Yes, of course the total flux cut per unit time determines the emf.  My
problem is to do with the apparent difference between rotation and
translation, and also why the textbooks quote an (an apparently) wrong
result.

Chris
(not explaining things very well today)

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 10:57:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23882; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 13:47:13 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022174713_100060.173_JHB78-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"5afad.0.3r5.kaGRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1730
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris me boy,

>> Either the effect is due solely to rotation within a field, or it is
due to the interaction between the fixed and moving conductors.  And
there IS such relative motion between the fixed and moving conductors in
the case of the 'long' cylinder, yet that gives no effect.

I admit to being confused still. <<

I think I can deconfuse you here.

The measurement points for the disc system voltage are at the centre of the
rotating axis and the periphery;  for the cylinder they are at either end of the
cylinder.  The relative velocity between the disc points is proportional to the
rad. and for the cylinder is zero, they both being at the same rad. Ergo you
will see no emf from the cylinder unless you have one of the contact points at a
different radius from the other.  The end effect probably comes from the wall
thickness of the cylinder.

Am I right or am I right?

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 12:13:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA08301; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 14:42:44 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022184244_100433.1541_BHG124-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"wz1061.0.c12.VRHRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1731
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman,

 > The relative velocity between the disc points is proportional to
 > the rad. and for the cylinder is zero, they both being at the same
 > rad. Ergo you will see no emf from the cylinder unless you have
 > one of the contact points at a different radius from the other.

Yes, that's what happens.  But why?  And why does it say otherwise in
(at least some of) the books?

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 13:38:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA00605; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 16:11:05 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022201105_100060.173_JHB122-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"hNMQq2.0.G9.MkIRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1732
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris,

>> Yes, that's what happens.  But why? <<

I reckon its because the emf is proportional to the change in rate of cutting of
the flux, and this is zero or very near for the cylinder, and 0 to R for the
disc. This is the only difference in em analogy between the two constructs.

BTW I've written to Tony Griffin's wife offering condolences and help if they
need it with his experiments.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 15:09:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA23343; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae92ea8c9471@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <961022093645_100433.1541_BHG47-1@CompuServe.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:55:37 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"GUtq82.0.Si5.xBKRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1734
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 In Chris Tinsley's experiment,

> in other words if you have a radial field
>and a cylindrical conductor then the emf developed between two brushes
>an axial distance 'd' apart will be
>
>V = B*d*omega*r
>
>this being topologically equivalent to a disk with an axial field.
>
>On investigation the disk configuration appears to behave exactly as
>predicted, but the cylindrical one just does not.  All that is ever seen
>is a small end effect.

The voltage given in the equation should show up.  The problem is most
likely that the radial B is too small.  Since the divergence of the
magnetic field is zero the magnetic flux out of the cylinder must equal the
flux going into the cylinder end or:

  2 Pi r L B(radial) = Pi r*r B(end)

or

  B(radial) = B(end) * r/(2*L)

with L the length of the cylindrical magnet.  Moreover, There would not be
much magnetic flux coming out of the annular magnet that was used unless
the magnetization was gradually reduced along the axial length of the
magnet.  That is most likely not the case and most of the flux is probably
coming out of the end of the annular magnet.  This just looks like a too
small radial B field problem.  Try measuring the field.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 22 20:55:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27199; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: fm: ben
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961022204750.24812H-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"9T8q71.0.re6.EMPRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1740
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Postmaster <postmaster@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro
Cc: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: Repeat

Date: 21 Oct 1996
From: Ben Filimonov <filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: RAW DATA YUSMAR TEST

Greetings to all,

12 Oct 11:15:49 Frank Znidarsic wrote:

>      YUSMAR TEST WITH MAGNETITE ADDITION  OCTOBER 96
>
>
>Time   Temp In   Temp Out   Flow    Power In   Power Out   COP
>(Min)    (F)       (F)      (GPM)     (KW)       (KW)
>________________________________________________________________
>0        60        60       0.78      4.8       0.00       0
>15       60        78       0.76      4.8       2.00       0.42
>30       60        89       0.77      4.6       3.26       0.71
>45       60        96       0.735     4.6       3.86       0.84
>60       60       101       0.75      4.5       4.49       1.00
>75       60       102       0.735     4.7       4.51       0.96
>90       60       103       0.76      4.6       4.77       1.04
>105      60       104       0.75      4.7       4.82       1.03
>120      60       104       0.74      4.7       4.75       1.01
>

Frank, where I can see the scheme of your Yusmar test experiment? <I'm
newcomer at Vortex, so I could miss smth>.

By any way, what figures of columns 2,3 and 4 of your table mean? It's likely
that they mean water temperatures at HEAT EXCHANGER In-Out and water flow thru
the same? IF SO, column 6 Power Out is for the heat released from Yusmar with
heat exchanger but the heat stored in Yusmar loop isn't figured here.
So the run duration is only two hours and final water temperature is only
40 degs. Celsius, enthalpy of loop water may not be neglected, and it must be
added to the heat released. May be, it would yield o/u energy, may be, not.

It seems to me that the most suitable method for short Yusmar runs heat
measurement is that used by Japanese Field Co, i.e. using no heat exchangers
at all and measuring no water flows, only measuring loop water temperature:
being aware of the loop inner volume, one can calculate Power out easily.

BTW, the most frequently posed objection to Hydro Heat Generators (HHG,
home-made term for Yusmar, its produced-in-Belarus version Yurle, and
Griggs's Hydrosonic Pump) o/u operation data is the fact that `one can't
measure turbulent liquid-vapor-gas flow correctly'. Using heat exchanger,
one can eliminate that problem but creates the new one, namely, non-counting
stored heat.

So, please inform me of your Yusmar loop inner volume (or water quantity
in it), and additionally the same for its parts: Yusmar chamber and tube,
Yus.-to-heat-exchanger forward tubing, heat exchanger proper, and heat-ex.-
to-Yus. backward tubing including pump - for correcting your Power Out data.
I mean, one wouldn't be mistaken attributing Temp Out temperature values
for Yus. tube and Y-to-HE tubing, Temp In for HE-to-Y tubing including pump,
and mean temperature to Yus. camera and HE (though temperature field in
Yusmar tube DIFFERS from this simplified pattern).

BTW, Frank, why magnetite addition??

Regards,
Ben

Dr. Veniamin Filimonov
14 Leningrad Street
Institute of Physical-Chemical Problems
Belarus State University
Minsk 220080 Belarus
Phone: 375-0172-207681, Fax: 375-0172-264696

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 00:12:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11986; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
In-Reply-To: <961022093645_100433.1541_BHG47-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961022205006.24812I-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"k6l7Z.0.Cx2.gJSRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1741
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 22 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

> I'm dragging up this hoary old problem once more:  It is stated in
> various textbooks (and by Robert Stirniman here) that a cylindrical
> homopolar generator will work; in other words if you have a radial field
> and a cylindrical conductor then the emf developed between two brushes
> an axial distance 'd' apart will be

Chris, how is your first magnet magnetized?  I mean the one in the
"problem" configuration? I understand that the second version has two
short cylinder magnets with like-poles glued together, which gives an
S-N-S (or the opposite) composite magnet. 

When you say "radial field" and "annular magnet" I imagine a hollow
cylinder magnet that has been magnetized with an N pole all over its
curved outer surface, and S pole all over the inner surface, with the
result that the outer surface is N and the two (hollow) end faces act like
S poles.  With the result that again you have an S-N-S magnet.

If OTOH you are using a stack of axially-magnetized cylinders, so that the
resulting magnet has an N pole on one flat end face and an S pole on the
other, then the resulting HPG should in theory have *no* voltage because
the radial fields from the N and the S which penetrate the cylinder will
give cancelling voltage when the the brushes are placed at opposite ends
of the cylinder.  And if you place your brushes near each other and near
the end of the cylinder (so that some radial field from just that pole is
"gathered" between the brushes) then you would see a voltage appear.  And
if you placed the same two brushes in the same orientation but at the
other end of the cylinder, you'd get about the same voltage, but opposite
polarity.  And if you keep the brushes at one close spacing while sliding
both of them from one end of the spinning cylinder to the other, youd get
a max voltage at one end, zero volts for most of the central region, then
a negative max voltage at the other end. 


Isn't the cylindrical HPG topologically the same as the disk only when the
cylinder is short and the magnet is long, so that one magnet pole can be
placed within the cylinder, while the other is far away?  Or it's the same
when the magnet is long and is magnetized S-N-S, so the central N pole can
be placed within the short cylinder and the two S poles can be at a
distance?  You want to have only *one* pole within the cylinder, so that
only one direction of radial flux lines penetrate the cylinder surface. 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 00:34:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA03388; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: RMCarrell@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:09:32 -0400
Message-ID: <961022200931_1912746085@emout20.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Resent-Message-ID: <"SnXsn1.0.lq.DQMRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1736
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gene Mallove tole me that there was a paper by a Russian scientist at the
Japanese CF conference on biological transmutation in bacterial cultures. He
may try to get permission to publish the paper in IE. Perhaps low energy
transmutation is not in fact uncommon, we just haven't been looking for it
and the prevailing paradigms forbid it, so every separate indication is
denied. There ***must*** be a mistake... Familiar scenario?

Mike Carrell

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 01:48:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA12145; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 19:01:07 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961022230107_100433.1541_BHG57-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"lRD_Y.0.gz2.oCLRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1735
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Lawrence,

I have to leave this for a day, I won't be online again until late tomorrow.

 > This just looks like a too small radial B field problem.  Try
 > measuring the field.

No.  The device used was a cylinder co-rotating with its magnets, which were NIB
plates plating the whole inside of the cylinder, all like poles outward.  Nix,
nothing at all, except for the end effects.  Either the books are wrong, or I
am.  If I'm wrong, how come nobody makes cylindrical generators like the ones in
the textbooks?  (I'm not talking about the two-magnets-pushed-together, I mean a
constant radial field along a considerable length of cylinder.)  I made a small
one, Norman Horwood made a nice big machined one - neither of them did anything.

Certainly no "emf proportional to axial distance between brushes at a given
(high) speed" like the books say will be there.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 02:47:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26048; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Forwarded mail....
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961022204320.24812E-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"P79TW1.0.tM6.vHPRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1737
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Postmaster <postmaster@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com
Cc: vortex_l@eskimo.com

From: Ben Filimonov <filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: Vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: 10 beats 20! + Line testing

Hello, Vortexans:

One more message sunk in FSU electronic vortexes.
At 3 October Ben Filimonov wrote:

    Mark Hugo wrote:

        A comment on the "autoradiographs". The claim was made some time ago
        that these were due to exposure to hydrogen "reducing" the silver in
        the films, and that this hydrogen can penetrate the plastic covering
        that exist(ed) on some of the films. Dr. Oriani was concerned about this
        too, so he took a small pressure vessel, some dental Xray film, and
        a tank of H2. I think he went to 2 atm if I recall....Nul result,
        no effect even after several days exposure. Thus I'd say this arguement
        against the "auto-radiographs" is specious at best... MDH

    Mark, there are hydrogen and `hydrogen'. Gaseous H2 can't reduce Ag but
    `hydrogen' reloaded from H-absorbing metal is `active' one containing both
    atomic hydrogen H and excited H2* molecules. This matter does can reduce
    silver and can diffuse up to tens centimeters in air before relaxation/
    molarization (H, H2* -> H2). The same for `hydrogen' from electrolysis using
    cathodes non absorbing hydrogen. What about penetration through plastic
    films/coverings, I don't know certainly, but it may be the same as in air
    with accounting a factor of 10^-3, i.e. some shares of millimeter.

    Ben>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 03:47:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27029; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Repeat (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961022204725.24812G-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ektAZ2.0.Cc6.cLPRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1739
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Postmaster <postmaster@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro
Cc: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subject: Repeat

From: Ben Filimonov <filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: Peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro
Cc: Vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: David Doty please help + Line testing

Dear Peter, dear Vortexans,

Approx. 3 weeks ago I wrote:

    Greetings to all,

    Frank Znidarsic wrote:

        As you may be aware I am working with the
        distinguished Russian scientist Yuri Potapov. We are attempting
        to prove to the world that his Yusmar cavitation system does
        produce energy by a process of cold fusion.

    This recalls me one Russian anecdote, and I share it with you. Its main
    person is Russan famous schoolboy Vovochka [->Vova ->Volodya ->Vladimir].

    Once at a lesson a teacher [young woman Maria Ivanovna] asks pupils:
    - Children, what will be your professions, when you'll be adults?
    - A fireman.. a cosmonaut [astronaut].. an actress.. and so on.
    - And you, Vovochka..?
    - I'll be a sxopatologist.
    - Wow! Do you understand anything in that matter?
    - Of cource. For instance, M.I., look through the window. Whom do you see?
    - There are three young women at the street eating an eskimo [!] icecream.
    - More detailed, please.
    - Well, one of them licks it, other sucks, and third bites.
    - M.I., for your mind, which one of them is married?
    - Mmm, I think, the third one.
    - No, M.I.! That one who has a wedding ring on her left [right in original
    version] hand. But.. being a future sxopatologist, I like the way you think.

    Being a cold-fusioneer, I don't consider Yusmar as CF device. But, Frank..
    I like the way you think.

    Of cource, *apriori* approaches are useful for such a matter as New Energy
    devices, so namely they determine what to be looked for. But, before
    quessing CF, or ZPE (sorry, Hal), or UQT (sorry, Lev [Sapogin]), let's try
    something more simple.

    The null hypothesis: is o/u in Yusmar a real sign of excess energy
    generation or rather of latent stored one? A reason for  thinking so is the
    fact that maximal Yusmar COPs were observed at the beginning of experiment
    and then they tend asymptotically to unit value.

Oct. 21 correction: the latter seems to be correct if one counts ALL the heat -
both released and stored in Yusmar loop water (see Re: Raw Data Yusmar Test of
Oct. 21) and, of course, if one DOES obtain o/u data.

    Another one: isn't Yusmar some sort of heat pump tapping heat from
    environment? This model also needs occurence of heat-to-latent-form-energy
    conversion and vice versa, similar to 0-case.

Oct. 21 addition: Yusmar seemingly doesn't contain formal signs of heat pump,
namely phase transitions (of vaporization-condensation types) with heat effect
absorption-release occuring during working circle. SEEMINGLY and FORMAL.
But in reality it deals with breaking hydrogen bonding water structure after
vortex forming and restructuring of the same after laminarization (?) of flow,
those are in fact phase transtions of melting-crystallization types with heat
of such melting transferred from clear to latent form and vice versa..

    These models have certain sequels which can be easily checked and certain
    though limited resource of improving - I mean up to the thermodynamic `COP'
    value of heat pump which is well o/u. They surely don't discredit Yusmar
    but provide certain reference points - what to be looked for. Some more
    complex cases also propose clear criteria for experimenter. For instance:
    Lev Sapogin's UQT requires a liquid containing more free protons than
    water. So, let's try with sulfuric acid [a joke again, and bad one]?
    This case is good one, so it isn't necessary to check it - it had been
    already done. It's known that water based organic substances solutions
    (antifreeze) and even non-water organic liquids containing immensely less
    free protons than water also work.

    Ben>

And I wonder - was that message lost due to known unusual behavior of electrons
at the Eastern Europe (Peter, you are well aware of it), or filtered by Russ.
FSK (to avoid it, this time I hide some `key terms') or unselected by Vortex-L
software? The latter means: may be those jokes are unappropriate at such a
respected scientific forum? If so, I beg your pardon:

"Making science, one shouldn't be ferally serious" - N.V.Timofeev-Ressovsky.

(Peter, I've broken my poor brain trying to translate the phrase to English
and to conserve nuances. In Russian it was as follows:
"Nauku nuzhno delat' bez zverinoy ser'yeznosti" - note that `feral seriousness'
relates to man making science, not to science itself).

Regards,
Ben

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 04:41:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA16077; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 22 Oct 96 17:01:04 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: BlindCopyReceiver:;
Subject: Critique of the NHE Experiments
Message-ID: <961022210103_72240.1256_EHB39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"XH-TE.0.6x3.FoJRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1733
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: >INTERNET:asami@nhelab.iae.or.jp;
Kazuaki Matsui >INTERNET:mac@iae.or.jp;
Elliot Kennel >INTERNET:kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp;
Hideo Ikegami >INTERNET:ikegami@nifsbbs.nifs.ac.jp;
Tadahiko Mizuno >INTERNET:mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp;
Makoto Okamoto >INTERNET:mokamoto@nr.titech.ac.jp;
Scott Chubb >INTERNET:chubb@ecf.nrl.navy.mil;
Michael McKubre >INTERNET:mike_mckbure@qm.sri.com;
Vortex; Arthur; Gene; Chris

Dear Correspondent,

Attached is a preliminary draft of an Open Letter about the NHE program that I
intend to publish in the next issue of Infinite Energy magazine, in English
and Japanese. I realize that the tone of this letter is somewhat severe and
blunt, but I want to make sure the message gets through. Concern for
sensibilities must be are overridden by a crisis that could destroy the field
of cold fusion and terminate the last major source of funding.

I am circulating this draft to Ikegami, Pons and Fleischmann, Storms, Mallove
and other leading scientists in this field. If anyone has corrections or
comments, please e-mail them to me by the end of November. If you disagree
with my analysis and you wish to publish a rebuttal in the magazine, to be
printed along with this Open Letter, please submit it by that time.

- Jed Rothwell

-------------------------------------------

Critique Of NHE Experiments

An Open Letter to The NHE Lab Directorate by Jed Rothwell

Over the last three years I have felt a growing sense of unease about the NHE
cold fusion program. At ICCF6, during the visit to the NHE lab, and in
conversations with Pons, Fleischmann, Kennel, Asami and others, I found my
worst fears have been justified. The program has great promise, but in
execution it is deeply flawed. Let me be blunt, and let me make some strong
statements and recommendations.

In my opinion, the equipment at the NHE lab is splendid, the attitude of the
researchers is laudable, but the experiments are an unmitigated disaster. I
feel that you are making many fundamental mistakes. Fleischmann agreed with
me. Your researchers are ignoring techniques described in papers by Ikegami,
Storms, Fleischmann, Celani and other leading researchers. After hearing the
presentations, meeting with your people, and discussing this work, my
impression is that they are ignoring the literature. In the Japanese Journal
of Applied Physics, Ikegami [1] spelled out four essential conditions to
achieving the cold fusion effect: high current density, high loading, a
cathode temperature over 80 deg C, and proper surface preparation. Celani adds
a fifth essential: non-equilibrium triggering conditions. (Storms disagrees,
but most other experts say a trigger is needed.) Storms [2] and Cravens [3]
describe essential characteristics of the palladium, and methods of testing
it. I believe you have met the first two conditions listed by Ikegami and
ignored all the others. As McKubre pointed out in his closing remarks, an
SRI-style flow calorimeter is designed to ensure maximum equilibrium,
unchanging temperatures, and a cool cathode. I have been saying for a long
time that if you deliberately set out to design an instrument to prevent the
CF effect, you could not come up with a better one. I do not understand why it
has taken McKubre so many years to realize what others have been saying all
along. In addition to the fundamental errors described in the literature,
experts at the conference made specific criticisms of the materials and
techniques. For example, Fleischmann told me that glassware is much better
than Teflon for these long duration experiments.

I think it is likely your funding will be cut to zero in a few years. Frankly,
if I was in charge of the project, I would cut it to zero now, and I would
allocate the money to other groups that have achieved significant results. I
believe you face a crisis, and in such times I follow the advice of the Duke
of Albany in the closing lines of King Lear:

     The weight of this sad time we must obey,
     Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

Not only have you ignored the literature, but you have concentrated
exclusively on bulk palladium with heavy water, ignoring the easier, better
alternatives. You have limited yourselves to the most difficult and
unpromising materials and techniques. This is a recipe for disaster. Instead
of using the materials that nearly always work, like thin film nickel or gold,
or materials that often work, like high-temperature proton conductors, you
persist in trying to use bulk palladium at low temperatures, which only worked
a few times at SRI years ago, in experiments that even SRI cannot now
replicate. When researchers repeat a difficult experiment many times over a
period of months with no success because there is no alternative, that is
laudable, dogged persistence. That kind of heroic dedication and hard work is
essential to scientific progress. But when they repeat that same experiment
for years without success, ignoring better techniques and disregarding papers
by leading scientists describing their mistakes, that is misguided. It shows
an inability or unwillingness to learn from experience, and from other
scientists. It is a tragic waste of talent. It is folly. The NHE lab is
considered the flagship of cold fusion. It has the best equipment and some of
the finest, most dedicated and skillful workers. You have the opportunity to
make scientific history. You should not squander such talent and resources on
unproductive, dead-end experiments.

I urge you to open your eyes to some of the well-established, replicated
alternatives before it is too late. You should start with a 20-minute taxi
trip over to the University of Hokkaido. The experiments being performed there
by Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo et al. are the best in Japan, and among the best in
the world. They get consistent results at high signal to noise ratios. They
observe dramatic, massive transmutations that produce unnatural isotopic
ratios and other indisputable proof of nuclear reactions. This proof is more
convincing than the mainstream neutrons, x-rays or tritium results, because
the effects are large and easy to detect, non-transient, and cumulative. The
longer the reaction runs, the more metal is transmuted. Mizuno's proton
conductors [4] have confirmed by Oriani, [5] who is one of the best
electrochemists in the world. Enyo and Mizuno's palladium transmutation
results have been confirmed by Minevski & Bockris [6]. Ohmori's [7] gold
results have been confirmed by Swartz [8]. Ohmori has repeated his experiment
more than 50 times, demonstrating massive excess heat and transmutations in
every run. He inputs 0.1 watts. After a 3 to 5-day incubation period, he
observes between 0.4 and 1.0 watts output, producing a 4 deg C Delta T
temperature in his isoperibolic calorimeter. The reaction generates transmuted
material at levels 100 times higher than contamination from all sources in the
cell, including material with highly unnatural isotopic distribution.

I think it is best to replicate experiments done by people close by, who can
assist you on a day to day basis. But you might also consider testing CETI
style beads fabricated by the University of Illinois, if that can be arranged.
Miley [9] reported that up to 40% of the nickel in these beads is transmuted
into other metals. You should not attempt to fabricate the beads yourself
until you have gained experience using them and you are sure they work with
your equipment. You will experience significant problems with things like
conductivity and cleanliness, so you should start with beads you know will
work when everything else is right.

It will take humility and honesty for you to admit it, but you must realize
that the Hokkaido University researchers run rings around you. You have much
to learn from them. They have been doing cold fusion since 1989. They know far
more about electrochemistry than you do. They have degrees in electrochemistry
and they have been working on similar experiments for decades, whereas I do
not think you have any full-time Ph.D. electrochemists in the NHE lab. You
appear to be modeling your work on SRI's program, yet Hokkaido University's
results are far superior to anything SRI has ever achieved. I cannot
understand why you ignore such splendid work in your own back yard while you
attempt to replicate experiments by people who having difficulty replicating
that work themselves. I do not think that you or anyone else can suggest a
valid reason to doubt the Hokkaido University results. Their calorimeters are
not as sophisticated as those of SRI, but they are simpler and more reliable,
and the excess heat is 30 times larger than SRI's relative to input, so it is
easier to detect with confidence.

Again I must urge you to spend some time in the labs at Hokkaido University
observing the experiments and learning the techniques from people who have
spent their careers doing electrochemistry. You cannot master a highly
technical skill by any other means. I have never heard of anyone gaining a
Ph.D. level of understanding of electrochemistry by reading textbooks and
scientific papers alone. (And for that matter, let me repeat the hard truth:
your people are ignoring many of the key scientific papers.) I urge you to get
a fully made-up, prepared cell from Ohmori, bring it back to your lab, and
test it with your own instruments. Do not attempt to make one yourself at
first. After you have verified and mastered a cell made up by an expert, then
it will be time to try to make one yourself. I discussed this work in detail
with Ohmori and Mizuno, while I was translating their papers into English. The
experiment is much harder than it looks. A step-by-step learning process is
essential. I have successfully completed several technical R&D projects during
my 20-year career. I always did it by starting at the beginning, admitting my
ignorance, going step-by-step, and learning from experts. I never expected to
get things right without help. You must take advantage of every opportunity to
make the job easier and to improve the likelihood of success.

You have seen dramatic examples of what can go wrong in your own lab with the
Pons and Fleischmann boil-off experiment. Even with some direct, hands-on help
from Stan Pons, you were not able to replicate this in 20 attempts. Both SRI
[10] and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEREM) [11] were able to
replicate this experiment. Why did they succeed where you failed? I believe it
is because: 1. McKubre is an experienced electrochemist; 2. Lonchampt et al.
got more direct, hands-on assistance from Pons and Fleischmann over a longer
period of time than you did; 3. Lonchampt insisted on doing a rigorous
precise, engineering-style replication, down to the last wire. He is an
engineer. He works the way an engineer would set up a semiconductor production
line: he does everything exactly according to the book, making no attempt to
be "creative" or to change anything. He knows that you must master the subject
first, then add your own contribution to the field. I saw several gross
differences between your boil-off cell and Pons and Fleischmann's, starting
with the fact that theirs was half-silvered. I have no idea which differences
in the hardware or protocol caused your cell to fail, but since the experiment
has now been independently replicated twice, it must be your mistake, not Pons
and Fleischmann's. If you had gotten more help, and if you had replicated the
experiment with exactly the same glassware and wires, or better yet, if you
had practiced with a cell and cathode that had worked repeatedly in France,
then your boil-off experiment would have worked as well as CEREM's did. You
could have built on that lesson. You might go back and do so now, but it would
be better to start with an easier, more reliable experiment like Ohmori's.


                           Footnotes

[1] H. Ikegami, "The Next Steps in Cold Fusion," Oyou Butsuri, Vol 62, No. 7,
July 1993, p. 717

[2] E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion
Technology, March 1996.

[3] D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
Cells," ICCF4. Voted Best Paper in Conference by Fleischmann

[4] T. Mizuno, "Formation of 197Pt Radioisotopes In Solid State Electrolyte
Treated by High Temperature Electrolysis in D2 Gas," Infinite Energy, #4

[5] R. Oriani, "A Confirmation of Anomalous Thermal Power Generation From A
Proton-Conducting Oxide," ICCF6, O-036. To be published in Fusion Technology,
1996.

[6] Z. Minevski, "Two Zones of 'Impurities' Observed After Prolonged
Electrolysis of Deuterium on Palladium," Infinite Energy, combined issues 5
and 6, p. 67.

[7] T. Ohmori, "Isotopic Distributions of Heavy Metal Elements Produced During
the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode," ILENR2 and ICCF6, TS-004

[8] M. Swartz, "Deuterium Production and Light Water Excess Enthalpy
Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes," ILENR2

[9] G. Miley, "Nuclear Reaction in Palladium-Hydrogen System," Infinite
Energy, #8

[10] S. Crouch-Baker, "Mass Flow Calorimetric Studies under Non-Steady State
Conditions," ICCF6, P-004

[11] G. Lonchampt, "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiments," ICCF6,
O-044

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 06:13:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16105; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
In-Reply-To: <961022230107_100433.1541_BHG57-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961023055346.24575A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"vv6EA3.0.Vx3.yYXRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1742
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 22 Oct 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote:

> plates plating the whole inside of the cylinder, all like poles outward.  Nix,
> nothing at all, except for the end effects.

Hmmmmmm.

HMMMMMMMM!  I too would say to measure the field.  The composite magnet
you constructed might not *have* a proper radial field. 

Think this way: if you cover a sphere with plate magnets which are each
magnetized through their thickness, the result is not a monopole, the
result is an unmagnetized sphere.  All the fields cancel.

So, if one were to construct a very long, narrow, hollow cylinder of thin
magnet plates having outwardly pointing flux, I'd speculate that there
would be no field in the central part of the cylinder at all.  Just as it
is impossible to construct a point-monopole via a spherical magnet array,
it is impossible to construct a line-monopole with a cylindrical array.

In order to create a cylinder magnet with uniform flux on its curved
surface and very large flux on its end plates, I think you need *weak*
magnet plates plastered all over the curved surface of an iron cylinder.
The core must be far from saturation, so that the strong flux on the
cylinder end plates is able to exist.  It might help to stick big
properly-oriented disk magnets on the flat ends of the cylinder.  Maybe
the end-plate magnets and a squat iron cylinder are all that's needed to
produce a uniformly radial cylindrical field?

I realize that my explanations sound overly glib, and I'm repeatedly
changing them to force them to fit the situation.  On the other hand, I'm
also just speculating out loud, and trying different ideas to see what
might actually fit.  The above version sounds more sensible than most, eh?


.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 07:11:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28761; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
cc: freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, huish@zenergy.com
Subject: freenrg-L 
In-Reply-To: <326CF5DD.2FBA@cyberportal.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961023062642.24575D-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"-6n_81.0.F17.-MYRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1743
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bruce A. Perreault wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, <next-gen@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Stefan!
>  
> >I too have been deceived by th Perrault information.  Like your
> >friend, I purchased the information in response to an ad in the Tesla
> >Society Magazine..  I too was led to believe that the material
> >offered building instructions.  After investing a lot of time and
> >about 700.00 and several converstions with Bruce Perrault, I had to
> >finally sign a nondisclosure statement with a third party in order to
> >eventally  learn from Bruce that the device described in the material
> >I purchased HAD NEVER BEEN BUILT nor was it the device he did build.
> 
> >Mr. Perreault responds:
> 
> >I will check with Mr. Reed Huish as to the details of this "nondisclosure statent,"
> >if I am correct you are in breach of contract! In which case you and your company
> >will see Zenergy and myself in court... 

Mr. Perreault, this goes far beyond my limit.  I've been partly a
disinterested third party to this, but I will not stand by and have you
threaten another freenrg-L member with legal action IN ORDER TO PUNISH HIM
FOR VOICING HIS VALID COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU.

If you did sell plans to a device that had not been built or tested, and
you did not clearly state this fact, that is getting close to fraud.  It
is misrepresenting the nature of the plans by witholding information.

If you sold plans to a device but kept an essential ingredient (radium) 
for success a secret, and did not state this fact upfront while selling
the plans, that also is getting close to fraud.  (I don't mean that you
should have revealed the secret, I mean that you should have stated "this
version of the device has not been tested at the time of publication of
these plans, is not guaranteed to work well, and there is a secret
ingredient which I must withold because of proprietary issues.")

Mr. Humphrey has a valid complaint.  Others who bought the plans have a
valid complaint.  You should take what he says very seriously.  You should
also assume that a very large group of people is watching this
conversation, and think carefully before responding. 

VERY IMPORTANT: you should not assume that Mr. Humphrey is attacking you
for some personal reason.  If you had done to me what you did to Mr.
Humphrey, I would be angry and complaining too.

I don't think I'm biased in this.  What do others think?  Does Chuck H.
have a valid bone to pick?  Are Bruce P.'s actions in this situation
acceptable? 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page





From chuck@cougar.ssi.stratus.com  Wed Oct 23 07:38:44 1996
Received: from mailhub.stratus.com (mailhub.stratus.com [134.111.1.14]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09112; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cougar.ssi.stratus.com (cougar.ssi.stratus.com [198.97.42.123]) by mailhub.stratus.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA05649; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cougar.ssi.stratus.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.0/96.03.29) with SMTP id KAA002.69; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:39:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199610231439.KAA002.69@cougar.ssi.stratus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 10:28:09 +0000
From: "Charlie Hodgson" <chuck@cougar.ssi.stratus.com>
To: "William Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com>,
        "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
Cc: freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, huish@zenergy.com
Subject: Re: freenrg-L
X-Mailer: Ultimedia Mail/2 Lite, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
Content-ID: <53_104_4_846080889>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> I don't think I'm biased in this.  What do others think?  Does Chuck H.
> have a valid bone to pick?  Are Bruce P.'s actions in this situation
> acceptable? 

This thread is begining to look like an Evan Soule monolouge.

Since this is an open invitation, I have to agree with Bill. I watch
this list looking at what others are doing, sparking ideas of my own.

Many posts here are of an experimental nature - we *think* years ago
so-and-so got this to work. We *know* failure is quite likely but
maybe - just maybe we'll do it. 

A plan is not a plan if you can't build what is purported.

Charlie.

One more thing, Mr. Perreault:
When responding to a message PLEASE use traditional quoting
conventions. It is hard to follow your style of posting. If
your mail program is anemic, quote it manually.
 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 09:02:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28636; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610231532.IAA11166@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:32:10 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Critique of the NHE Experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"FMdC_3.0.G_6.lzZRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1745
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:01 PM 10/22/96 EDT, you wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:asami@nhelab.iae.or.jp;
>Kazuaki Matsui >INTERNET:mac@iae.or.jp;
>Elliot Kennel >INTERNET:kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp;
>Hideo Ikegami >INTERNET:ikegami@nifsbbs.nifs.ac.jp;
>Tadahiko Mizuno >INTERNET:mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp;
>Makoto Okamoto >INTERNET:mokamoto@nr.titech.ac.jp;
>Scott Chubb >INTERNET:chubb@ecf.nrl.navy.mil;
>Michael McKubre >INTERNET:mike_mckbure@qm.sri.com;
>Vortex; Arthur; Gene; Chris
>
>Dear Correspondent,
>

>
>I am circulating this draft to Ikegami, Pons and Fleischmann, Storms, Mallove
>and other leading scientists in this field. If anyone has corrections or
>comments, please e-mail them to me by the end of November. If you disagree
>with my analysis and you wish to publish a rebuttal in the magazine, to be
>printed along with this Open Letter, please submit it by that time.
>
>- Jed Rothwell
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Critique Of NHE Experiments
>
>An Open Letter to The NHE Lab Directorate by Jed Rothwell
>


Bravo!
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 09:02:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28628; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610231539.IAA11720@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:39:34 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: biological transmutation---why no replications?
Resent-Message-ID: <"0ziav1.0.5_6.kzZRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1744
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:09 PM 10/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Gene Mallove tole me that there was a paper by a Russian scientist at the
>Japanese CF conference on biological transmutation in bacterial cultures. He
>may try to get permission to publish the paper in IE. Perhaps low energy
>transmutation is not in fact uncommon, we just haven't been looking for it
>and the prevailing paradigms forbid it, so every separate indication is
>denied. There ***must*** be a mistake... Familiar scenario?
>
>Mike Carrell
>
>

I am glad to hear of this.  It looks like this field is beginning to open up
the way it should have 20 years ago.  If it does, Vortex will have had a lot
to do with it.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 09:23:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03524; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v02140b00ae93f95f5535@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:38:53 -0800
To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"blZAj3.0.vs.0DaRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1746
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris Tinsley's homopolar cylinder appears to have been:


 rotating cylinder -->  //////////////////////////////////
  attached magnets -->  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                CL   ------------------ - --------------------


     Beaty correctly surmised that this magnet configuration will produce
only a weak radial magnetic field along most of the length of the cylinder.
The radial field will be strong only near the ends.  Therefore, the actual
distribution of magnetic field would appear to explain Chris's
measurements, ie. that the axial EMF was strong only near the ends.
     The reason the magnetic field is weak in the center is that all the
magnetic flux from the center-pointing poles has no place to go.
Therefore, although the permanent magnets have magnetization or MMF
(analogous to pressure or voltage), the circuit reluctance (analogous to
resistance) is increasingly high for magnets increasingly far from the
ends, and so they end up unable to make more than just a little
contribution to the radial magnetic flux (analogous to fluid flow or
current).
     One could considerably improve things by putting a soft magnetic core,
in the form of a solid cylinder, inside your cylinder with its magnets.  It
shouldn't matter whether this core rotates or is stationary.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From hheffner@anc.ak.net  Wed Oct 23 11:28:47 1996
Received: from anc.ak.net (root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11323; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [204.17.242.73] (unused2-73.ak.net [204.17.242.73]) by anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA16309; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:31:06 -0800
Message-Id: <v01530500ae940ee077b1@[204.17.242.70]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:34:35 -0800
To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>,
        "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: freenrg-L
Cc: freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, huish@zenergy.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 7:01 AM 10/23/96, William Beaty wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bruce A. Perreault wrote:

>> >I will check with Mr. Reed Huish as to the details of this
>>"nondisclosure statent,"
>> >if I am correct you are in breach of contract! In which case you and
>>your company
>> >will see Zenergy and myself in court...
>
>Mr. Perreault, this goes far beyond my limit.  I've been partly a
>disinterested third party to this, but I will not stand by and have you
>threaten another freenrg-L member with legal action IN ORDER TO PUNISH HIM
>FOR VOICING HIS VALID COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU.
>
[snip]
>
>I don't think I'm biased in this.  What do others think?  Does Chuck H.
>have a valid bone to pick?  Are Bruce P.'s actions in this situation
>acceptable?
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623


Here's a vote in support of Bill Beaty.  This series of communications is
an abomination reminiscent of other litigious personages like Archie Pu,
etc., and is a clear demonstration of why moderated lists have value.  Only
worse than vicious dogs are the master that releases them.  (Sorry,
personal predjudice against vicious dogs, lawsuits, and the like.)

If the topic is to go any further it seems that since it is well
established that there is at least one unhappy customer that the complaints
should be dealt with in a detailed, straightforward and cooperative manner.
I don't know of any reputable business that will not allow returns for a
refund if there is a valid reason.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 12:03:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18197; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Oct 96 14:53:00 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: "Michael J. Schaffer" <Schaffer@gav.gat.com>,
        Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961023185300_100433.1541_BHG124-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"-8z603.0.AS4.oecRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1748
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael,

 >  You could considerably improve things by putting a soft magnetic
 > core, in the form of a solid cylinder, inside your cylinder with
 > its magnets.  It shouldn't matter whether this core rotates or is
 > stationary--your choice.

That is exactly how we built it.  There is a massive 'soft' iron core,
with slots cut along its outer length to take the magnets in line. 
Otherwise there really is no way to hold the thing together.  I know the
field is not as strong through the (brass) conductor as it would be with
just a single magnet - for the reasons you suggest.  However, it is
still very strong, and will pull in anything near it.  It is also quite
uniform, since the magnets are touching lengthwise and only a small
fraction of an inch apart along the circumference - the intervening
space is of course the 'shoulders' of soft iron which separate the rows
of magnets.

Actually, I agree it's a bit of a kludge - but anything like this ends
up as a bit of a kludge, despite Norman Horwood's excellent engineering.

All this discussion has set me thinking again, and I just may have some
kind of phenomenological description of the 'general homopolar machine'
in a day or two.  The situation seems quite simple - either our
measurements are crap, or there is no homopolar effect to be obtained
without rotation of the conductor in its own plane.

I do appreciate that I may have screwed up completely....

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 13:00:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA00338; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Oct 96 15:43:09 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: E-mail addresses corrected
Message-ID: <961023194309_72240.1256_EHB172-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZvfMI.0.C5.kPdRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1749
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The version of "Critique of NHE Experiments" I posted here had two incorrect
e-mail addresses in the heading. The correct versions are:

Scott Chubb >INTERNET:CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil;
Michael McKubre >INTERNET:mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com

Also, the version of the document that I got back from Vortex had a scrambled
paragraph, which should have read:

     When researchers repeat a difficult experiment many times over a period
     of months with no success because there is no alternative, that is
     laudable, dogged persistence. That kind of heroic dedication and hard
     work is essential to scientific progress. But when they repeat that same
     experiment for years without success, ignoring better techniques and
     disregarding papers by leading scientists describing their mistakes,
     that is misguided. It shows an inability or unwillingness to learn from
     experience, and from other scientists. It is a tragic waste of talent.
     It is folly. The NHE lab is considered the flagship of cold fusion. It
     has the best equipment and some of the finest, most dedicated and
     skillful workers. You have the opportunity to make scientific history.
     You should not squander such talent and resources on unproductive,
     dead-end experiments.

I am making various corrections as suggestions flow in. I will post an updated
version by and by.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 13:08:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA00634; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Oct 96 15:43:57 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Ragland abstract
Message-ID: <961023194356_72240.1256_EHB172-3@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"OUZ5b.0.m9._QdRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1750
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Here is one of the abstracts from ICCF6 which people might have overlooked.
Evan Ragland is an unassuming 70-year-old retired engineer who does not make a
big deal about himself, but he has done solid work in the past and I take his
claims seriously. I wish I had had a chance to go to Mississippi and observe
the cell he had running there all summer. I talked to him about it, but I did
not get a chance to go. He reports input was between 1 and 2 watts, the flow
rate was 25 ml/min, and the Delta T was generally 4 to 5 deg C, indicating
total output of 8 or 9 watts. He said he would have 10 fully made up cells
fabricated for me in the near future by a firm in Texas, which will cost
between $500 and $800 each. He was not able to mount a physical experiment but
he did display the triode anode-cathode. He hung it on the wall next to
poster. Typical of him.

I believe the triode configuration has much in common with the Takahashi
method and with proton conductors, which were in the spotlight at ICCF6, as I
shall report later.

- Jed


ICCF-6
        
P-016
    
TRIODE CELL EXPERIMENTS FOR CONTROLLED FLEISCHMANN/PONS EFFECT Evan L.
Ragland, The Boiler Works, Diamondhead, MS, USA
        
Experimental research and evaluation of three electrode (triode) cold fusion
electrolysis cells is reported herein. Apparatus development began, after
patent application, in June 1995. The triode apparatus introduces controlled
loading and operation of Fleischmann/Pons-type cells. In August 1995 excess
heat generation was observed in triode apparatus experiments by Dennis Cravens
in his laboratory in New Mexico. In November 1995 the Boiler Works laboratory
in Diamondhead began experimental evaluation of the triode apparatus.
Understanding gained from these experiments led to development of a triode
fusion reactor. The reactor has been in continuous operation since 20 March
1996.  
        
The experimental reactor data base is being applied in further triode
apparatus developments. Near-term goals are, completion of a reactor test bed
for "quick change" cathode specimen evaluation and engineering design of a 5
to 10 KW reactor cell. Thin film cathode specimens prepared by the Materials
Science and Engineering Laboratory of the University of Alabama in Birmingham
are presently ready for test and evaluation. These include Pd film on Ag, Al,
Cu. and quartz substrates and Pt films on Si bead specimens.  
        
Details of triode apparatus operation, control, and experimental results will
be presented. The suggestion is made in conclusion that present experimental
and theoretical understandings of cold fusion are sufficiently advanced for
engineering design and development. If possible, a physical display and/or a
demonstration will be available for inspection.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 16:04:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13283; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae944805e4d5@[204.17.242.75]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:56:27 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Plasma-Induced Transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7abh1.0.NF3.v4gRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1752
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

If you have any interest in EV's (condensed charge), and especially their
role in transmutation, then I recommend checking out the following article
with the subject title:

<http://www.padrak.com/ine/TRANSPAPER.html>

This is published (linked to) on the Institute of New Energy (INE) page.
The authors are Hal Fox, Robert W. Bishop, and Shang-Xian Jin.

The paper discusses the concept of a nuclear reaction creating EV, called a
(NEV).   The paper hypothesizes and discusses quantitatively how positive
ions in an EV can be accelerated to MEV energies, thus overcoming the
coulomb barrier.  Personally, despite some discussion of changed branching
ratios, I think this hypothesis does not account for the lack of radiation
signatures associated with CF or low energy transmutation, and in fact says
"reactions produced by NEV's in a low pressure gas environment will be
similar to the experimental results from a similar bombardment of a target
material with high-energy positive ions."  Despite this, the article may
shed some new light on some experimental observations and represents
another chunck of puzzle pieces fit together.  To me, the article relates
the low voltage electrolysis environment to the higher voltage gas phase
environment in a concrete way.  However, it seems to me, with the
hypothesized inclusion of large numbers of nuceli in the EV (i.e. possibly
10^6 positive ions,) that the distinction between an EV, NEV, and
Bose-Einstein condensate is becoming very blurred.

Of secondary interest from the article may be the technique of using an AM
radio to determine if EV's are being generated.  This may relate to Frank
Znidarsic's request for instrumentation ideas for the YUSMAR.  It would be
interresting to determine if sonoluminescent bubbles emit detectable radio
waves.  The antenna could either be in the form of a probe or a coil.   A
probe, in the form of a small insulated antenna could be placed in the
YUSMAR vortex tube, mounted in a machine screw fitting with coaxial cable
output lead.  A small FET could be mounted on the machine screw to amplify
the signal before sending down the coax, the whole assembly shielded with
foil.  An alternative might be mounting antenna coils on the inside walls
of the vortex tube.  If the quantity and intensity of bubbles related to
the amplitude of an RF signal, then the signal could be used to tune the
device and determine if it is operating in the correct mode.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 22:17:38 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA06445; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326EFC2F.3260@rt66.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:18:39 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: "NASA'S Fling With Anti-Gravity"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"6XoSc3.0.ca1.UjlRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1755
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

"Science", Oct. 11, 1996, page 183, on "Random Samples" page, has a 1/3
page article:  

"Anti-gravity-- this year's "cold fusion"?  Gravity is one force that
has always seemed immutable.  But, if dreams come through at NASA, a
device that uses a spinning disk of superconductor to defy gravity could
one day revolutionize spacecraft propulsion...London Sunday Telegraph
came out with a story touting a soon-to-be published paper by engineer
Eugene Podkletnov, a sometime researcher at Finland's University of
Tampere...In the ensuing publicity--which included confusion over the
identity of a co-author--Podklenov  withdrew his paper, scheduled to
appear in the British Journal of Physics D....But NASA has already sunk
several hundred thousand dollars into the anti-gravity game, according
to L. Whitt Brantley, chief of the Advanced Concepts Office at Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama...physicist Ning Li of the
University of Alabama...currently heads a project to build Podkletnov's
device...electromagnetically suspended ring of superconducting ceramic,
275 millimeters in diameter, that is cooled in liquid nitrogen...
Engineer Ronald Koczor of the Marshall Center, who readily admits that
"This is far-out stuff," says that they ought to get results from the
experiment within a year...Paul Chu of the superconductivity center of
the University of Houston...says he heard a presentation by Li, but
neither he nor his colleagues fully understand "What Li was trying to
say."...Podketnov could not be reached for comment.  Indeed, NASA
officials don't seem to know how to reach him..."

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 23 23:47:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA22307; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 24 Oct 96 02:41:46 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: "NASA'S Fling With Anti-Gravity"
Message-ID: <961024064145_76216.2421_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"gvJOS1.0.TS5.n_mRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1756
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>From the "Science" article...

   >  Paul Chu of the superconductivity center of the University of
   >  Houston...says he heard a presentation by Li, but neither he
   >  nor his colleagues fully understand "What Li was trying to
   >  say."

That's the most discouraging thing in there. I had been wondering what Chu and
the other superconductor gods thought about Li's theories, but this is the
first I'd heard. I wonder if there's a language/speech barrier involved?
Personally, the list of why *I* don't understand starts off with a little thing
called Vector Calculus. But a Nobel laurate?

Terry, is Dr. Li easy to listen to and understand in person, or would you guess
the problem is with the math or some incompleteness or vagueness in the
theories?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 01:47:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA22816; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Oct 96 19:26:55 EDT
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@CompuServe.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961023232654_76216.2421_HHB68-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"x_wm4.0.Ja5.lhgRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1754
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Chris Tinsley wrote:

   >  All this discussion has set me thinking again, and I just may
   >  have some kind of phenomenological description of the 'general
   >  homopolar machine' in a day or two.  The situation seems quite
   >  simple - either our measurements are crap, or there is no
   >  homopolar effect to be obtained without rotation of the
   >  conductor in its own plane.

I forget now, does rotating the external circuit around a stationary
magnet/disk generate current? What if the bulk of the external circuit is
shielded magnetically in either case? 

I'm fine with wires and sheet metal cutting flux, but that point right where
the brush makes contact with the (relatively?) rotating disk is where it all
stops making sense to me.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 03:48:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19413; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Oct 96 17:58:25 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961023215824_100060.173_JHB47-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"elRgk3.0.Cl4.wQgRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1753
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

Michael Schaffer said:

>> One could considerably improve things by putting a soft magnetic core,
in the form of a solid cylinder, inside your cylinder with its magnets.  It
shouldn't matter whether this core rotates or is stationary.

Michael J. Schaffer <<

If I can try to clarify the design of the model I made:

I made a central soft steel thick walled tube with 8 x 5mm deep splines equally 
spaced around the circumference.

The (25mm x 12mm x 5mm" N-S) magnets were slotted into the splines with like 
poles radially aligned and the ends forced together along the length of the 20 
cm assembly.  The circumferential spacing left 12mm wide gaps between the rows so that there was a path for the radial flux for all the magnets.

The outer brass cylinder (82mm o/d 76mm bore x 210mm long) was a sliding fit over the magnets which anyway were firmly attracted to the splined steel cylinder.  The end plugs, which spiggoted all the components in place, were turned wood.  The whole assem
bly was held together by 2 x 8mm dia steel bolts compressing the end plugs longitudinally together.  The whole assembly was mounted on a solid steel shaft located in the wood end plugs.

A Vee pulley was mounted on one end of the shaft and driven by belt from a 1/4 
HP motor at about 3000 rpm.  The whole rotating assembly was supported in heavy 
duty self-aligning ball bearings.

Spring-loaded carbon brushes were mounted on the frame to contact the brass 
cylinder at any position along the length of the brass cylinder and wired to 
the dvm.

The only position to give a reading on the dvm was with the brushes both close 
to one end of the assembly.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 04:01:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA08419; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 03:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 03:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae94f691cb11@[204.17.242.75]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:53:53 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"TLNku2.0.S32.ZbqRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1757
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>
>I made a central soft steel thick walled tube with 8 x 5mm deep splines
>equally
>spaced around the circumference.
>
>The (25mm x 12mm x 5mm" N-S) magnets were slotted into the splines with like
>poles radially aligned and the ends forced together along the length of the 20
>cm assembly.  The circumferential spacing left 12mm wide gaps between the
>rows so that there was a path for the radial flux for all the magnets.
>
[snip]
>Norman


There's the problem - the gaps between rows that permits the return of the
radial flux. At best the radial flux, except at the ends of the cylinder,
makes a two way trip through the cyclindrical conductor, thus cancelling.
You need the flux to make a one way trip through the conductive cylinder
and return through the ends of the cylinder without cutting the cylinder
again.   The only way to do this is to provide a magnetic circuit from the
outside of the cylinder, through the one end or both, and back through the
inside center of the steel cylinder.  In other words, the magnetic core
about the conductive cylinder might consist of an iron block with a
cylinder bored into it to accomodate the rotating assembly.  As Michael
Schaffer points out, the magnetic core inside the steel armature could
either rotate with it or not.

Also, the flux must be uniform.  If the flux is not uniform the voltage
generated is determined by the weakest link. If there are any gaps in
potential gradient you could expect eddy currents in the outer conductive
cylinder - if the cylinder/field have relative velocity.  Since you are
having the magnets rotate with the conducting cylinder, the voltage is
generated entirely by the flux lines cutting the stator.  For this reason,
the lack in uniformity in your radial magnetic field due to the spline
separations will cause an AC component to be generated in the stator.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 04:03:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA27778; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae9443f6f084@[204.17.242.73]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:53:02 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: freenrg-L
Resent-Message-ID: <"UsKjZ3.0.wn6.s9fRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1751
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 7:01 AM 10/23/96, William Beaty wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bruce A. Perreault wrote:

>> >I will check with Mr. Reed Huish as to the details of this
>>"nondisclosure statent,"
>> >if I am correct you are in breach of contract! In which case you and
>>your company
>> >will see Zenergy and myself in court...
>
>Mr. Perreault, this goes far beyond my limit.  I've been partly a
>disinterested third party to this, but I will not stand by and have you
>threaten another freenrg-L member with legal action IN ORDER TO PUNISH HIM
>FOR VOICING HIS VALID COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU.
>
[snip]
>
>I don't think I'm biased in this.  What do others think?  Does Chuck H.
>have a valid bone to pick?  Are Bruce P.'s actions in this situation
>acceptable?
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623


Here's a vote in support of Bill Beaty.  This series of communications is
an abomination reminiscent of other litigious personages like Archie Pu,
etc., and is a clear demonstration of why moderated lists have value.  Only
worse than vicious dogs are the master that releases them.  (Sorry,
personal predjudice against vicious dogs, lawsuits, and the like.)

If the topic is to go any further it seems that since it is well
established that there is at least one unhappy customer that the complaints
should be dealt with in a detailed, straightforward and cooperative manner.
I don't know of any reputable business that will not allow returns for a
refund if there is a valid reason.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 04:07:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA10332; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis)
Date: 24 Oct 96 04:02:06 -0700 (+0100)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-ID: <minimail_326f3e9f_f3895@earthlink.net>
Subject: Magnetic Entrainment... (forwarded)
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga
 (http://www.lls.se/~volley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"s73d9.0.IX2.xpqRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1758
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

What's H-field with no E-field ???

- ----- Beginning of forwarded mail ----- -

garwonko@msn.com (Dr. Gar Won Ko) 

FS: Brainwave Entrainment System

23 Oct 96 19:08:54 -0700 The Microsoft Network (msn.com) 

Newsgroups: 
    bionet.neuroscience 

I have an ensemble for entraining any specific frequency within the 4 
windows, i.e., 0.05 to 3.5 Hz (Thelta); 4.0 to 8.0 Hz (Theta); 8.0 to 
13.0 Hz (Alpha); and 13.0 to 25.0 Hz (Beta). The rate of irritability 
with some human systems is 6.67 Hz. A state of Zen or enlightenment 
is near 7.5 to 8.0 Hz. Riotous behavior is represented at 11.35 Hz 
for some humans. There are neuronal frequencies for every emotional 
state or specific or precise state of consciousness, 
subconsciousness, or superconsciousness. The system achieves this in 
a purely magnetic wave or
H-field with no E-field (electric wave) present. There is no other 
apparatus like this in existence. This system is for sale ($72K).    
garwonko@msn.com
 
- ----- End of forwarded mail ----- -
72,000 dollars !?!?
--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 04:10:53 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA11391; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae940ee077b1@[204.17.242.70]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:34:35 -0800
To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>,
        "Bruce A. Perreault" <nuenergy@cyberportal.net>
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: freenrg-L
Cc: freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com, huish@zenergy.com
Resent-Message-ID: <"oB-9G2.0.un2.XFcRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1747
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 7:01 AM 10/23/96, William Beaty wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Bruce A. Perreault wrote:

>> >I will check with Mr. Reed Huish as to the details of this
>>"nondisclosure statent,"
>> >if I am correct you are in breach of contract! In which case you and
>>your company
>> >will see Zenergy and myself in court...
>
>Mr. Perreault, this goes far beyond my limit.  I've been partly a
>disinterested third party to this, but I will not stand by and have you
>threaten another freenrg-L member with legal action IN ORDER TO PUNISH HIM
>FOR VOICING HIS VALID COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU.
>
[snip]
>
>I don't think I'm biased in this.  What do others think?  Does Chuck H.
>have a valid bone to pick?  Are Bruce P.'s actions in this situation
>acceptable?
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623


Here's a vote in support of Bill Beaty.  This series of communications is
an abomination reminiscent of other litigious personages like Archie Pu,
etc., and is a clear demonstration of why moderated lists have value.  Only
worse than vicious dogs are the master that releases them.  (Sorry,
personal predjudice against vicious dogs, lawsuits, and the like.)

If the topic is to go any further it seems that since it is well
established that there is at least one unhappy customer that the complaints
should be dealt with in a detailed, straightforward and cooperative manner.
I don't know of any reputable business that will not allow returns for a
refund if there is a valid reason.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 05:35:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA28633; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01530501ae95136a9232@[204.17.242.80]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:37:29 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Hieronymous machine - Success!
Resent-Message-ID: <"Eb2FO.0.G_6.V6sRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1759
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

8^)


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 24 05:50:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA01671; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 24 Oct 96 08:42:10 EDT
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961024124210_100433.1541_BHG50-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yrs8H1.0.-P.uHsRo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1760
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 > There's the problem - the gaps between rows that permits the
 > return of the radial flux. At best the radial flux, except at the
 > ends of the cylinder, makes a two way trip through the
 > cyclindrical conductor, thus cancelling.

Um.  I do wonder about that.  If you make a Faraday disk in the same way
- by sticking separate magnets onto a sheet of copper, leaving gaps
between them, even much bigger gaps than the width of the magnets ....
it works fine.  You get a strong net signal *one way*.  Once again, I'm
sure that intuition is a poor guide to this thing.  Everyone who has not
spent a lot of time playing with these little buggers seems quite sure
how they work, while us poor experimenters end up banging our heads on
the wall!

I think the problem is that under no circumstances ever have I been able
to get a signal without rotation within the plane of the conductor.  I'm
still trying to puzzle out the two-magnets-in-a-cylinder system, but I
think that in that system it is an inside-out disk, with the two brushes
'rotating' around the 'fixed' tube.

But the more I think about it, the more I feel confused.  And I've seen
quite a few FAQs on homopolar systems, none of which seem to fit the
observations I have made.  Either our cylinder/flat plane results are in
error, or the whole idea behind the things is wrong.

Rick's questions are good ones, but I don't know the answers.

At a wild guess, my thoughts on it are thus:

Relative motion is required between two conductors, one of which is in
the flux going one way, and the other is in the flux return path
- and there is *relative motion* between them.  Further, the relative
motion between them must be such that one is (relative to the other)
rotating in the plane of its surface (I think).  Brush contact is
essential for any effect to be possible.

About the only other thing I am certain of is that you can't treat one
of the conductors in isolation from the other one.  That's the way the
books always treat the system, but I beg leave to be sceptical!

Oh - I don't take freenrg, but as far as I am concerned Bill has to be
right.  It is his ball, he does all the hard labour so that we can
chat here.  Accordingly, *he* sets the rules and *we* stick by them.

Chris

From webhead-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 07:42:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00179; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com, webhead-L@eskimo.com, freenrg-L@eskimo.com
Subject: MAIL CRASH AT ESKIMO.COM 
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961025073137.24707E-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"dhvux3.0.k2.H-CSo"@mail>
Resent-From: webhead-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: webhead-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <webhead-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/47
X-Loop: webhead-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: webhead-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




Eskimo.com email was screwy yesterday (thurs) and yesterday night.
All email was either bounced or eaten, and digests were apparently
affected.  Please re-send anything which hasn't come back to you via the
list, or which hasn't appeared in the monthly archive.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 08:00:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03894; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:45:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: HOW TO SPIN THATS THE?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-id: <01IB22ILAXBM8YC709@delphi.com>
X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Resent-Message-ID: <"DPbyh1.0.my.8BDSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1786
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




>Subj:   RE: Spinning magnetic fields

>What evidence is there that the field does not spin with the
magnet?
>Horace Heffner
*************************
>The field must rotate with the magnet since the field lines
are composites
>of many field lines from many small domains........The
magnetic
>field lines must move with and be connected to the domain

>Horace Heffner
*************************
>.....conductor cuts stationary mag field
>.... rotating mag field cuts external

>Hal Puthoff

Evidence exist that the magnetic field location is independent
of the material producing it. A flux line (if lines exist) does
not have a specific geographic location where it enters and
leaves a magnetic material as suggested by domain "theory"
(which I have posted my feelings about a few moons back, to
many inconsistencies).

No need for complex experiments: use two donut magnets
magnetized across largest dimension. (north and south on top
and bottom). One magnet is fixed in position, wrap fine magnet
wire (about 33 ga or less)  thru the center hole and around the
magnet about 100 turns or so in about a 30 to 50 degree sector
on one side of the donut magnet (like a toroid but not all the
way around),  A fixed shaft is placed thru the center hole of
the fixed magnet. The other magnet is fitted with a bearing in
the center hole, and placed on the shaft with a spacer to hold
it just above (as close as possible) to the conductors on the
fixed magnet so that it can spin freely. The spinning magnet is
placed so that it is attracted to the fixed magnet (opposite
poles facing). Hook a scope to the coil leads. Spin the upper
magnet.

If the magnetic flux is pinned to geographic domains then the
flux of the fixed magnet must constantly uncouple and couple to
new geographic locations on the spinning magnet. If this occurs
then the flux will move back and forth relative to the
conductors. This would be a changing flux cutting the
conductors and would appear as a potential across the coil.
Whether current is flowing or not is moot, if a potential is
measured across the coil then a small amount of current is
flowing thru the impedance of the scope. The potential would
have AC since the lines would be moving back and forth as they
uncouple and couple.

or

If a potential is measured but has DC then the field is free to
move and is pinned to the spinning magnet.

or

If no potential is exhibited by the coil then the field is free
to move independent of any particular geographic location on
the spinning magnet and might be pinned by the stationary
magnet.

But since there is no physical reason why the field would
choose which magnet to pin to then no potential would give
reason to believe that the field is FIXED in space about the
magnetic field producing material and ONLY moves with the PLANE
of the material. Spinning as described here does not move the
plane. However a conductor moving in a magnetic field does
change position relative to the plane of the material. The
plane of the material is a plane that extends from the center
of the mass of the material, the exact dividing line between
the north and south pole, and this plane extends outward in all
directions from the material along the polar division. THE
MAGNETIC FIELD IS FIXED TO THE PLANE, NOT THE MAGNETIC
MATERIAL.   A homo-polar motor's disk also changes position
relative to this plane.

Different coil configurations can be used, but remember to only
place one half of the current loop between the magnets. Both
sides of the loop between the magnets would cancel.

The above is from a paper I am publishing in the near future
"External Magnetic Effects on Current Loops in Stationary
Magnetic Fields". It is based on 25 years of study and
experimentation on this subject. Anyone wanting further
information on the publication or more accurate coil
configuration for the above experiment E-mail
joeflynn@delphi.com

Joe Flynn
Flynn Research Inc.
P.O. Box 11657
Kansas City, Mo. 64138

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 08:26:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07482; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <bilb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Institutions and policies that can bring us closer to workable free energy (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961025080112.925O-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"OfF7v.0.nq1.BPDSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1787
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



................................freenrg-L....................................
William Beaty   bilb@eskimo.com   EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd
Moderator: FREENRG-L   VORTEX-L   TAOSHUM-L   WEBHEAD-L
http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com  voice:206-781-3320 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:53:47 -0400
From: Kap808@aol.com
Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Institutions and policies that can bring us closer to workable free energy
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Brian O'Leary and I are in the final
stages of preparing an article for the general public on free energy
developments, which we will first submit to the NY Times Magazine.  We would
like to get your views regarding the kinds of policies or practices by public
or private groups that would best facilitate research and development in the
field.  How can people best use the Internet? Should new groups be formed?
 Would it be useful to create a free energy mutual fund?  What role should
government play?  Active investor in research?  Conduct research in
government laboratories?  Or should government just get out of the way?
Are new institutions needed?  

This is your chance to play "statesman" or "stateswoman".  Tell us your
views. If you want your views to be kept confidential, you can write to me at
3635 SW 87th, #12, Portland, OR 97225.  We want to be able to report what
people who are active in this field believe about how we can best move into a
free-energy world. Thanks in advance for your responses.   Steve Kaplan &
Brian O'Leary

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 09:01:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17680; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000ACCA8@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EEG   entrainment
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:36:00 -0700
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cOAa12.0.4K4.AyDSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1788
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

John
	As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
for a researcher to try and develop this?
 -Hank Scudder
<snip>
 ----------

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 09:40:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28905; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
cc: Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EEG entrainment
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000ACCA8@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025121556.12579I-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"5XlZ-1.0.Z37.VZESo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1789
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	There are maybe 20 such 'systems' either on the market now or 
soon to be released ..... prices range from $ 200 to $ 25K

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:

> John
> 	As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
> have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
> which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
> be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
> for a researcher to try and develop this?
>  -Hank Scudder
> <snip>
>  ----------

	My personal outfit has trouble finding the 'hat' .... much less 
the rest!



> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 09:58:54 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00988; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 25 Oct 96 12:23:56 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961025162355_100060.173_JHB96-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"579pw.0.MF.ufESo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1790
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Garry,

>> To figure out what you're dealing with, you find the boundaries.  There are 
two ways to find them, either having someone show you, or you bump into them.  
When you're the first explorer in that part of the cave, you've only one choice.

So hats off to you.

Gary Hawkins <<


Thanks pal!

One of the problems is that unless you have a close contact with a higher level
of technology to bounce your results and ideas off, you have difficulty in
making positive progress.  The obverse is that often those who are further
advanced in current technology can put you off trying anything non-standard.
Angels rush in etc.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 10:10:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02528; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610251631.JAA15202@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:31:31 +0900
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Institutions and policies that can bring us closer to
  workable free energy (fwd)
Resent-Message-ID: <"9bfPH3.0.Nd.-kESo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1791
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:01 AM 10/25/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>................................freenrg-L....................................
>William Beaty   bilb@eskimo.com   EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd
>Moderator: FREENRG-L   VORTEX-L   TAOSHUM-L   WEBHEAD-L
>http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com  voice:206-781-3320 
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:53:47 -0400
>From: Kap808@aol.com
>Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
>To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Institutions and policies that can bring us closer to workable
free energy
>Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
>Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com
>
>As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Brian O'Leary and I are in the final
>stages of preparing an article for the general public on free energy
>developments, which we will first submit to the NY Times Magazine.  We would
>like to get your views regarding the kinds of policies or practices by public
>or private groups that would best facilitate research and development in the
>field.  How can people best use the Internet? Should new groups be formed?
> Would it be useful to create a free energy mutual fund?  What role should
>government play?  Active investor in research?  Conduct research in
>government laboratories?  Or should government just get out of the way?
>Are new institutions needed?  
>
>This is your chance to play "statesman" or "stateswoman".  Tell us your
>views. If you want your views to be kept confidential, you can write to me at
>3635 SW 87th, #12, Portland, OR 97225.  We want to be able to report what
>people who are active in this field believe about how we can best move into a
>free-energy world. Thanks in advance for your responses.   Steve Kaplan &
>Brian O'Leary
>
>

1.  Policy should not be restricted to free energy devices, as there may be
important supplementary technology techniques which will be of considerable
assistance in the commercialization of the devices,such as Muller's
polycrystalline core material.

2.  Increase budgets to Federal Labs expressly for working on a short
turn-over with INDIVIDUAL INVENTORS AND EXPERIMENTERS to validate claims and
measure parameters using the best of scientific methods and equipment, even
if the basic concept to be examined seems dufously simplistic and supposedly
impossible.  Make use of the Wright brothers and the "impossibility of human
flight" as an historical example.

3.  Commission with $40 million a national commission composed of
non-academics and non-corporate-executives-of-fortune-500-companies to
undertake a national examination of how human individuals, every American
citizen qua citizen, have been systematically closed out of the policy
dialog and action agenda of institutions by a systematic organization of
special interest groups, all corporataly or bureaucratically based, focusing
on the inability of technically and scientifically creative individuals, qua
individuals, to interact meaningfully and usefully with the scientific and
educational institutions of this once fine land.

3.  Create a parallel to the Small Business Innovation Research program but
cast it as the "Science and Technology Innovation Reseach" program - STIR.
Eliminate the need for "matching grants" (these insure that only corporate
based people can get access to the grants).  Make the grants more realistic
in size, more flexible in amount, and granted on a continous stream, as
approved, not on some hideous schedule which batches them into approval a
year down the road.  Something like $25,000 to $250,000 in grants, put $100
million into it.  A program like that will make patriots out of a lot of people.

4.  Pound like hell on the academics and the absolute necessity to see that
science and technology policy is broadened right on past them.  Everywhere
in this country they are croaking all over creative thought and innovation
like big fat ugly smelley toads.  Keep exposing them for the selfish,
competitive interests they really are and their use of institutional
"legitimacy" to shut everybody else out.

5.  Demand that the Federal and State Governments obey the constitution and
strip all requirements that availability of money and position is tied to
degreed eligibility requirements.  Or, recognize what degrees are, a title,
which when required, is actually the conferment of aristocratic privilege,
hence, clearly unconstitutional.

6.  Institute an absolute credit on income taxes, an absolute write-off for
investment in technical and scientific education, activity, and early stage
development (which is anything before profits).

7.  Enable non-profits and foundations to GIVE MONEY TO INDIVIDUALS AS
INDIVIDUALS, science and scholar stipends which do not have special
reporting requirements, deductions, or other bureacratic impositions on
either the giver or the getter.  In the country today, the corporate
non-profit community ONLY gives money to non-profit corporates.  Another
example of how the individual has been turned into a nigger in the woodpile.
Totally insane.

8.  Eat nails for breakfast.  Bite tires for lunch.  Realize that we need to
kick the shit of the institutional presumptions of the comfortable.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From FZNIDARSIC@aol.com  Fri Oct 25 11:39:07 1996
Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02775; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05337; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:38:06 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:38:06 -0400
Message-ID: <961025143805_1582160921@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu,
        CldFusion@aol.com, david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, billb@eskimo.com,
        76570.2270@compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com,
        zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com,
        fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, tlpst15+@pitt.edu,
        gam+@pitt.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Yusmar tests continued.
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Yusmar tests continued.
Date:    96-10-25 14:34:38 EDT
From:    FZNIDARSIC
To:      FZNIDARSIC

Many more tests of the Yusmar system have just been completed.  For the
latest see:

http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html

or if you system supports auto E-Mial links, pick the link below.


See the latest at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusma
r Tests</A>

Frank Znidarsic



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 10:59:01 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19364; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis)
Date: 25 Oct 96 10:43:39 -0700 (+0100)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025121556.12579I-100000@college> (by: John
 Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>)
Message-ID: <minimail_3270ee3b_d489c@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: EEG entrainment
Organization: ROSHI Corporation
X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga
 (http://www.lls.se/~volley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"Lxoq.0.Ok4.ZoFSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1792
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 25 Oct 1996 12:17 -0400 (+0400), John Schnurer wrote to me:

>  There are maybe 20 such 'systems' either on the market now or 
> soon to be released ..... prices range from $ 200 to $ 25K

  Please, tell me more about this, John. I'm very interested in this
  process. $72k is a bit much ;)

> On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:

>> John
>>    As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
>> have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
>> which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
>> be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
>> for a researcher to try and develop this?
>> -Hank Scudder
>> <snip>
>> ----------

>  My personal outfit has trouble finding the 'hat' .... much less 
> the rest!

  How come the hat is a problem?

Thanx,
--
    .-.                                                               .-.
   /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
  /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
-/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------=
\--
    RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
           \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
            `-'                                               `-'
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind=
s.
 -Albert Einstein-

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 11:33:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27098; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <m0vGpfu-000GvNC@netra.interlaced.net>
From: "Francis J. Stenger" <fstenger@interlaced.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:03:29 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"m-lbB1.0.Kd6.VEGSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1793
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



----------
> From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
> Date: Friday, October 25, 1996 4:46 AM
>
(snip)
 
> No need for complex experiments: use two donut magnets
> magnetized across largest dimension. (north and south on top
> and bottom). One magnet is fixed in position, wrap fine magnet
> wire (about 33 ga or less)  thru the center hole and around the
> magnet about 100 turns or so in about a 30 to 50 degree sector
> on one side of the donut magnet (like a toroid but not all the
> way around),  A fixed shaft is placed thru the center hole of
> the fixed magnet. The other magnet is fitted with a bearing in
> the center hole, and placed on the shaft with a spacer to hold
> it just above (as close as possible) to the conductors on the
> fixed magnet so that it can spin freely. The spinning magnet is
> placed so that it is attracted to the fixed magnet (opposite
> poles facing). Hook a scope to the coil leads. Spin the upper
> magnet.

Joe, I guess I don't see why you would expect an emf from the pickup coil
whether
or not the field spun with the magnet!  It seems to me, if I understand the
above
setup, that there is no magnetic flux threading the PLANE OF THE COIL TURNS!
It seems to me that your setup involves an axially-symmetric magnetic field -
with
no flux in the THETA (around the large ring magnet circumference) direction.
Your pickup coil seems to be wound with the coil loops in the r-z plane (again,
using
cylindrical coordinates) in which case they would be decoupled from any changes
or movement of the magnetic field.  What say you to my query?

With ignorance probably showing again, --------Frank Stenger

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 11:48:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01160; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961025184004.00714510@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:40:04 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
Resent-Message-ID: <"QbLy_.0.yH.ZUGSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1794
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>Subj:   RE: Spinning magnetic fields
>
>>What evidence is there that the field does not spin with the
>magnet?

>Evidence exist that the magnetic field location is independent
>of the material producing it. A flux line (if lines exist) does
>not have a specific geographic location where it enters and
>leaves a magnetic material as suggested by domain "theory"

What then, is going on.  Lines of flux might then be made up 
of strings of spinning ether, where the spin is not produced 
by any one set of magnetic domains, but from some other means.  
If there is no grip on the lines of flux by the magnetic material, 
then there would be an important key of understanding to be found 
there.

Gary Hawkins 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Technology                   Tomorrow's Technology Today
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                        Seattle, WA

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 12:06:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA02313; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EEG entrainment
In-Reply-To: <minimail_3270ee3b_d489c@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025143331.24113D-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"lyhFd1.0.2a.5ZGSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1795
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	The Hat .... is a euphemism for pass the hat  ... or a hat to_____
in

On 25 Oct 1996, Chuck Davis wrote:

> On 25 Oct 1996 12:17 -0400 (+0400), John Schnurer wrote to me:
> 
> >  There are maybe 20 such 'systems' either on the market now or
> > soon to be released ..... prices range from $ 200 to $ 25K
> 
>   Please, tell me more about this, John. I'm very interested in this
>   process. $72k is a bit much ;)
> 
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:
> 
> >> John
> >>    As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
> >> have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
> >> which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
> >> be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
> >> for a researcher to try and develop this?
> >> -Hank Scudder
> >> <snip>
> >> ----------
> 
> >  My personal outfit has trouble finding the 'hat' .... much less
> > the rest!
> 
>   How come the hat is a problem?
> 
> Thanx,
> --
>     .-.                                                               .-.
>    /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
>   /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
> -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
>     RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
>            \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
>             `-'                                               `-'
> Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
>  -Albert Einstein-
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 12:07:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03231; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:38:06 -0400
Message-ID: <961025143805_1582160921@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu,
        CldFusion@aol.com, david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, billb@eskimo.com,
        76570.2270@compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com,
        zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, 75013.613@compuserve.com,
        fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, tlpst15+@pitt.edu,
        gam+@pitt.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Yusmar tests continued.
Resent-Message-ID: <"LYCR_1.0.Mo.YcGSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1796
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Yusmar tests continued.
Date:    96-10-25 14:34:38 EDT
From:    FZNIDARSIC
To:      FZNIDARSIC

Many more tests of the Yusmar system have just been completed.  For the
latest see:

http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html

or if you system supports auto E-Mial links, pick the link below.


See the latest at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusma
r Tests</A>

Frank Znidarsic



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 12:27:06 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05003; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:45:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EEG entrainment
In-Reply-To: <minimail_3270ee3b_d489c@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025143727.24113E@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q61a91.0.3E1.RjGSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1797
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear Vo.,

	This whole field of brain actuated devices is so scattered and 
poorly understood ... mis represented and so on it would take me pages to 
bring you up to speed.   The BEST thing to do is to look through the 
gizmo adds ... I think there is one in the latest Wired, call the 
'foof' science mags like Omni and Discover and see if anyone is either 
adverstising or for press releases...  get the idea?

	But the BEST thing to do of all is to educate yourself .... read 
some regular biomedical engineering texts, talk to some doctors in the 
field.   Would you expect to knw the really effective ins and out of auto 
racing or fly fishing with no background?

	Yes it is interesting.  and 'cars' range from models, to go 
carts, to chevvys, to jet powered Bonneville Salt Flats.

						J




 On 25 Oct 1996, Chuck Davis wrote:

> On 25 Oct 1996 12:17 -0400 (+0400), John Schnurer wrote to me:
> 
> >  There are maybe 20 such 'systems' either on the market now or
> > soon to be released ..... prices range from $ 200 to $ 25K
> 
>   Please, tell me more about this, John. I'm very interested in this
>   process. $72k is a bit much ;)
> 
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote:
> 
> >> John
> >>    As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
> >> have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
> >> which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
> >> be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
> >> for a researcher to try and develop this?
> >> -Hank Scudder
> >> <snip>
> >> ----------
> 
> >  My personal outfit has trouble finding the 'hat' .... much less
> > the rest!
> 
>   How come the hat is a problem?
> 
> Thanx,
> --
>     .-.                                                               .-.
>    /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
>   /     \         /   \       .-.     _     .-.       /   \         /     \
> -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\--
>     RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \   /     \_/   `-'     \   /       \     /
>            \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
>             `-'                                               `-'
> Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
>  -Albert Einstein-
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 14:15:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA06847; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961025210608.0067b804@mail.eskimo.com>
X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:06:08 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Gary Hawkins <ghawk@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Institutions and policies that can bring us closer to
  workable free energy (fwd)
Resent-Message-ID: <"3PxO23.0.og1.YdISo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1798
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:01 AM 10/25/96 -0700, you wrote:

>
>As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Brian O'Leary and I are in the final
>stages of preparing an article for the general public on free energy
>developments, which we will first submit to the NY Times Magazine.  We would
>like to get your views regarding the kinds of policies or practices by public
>or private groups that would best facilitate research and development in the
>field.  How can people best use the Internet? Should new groups be formed?
> Would it be useful to create a free energy mutual fund?  What role should
>government play?  Active investor in research?  Conduct research in
>government laboratories?  Or should government just get out of the way?
>Are new institutions needed?  

We need to somehow encourage investors in private enterprise to take a 
look at farout science.  A mere mention toward that by government to 
reduce the stigma surrounding it might help tip the balance.

Success stories from those who invested in individual research, which 
later became well-known companies, like Physio-Control, might help.

The National Science Foundation would be an example of where government 
involvement simply becomes too cumbersome, political, and beaurocratic.  
If that were not so, they would be funding cold fusion, and many smaller 
ones less well publicized.

A good idea, I might call it a *New* Energy Mutual Fund.  And yes, as 
public as it can possibly be, with a newsgroup for it, and a website 
to provide daily news about it.  When it comes to, for example, the 
unusual pieces of metal sent to Art Bell, this group, if done right, 
would jump on that like a mouse on cheese.  It would approach people 
doing research, not wait for them to make a trek to the top of some 
lofty mountain and "apply".

Just some miscellaneous thoughts.

Gary Hawkins
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Technology                   Tomorrow's Technology Today
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/                        Seattle, WA

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 15:59:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26259; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Ultrasound and Thermocouples, Thermistors
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:28:25 +0000
Message-ID: <19961025222823.AAA23236@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"j90QU.0.6Q6.izJSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1800
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Does anyone know how to measure temperatures with either thermocouples or
thermistors in the presence of 30 KHz sound ?  I found that thermocouple
readings give strongly negative readings and that thermistor readings jump
upward a few degrees when 30 KHz frequency is present.  These are not
thermal effects since the readings drop immediately to the expected readings
when the oscillator is turned off.  At frequencies below 3 KHz (I didn't
check frequencies between 3 KHz an 30 KHz) both thermocouple and thermistor
behavior appear to be normal.

I am using a PCL-812PG board in a 486 computer to gather the analog signals
from the transducers.  Voltage measurements, taken at the same time as the
transducer readings, were normal in the 30 KHz field.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 17:24:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA07174; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Ultrasound and Thermocouples, Thermistors
In-Reply-To: <19961025222823.AAA23236@LOCALNAME>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961025201629.24113G-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"6k7473.0.0m1.naLSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1801
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



	Dear VO,

	If any of you do A/D .... especially in these environments ... 
pleas please please  put [go find a ham radio hardware person] a good 
parallel choke/pi and or ladder networks in .....BEFORE A/D board.


On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Edwin Strojny wrote:

> Does anyone know how to measure temperatures with either thermocouples or
> thermistors in the presence of 30 KHz sound ?  I found that thermocouple
> readings give strongly negative readings and that thermistor readings jump
> upward a few degrees when 30 KHz frequency is present.  These are not
> thermal effects since the readings drop immediately to the expected readings
> when the oscillator is turned off.  At frequencies below 3 KHz (I didn't
> check frequencies between 3 KHz an 30 KHz) both thermocouple and thermistor
> behavior appear to be normal.
> 
> I am using a PCL-812PG board in a 486 computer to gather the analog signals
> from the transducers.  Voltage measurements, taken at the same time as the
> transducer readings, were normal in the 30 KHz field.
> 
> Ed Strojny
> 
> 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 19:25:57 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA01161; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:19:28 -0400
Message-ID: <961025221928_1280973213@emout03.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        fstenger@interlaced.net, Puthoff@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: embeded commands
Resent-Message-ID: <"G1U97.0.zH.HMNSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1802
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In case you like the way I embeded a command into your email.  I hope it
works on all browsers.  Example.




See home page at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html">Yusmar
 Tests
</A>


And you would like to do the same.  Make a local file (in notebook or some
other text processer) like the one below.  The file below is the link above.
 It links the blue icon to http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic.index.html.


(HTML)
(P)
See home page at (A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html")Yusmar Tests
(/A)
(/P)
(/HTML)

Replace the http address with your address.  Replace Yusmar Tests with your
title.
Replace the parentheses (  ) with angle brackets < >.  I had to use
parentheses in the example in order to show the code.  Cut and paste the link
into you email.  Wah Lah...Linked Email.  

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 19:59:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14690; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae96de7ff483@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <961022210103_72240.1256_EHB39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:33:52 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Critique of the NHE Experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"QRzBr2.0.Pb3.iBJSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1799
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 This is an excellent critique which will help reinforce the idea in the
view of the skeptics that cold fusion with solid palladium cathodes does
not work.  The implication as I read it is that the two main labs doing
solid palladium CF, SRI and NHE, have now only null results. The solid rod
technique is the oldest and most thoroughly investigated. If that technique
has now been debunked then perhaps it will only be a matter of time until
the newer techniques are also similarly disproved.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 20:25:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12114; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:23:30 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199610260323.WAA12066@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: Ultrasound and Thermocouples, Thermistors
Resent-Message-ID: <"d3YwF3.0.Cz2.4HOSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1803
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Edwin Strojny wrote:

>Does anyone know how to measure temperatures with either thermocouples or
>thermistors in the presence of 30 KHz sound?

>thermistor readings jump upward a few degrees when 30 KHz frequency is present.

Something about yr data acq inputs must be partially rectifying the noise
caused by the kHz signals...causing a DC offset.  Generally I find
thermistors much better in noisy environments than thermocouples.  Stay with
the thermistors and put a hefty RC filter on their signal right at the input
to the ADC board.  You can use a 1 second time constant and you'll still
have plenty of response for most thermal things.  You'll need to use good
low-loss capacitors such as mylar or polypro....I have not had good results
trying to use electrolytics in this situation because their leakage can make
a perceptible change in the measured resistance of the thermistor.

This having been said, I must admit that I have run some really noisy
experiments where I had to turn off the noise briefly in order to read the
temperatures accurately.

just ask if you want more details or suggestions.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Fri Oct 25 21:10:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA20021; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 25 Oct 96 23:58:52 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Critique of the NHE Experiments
Message-ID: <961026035852_72240.1256_EHB87-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"yzSvB1.0.eu4.jpOSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1804
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Larry Wharton writes:

    "This is an excellent critique which will help reinforce the idea in the
    view of the skeptics that cold fusion with solid palladium cathodes does
    not work."

Yes, it probably will, but that is only because the "skeptics" know nothing
about the subject and because they will read the first half of the critique,
skip the part about the French Nuclear Agency and SRI replicating Pons &
Fleischmann and jump to an absurd, totally unwarrented conclusion. The French
work was directed by one of the six agency commissioners -- a man at the
highest level in the French scientific & government establishment. He
expresses no doubt whatsoever that the effect is real, massive, and nuclear.


    "The solid rod technique is the oldest and most thoroughly investigated.
    If that technique has now been debunked . . ."

It has not been debunked. Not by a million miles! IMRA Europe has been running
a cell at boiling, producing hundreds of watts, for three months. When the
the French Nuclear Agency decided to replicate them, they did it right and
got a huge excess at very high power levels. The INFN Italian researchers
brought several rock solid Pd D2O results to ICCF6, showing helium and x-rays
correlated with the heat. They also descsribed scaled up devices producing
200% excess at several hundred watts. The evidence for Pd D2O CF is stronger
by far than it has ever been before.


    " . . . then perhaps it will only be a matter of time until the newer
    techniques are also similarly disproved."

No technique has been disproved. Anyone who thinks that is reading his own
fantasy into the critique, and has never read any of the references. That is
an absurd distortion of what the document says, reflecting on the wistful hope
that CF will go away -- mere wishful thinking. Wharton is like a Christian
Scientist who has glanced at a headline in the newspaper saying "Antibiotics
No Longer Effective in Treating Some Forms of TB" and who has jumped to the
conclusion that no disease anywhere ever responds to any form of antibiotic,
so that we can abandon medical science and ignore experimental evidence from
now on.

The only thing the NHE experiments proved was that if you ignore the
literature and use the wrong materials at the wrong temperatures with mistaken
protocals, the experiment does not work, even when you repeat these mistakes
50 times in a row. I could have told them that years ago. Fleischmann *did*
tell them.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 03:48:10 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA20179; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 26 Oct 96 06:45:29 EDT
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Message-ID: <961026104529_100060.173_JHB83-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"vP9Ui2.0.Dx4.kmUSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1805
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>> Angels rush in etc.

Norman <<

OK so I meant "Fools rush in"    N.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 04:12:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA21664; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 04:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 04:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961026111547.00738504@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 04:15:47 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Decoding EEG
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q-WcF.0.QI5.a7VSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1806
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I would like to point out a possible connection between the "inventor
dependent"  phenomenon discussed here under the Hieronymous machine thread
and one of the KeelyNet files (filename ALTSCI1.*)

This file provides very nice correlation between the EEG emanations from
human brain and physical effects when working with o/u devices.  Especialy
these ones using pulsating magnetic fields or high voltage or rotating
objects like the Podletnkov antigravity.


1) Please notice how similar the Adams motor is in the arangements of
pulsating/rotating magnetic fields.

2) Also please crossreference the SHAPE of "plasma glow" around one of the
Hamel flying disks (http://www.cascadia-net.com/magnet/p66.htm) and the
shape of the electical exitation field described in the KeelyNet article.

3) Taos Hum, HAARP, Searl, ESP, Podletnkov antigravity spinning disk and all
kinds of weird stuff could be related here.


I am including an excerpt from this article below for your convenience.
(It seems far out, but try to read it all and correlate)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

...Excitation and accelerated time, less inertia, gravity, and mass, are all
connected.  Ships may travel hundreds of times faster than light without
time dilation, and energy needed for this is very little.  Communications
are also FTL.  EEG waves from 1-60 Hz  (cycles per second)  ARE telepathy,
but they come from fast time, so they are compressed in time or bandwidth.
Ordinary radios are not quick enough to detect the information.  All we
detect is this 60 Hz signal at light speed but information inside travels
faster than light.   And an ordinary radio will reveal the signal when in an
excited state.*  Man left to himself dreams of a paradise where technology
and nature are in perfect harmony, where he is immortal and free of disease,
needs, and wants, and this can be done directly from mind to product this
very day using lightlines.

	As someone who has worked on the B2 bomber and its more advanced cousins in
the Air Force for twenty years,  I can tell you the whole story is
unbelievable.  Twenty hours is too conservative a time estimate for complete
explanation.  Some crafts we have do use electromagnetism to nullify gravity
and even extract hidden information from EEG waves, but these are not
deployed and will not be until they are needed.  They pump electricity from
inside themselves into a sheet of electricity some distance away, exactly as
the earth is positive "ground" and the ionosphere a negative sheet.  This
sheet bends parallel radar waves around the craft like a water droplet in a
rainbow, or just like the ionosphere bends radio waves, making for long
distance communications.  This is a relatively simple and straightforward
effect.  And it is what Einstein was attempting in Project Rainbow or the
Philadelphia Experiment.  We desperately wanted radar invisibility.  The
Germans were engaged in the same effort fifty years ago.   But electric
vacuum, the vortex field, also causes excitation of atoms in it, which
shifts waves in frequency and accelerates time.  I am willing to reveal all
I know about these things in full detail here.

	The Air Force feels it has nothing to worry about because nobody would
believe these things, even though they require no special admission but are
based entirely on relativity and simple electromagnetic laws.  First,  I
tell how electrons are controlled in electromagnetic fields using physics
and Maxwell's equations.  Then two systems are given for establishing a
"permanent excitation" in a volume.  The practical system uses a magnetic
vortex and weak static field.  Next temporal effects are described by
contrasting how people in gravity and then excitation fields perceive
quanta.  Then FTL travel and communications are discussed, as well as how
EEG waves are telepathy, but information is compressed in time or bandwidth.
By the end you will see there is much more at stake in the government
keeping this secret than gravity alone.
There are three fields we can use to set up such an "electric vacuum" with
external electric sheet.  These are:

(1)  Static magnetic fields
(2)  Alternating magnetic fields
(3)  Pulsating (PDC) magnetic fields

and we need a description of electromagnetics to understand these.  Imagine
a permanent magnet with north pole out of your monitor.  Its flux can be
imagined as a large number of X marks on your screen.  An electron moves in
the plane of the monitor from left to right.  As it cuts flux Lorentz force
F = qvB deflects it downward.  The electron actually spirals clockwise with
radius r = mv / qB, with B in teslas and all other measures in MKSA units.
If the electron came from opposite direction it would spiral same direction,
or clockwise as we see it.
	Lorentz force derives from static magnetic fields when there is relative
motion between the field and electron.  No force is felt when motion is
parallel to magnetic flux, only when flux lines are cut.  And this static
field performs no work.  The relevant Maxwell equation here is curl E =
-dB/dt, and since tesla density is static here, dB/dt is zero, curl E is
zero, and the field is by definition conservative.  No work is done on
electrons, so we deduce electrons spiral but maintain the same velocity or
kinetic energy.

	Static electrons can also be accelerated by magnetic fields.  In that case
curl E is nonzero and we see electrons must absorb energy, or be
accelerated, by the time-variant magnetic field.  This case is actually the
same as the above case, but as current changes in the coil flux expands or
collapses from the coil.  There is still relative motion and electrons still
experience the same Lorentz force.  For example, sending pulsating instead
of direct current through the same coil in the same direction causes the
same spiraling effect on static electrons as the static field had on moving
electrons.  Sending AC through causes periodic reversals of electrons.  The
field around the coil can be given by E(r,t) = 1/2pir*dF/dt, where F is flux
in webers.  The electric lines form concentric circles about the coil, and
another way to say this is E = f * B, where f is frequency in Hz, B is
average tesla density of a periodic current, and E is volts per meter close
to the coil.  These three fields, static, AC, and PDC make for any
manipulation of electrons.

	There are two ways to produce the sheet.  Both require pumping electrons
from inside the ship into a sheet of electricity.  The first does this from
a central magnetic pole.  A strong static magnetic field is set up, and PDC
is sent oppositively through the pole to set up circular electric lines
about it. Electrons are accelerated circularly about the pole and as soon as
they move they experience an outward centrifugal deflection qvB.  Each
electron which leaves the center of the ship creates a positive hole, and so
there is also an internal electric centripetal field F = knqq/rr, where n is
the number of electrons removed to the sheet.  Each electron has potential
energy - kq/r, and the ship has the same potential energy, so it is excited,
because excitation is the only way matter absorbs electric energy without
heating. Also, one may view removing an electron from an atom as "exciting
it past ionization potential."  The problem here is electrons are limited to
speed of light, and one may assume they gain lightspeed or close to it
instantly in any tangible electric field (by v=Eqt/electronmass provided
collision time is high enough).  Thus speed of light acts to limit qvB
centrifugal force and so limit power in the field to around 40 megajoules,
very marginal.

	Another better way is to use a four-coil, two-phase ring, exactly as in
two-phase AC motor stators.  Its field is in every way that of a real
rotating permanent magnet.  Imagine such a magnet in the plane of your
monitor.  We can show flux cuts electrons in such way Lorentz force creates
unidirectional electric lines through the monitor.  That is, electrons are
blown through the screen as air molecules are blown through a circular fan
blade.  Now suppose we set up the same magnet as above, a coil into the
monitor.  Its magnetic flux is perpendicular to that of the rotating
magnetic field.  Electrons are sucked from in front of the monitor, but
since they are limited to lightspeed they enter the static field only so far
before assuming a circular orbit through Lorentz deflection.  Electrons are
pulled from inside the ship parallel to static lines, but when they begin to
cut static lines just below your monitor screen they spiral out to the same
radius as above.  Without velocity greater than light they can go no
farther.  So lightspeed, once our enemy, now means we can put almost any
energy into the field we wish.  No energy is lost in the field except by
collisions, which are minimal at higher electric frequencies, and zero in
vacuum.  Field density is a function solely of magnetic vortex frequency and
tesla density, or electric field strength in volts per meter. The stronger
this electric field the more electrons are stripped from inside the ship and
more dense the electric sheet becomes.   Very little energy is needed at
higher frequencies to produce sheets dense enough to bend light, even with
its high frequency.

	Note here an oblate spheroid sheet of charge is formed which may become
very dense.  Anything in it will be heated electrically.  Inside there are
powerful electric fields, though these are no more dangerous than the 10
kV/m field under a thundercloud, and there is no internal Joule heat because
electrons are held outside the ship.  Charge in either hemisphere rotates
opposite to that in the other hemisphere.  This can be seen by considering
Lorentz force.  Electrons entering the static field from outside are
deflected one direction.  Those leaving the static field from inside are
deflected in the opposite direction.  This bears similarities to Coriolis
force, and if so, so be it.  Let this be indicative of a gravitational
connection.

	We find this field also accelerates time, which can be seen as decreasing
gravity,  mass, or inertia through relativity.  One way to view this is as
follows.  A ship near light has its time slow, and this may happen so much
the universe dies in a blink of these peoples' eyes.  Since time is slower
one may say they see more cycles per second and frequencies are shifted up.
But this does not happen.  Instead, they are not quick enough to perceive as
much information as we do.  So according to Hartley's law their incoming
frequencies and bandwidths are compressed.  People outside, on the other
hand, see these people moving extremely slowly so more information is
available to them, and they see bandwidth and frequencies boosted.  This is
only a relative effect, because quantum energy is conserved, and so real
information and frequency of light are constants when absolutely figured.
But different temporal and excitation levels of the observer obviously
change frequency perception.

	Excitation causes shifts opposite to gravity.  For instance, if atoms are
excited electrons are farther from nuclei, and under less electric force.
They are more loosely bound.  Now incoming quanta of the same hv energy
cause greater transitions than before, and so appear to have more quantum
energy or frequency.  Waves from inside seem to be high in energy but low in
energy or frequency to people outside.  Again, like gravity, this is a
conservative field, affecting only perception.  However, its shift is
opposite to gravity's.  Since gravity's effect on frequency derived from
slowing of time what effect other than accelerating of time does excitation
derive from?  Note here excitation does not have to cause actual transitions
to higher orbital to give frequency shift effects.  Given Schrodinger wave
constraints such is not possible.  With electric vacuum suction on electrons
incoming quanta still take less energy to cause transitions.

	The main problem we had was finding means for excitation without
relaxation, which normally releases all stored energy in ten billionths of a
second.  Energy required for any significant frequency shift is enormous.
Setting up a weak static magnetic field allows a sort of resonance effect,
where massive amounts of energy are absorbed by the field without release.
Excitation and resonance are only obtainable when relaxation is eliminated
as it can be in the magnetic vortex system.

	What uses are this?  Ships can travel faster than light (FTL).  Time may be
accelerated by excitation four times.  Then when we travel close enough to
light, the ship simply regains the mass or time it originally had, but it is
traveling four times faster than light when that happens.  Thus any star in
this or any other galaxy are within reach without time dilation and with
very little energy input.  Remember, NO supplemental energy is needed in
vacuum due to infinite collision time.  Another way to view FTL travel is
the people in the ship may accelerate to 200 meters per second in their
seconds.  Someone outside has four seconds for one of theirs, so the ship
seems to them to travel at 800 meters per second to an external observer.

	Faster than light communications are also possible, but not without another
effect.  Suppose we emit a 1 to 60 MHz (million cycles per second) signal
from a field where time is accelerated one million times.  This is possible
because energy required decays exponentially for faster times.  The signal
leaves and shifts down to 1 to 60 Hz.  Anyone outside sees only this  60 Hz
"magnetic wave" traveling at light.  The information inside is compressed in
time or bandwidth.  But it does penetrate water and other matter very well.
Another antenna in the same one million field expands bandwidth, or is
"quick" enough to get at the original information.  This again shows the
interconvertibility of time and bandwidth.  And EEG waves from 1-60 Hz
contain more information than presently thought.  The reason for FTL
propagation is the same as a stationary observer looking at light in a light
clock on a relativistic ship.  Light seems to travel faster in this ship and
since Einstein took lightspeed to be constant, he saw time must slow on the
ship. But this gravity field makes light travel faster relative to the
temporal state of the stationary observer (ref INSIDE RELATIVITY by Mook and
Vargish). In our case, the signal travels a million times faster than light
because gravity outside the ship is a million times greater.

	Aliens do exist, but the public is taken for granted  (to put it mildly).
NASA's SETI is complete rubbish, cover-up at its worst.  They scan at one to
10 GHz (Billion cycles per second).  No alien transmission occurs above a
100 Hz and NASA knows this.  They are all compressed in time, like subspace
communication on Startrek.  Nothing else has comparable efficiency.  Light
takes perhaps fifteen minutes to reach another planet, but is all but
instantaneous with compression.  EEG wave telepathy is another cover-up,
even though brain-related signals have never been detected anywhere else on
our spectrum.  By mutual exchange of information links can be made through
lightlines, which convey force, energy, or information even through walls.
This gives complete control over reality itself, and it is hard to overstate
its importance. Communication with the dead, and eternal life are easy, so
too manufacturing directly from mind to product.  Truth be told this planet
will be socialist, but only when matter is so ridiculously easy to
manipulate anyone who says "pay me" will have to mean it as a joke.
Telepathy is only thought from fast time, or excitation field (as in the
brain), while matter is only thought frozen in slow time, or gravity field;
but since gravity and excitation are one spectrum there is no separation
between mind and reality, life or death.

	Aliens have given clues along the way.  After we conducted THE PHILADELPHIA
EXPERIMENT, we were mailed a book THE CASE FOR THE UFO: ANNOTATED EDITION
with quotes written in the margins by philosophical aliens who said: "Anyone
wishing to know how our ships are powered would have to realize electrons
cross what would in their terms be millions of lightyears of space, and they
leave in their wake a magnetic node, or vortex, as this one thing is
variously called.  Realizing this, as Einstein did, it makes it clear how
matter may be made into energy, dissolute, or invisible."  This book as well
as George Adamski's INSIDE THE FLYING SAUCERS were required reading for us
in the Air Force.  Other truthful sources are found in THE FLYING SAUCER
READER by Jay David who said: "You wonder how our ships operate.  They
operate in resonating electromagnetic fields, just as planetary bodies do."
and BEYOND EARTH: MAN'S CONTACTS WITH UFOS by Ralph and Judy Blum, who said
"The ship is powered by reversible electro-magnetism.  Reversing magnetic
and electric energies allows us to nullify gravity and control matter."  The
greatest source of information is Adamski's book though.

	Taking these sources as accurate would have been all the public would have
needed to come to the conclusion excitation nullifies gravity.  Look at it
this way.  If gravity can be electromagnetically overcome, which is our only
practical way to ever hope to overcome gravity anyway, gravity has to be
electromagnetic.  Then it must be acting on some electric or magnetic
property in matter, due to concept of dual poles.  Otherwise no
electro-magnetic force could be coupled.  This reduces the problem to
finding the one magnetic or electrical property intrinsic to all mass,
because gravity acts on all mass. Diamagnetism is that universally intrinsic
property, but even that is related to distance of electrons from nuclei by
formula for magnetic moment M=IA, or moment equals current times loop area.
This does not tell whether proximity to or distance from nuclei is
antigravity, but directly suggests that correspondence exists.

In summary, the public has been misled contemptuously.  They have told you
aliens are not visiting the Earth and do not exist.  Rather than spacecraft,
people are seeing the whole planet Venus fly across the sky.  Then they
start an "effort" to find signals from intelligent beings, which they have
already detected below 100 Hz.  There have been signals picked up even on
the frequencies they scan for, but all signals aliens normally use are below
100 Hz and can never be picked up with conventional equipment.  Finally
comes the ultimate insult.  The world can be better than science fiction has
ever dreamt of, with devices to beam information directly into brains for
virtual reality, access information from any source, which would make the
Internet pale in comparison, derive energy from the sun through its lines,
and literally construct anything as if by magic.  Everyone on this planet
who has died since 1967 did not have to, the only cure for AIDS, cancer, and
particularly genetic diseases lies in these lightlines.  This is what the
public is being kept in the dark about.  Perhaps the United States
government has reasons for keeping this secret, but they are not in my
opinion good ones. Ultimately it is not the Air Force's problem the public
does not presently enjoy these things, if you know what I mean.  To be heard
one has to make some noise.

	In sum, we reach all stars in this galaxy easier than governors want us to
know, but they know as Einstein did.  And same EXCITATION accelerates time
and allows FTL travel, communications, and upward frequency shifts to boot.
Now surprise: aliens transmit invariably below 100 Hz despite bandwidth
information constraints, because their waves are compressed in time itself,
and EEG waves from 1 to 60 Hz are telepathy we have never found.  Ordinary
radios in "electric vacuum" fields pick it all out as broadcast, and there
are means I know to raise body frequency and use telepathy / clairvoyance in
two hours mentally, but all things minds can do machines do and vice versa
because there is no division but our belief between realms.

Something simple as orbital excitation nullifies gravity and speeds up time.
Three mind-stretching proofs:

(1)  Since our only practical means to nullify gravity is electro-magnetic,
gravity must be electromagnetic and due to concept of dual poles acts  on an
electrical or magnetic property of mass.  The only universally intrinsic EM
property of mass is diamagnetism, but even this is related to distance of
electrons from nuclei (ie; excitation) by magnetic moment M=IA.  This
logical or Greek method.

(2)  Permeability and permittivity are directly proportional to distance of
electrons from nuclei, thus allowing external magnetic and electric fields
to more easily distort excited orbits and store energy in the atom.  But
according to Maxwell's Wave Equation speed of light is determined by one
over square root of permeability times permittivity in ANY spatial region.
So excitation must affect speed of light just as relativistic gravity speeds
light.  This EM refract method.

(3)  A ship near light has slow time, or great gravity / mass, than static
one .  So people inside see the universe die in the blink of an eye. How can
they be quick enough to get as much information as we get?  And does this
not through Hartley's Bandwidth=Information  Law suggest bandwidth AND
frequencies have been divided by tau time-dilation?  Aha! This clear and
present danger ironclad proof.

	Now an excited atom.  Its electrons are farther from nuclei, under less
electric force, and incoming quanta of same E=hv  quantum energy or
frequency now cause greater transitions than in unexcited atoms.  So person
in an excited field perceive incoming waves as higher frequency, and several
waves, boosted in bandwidth or information content as well.  Hartley's
law===> bandwith=information.

	So since gravity compressed bandwidth by slowing time, excitation here must
be accelerating time, or converting mass into energy.  Here we see
excitation overcomes gravity, mass, and time in not one but THREE
independent proofs with yet another coming later.  But consider great
potential use.

	There are several uses for this.  A ship of hydrogen excited into n=2
orbital.  Time accelerates four times using E=hv calculations.  It can now
go four times faster than light before regaining its original gravity or
mass! Proxima Centauri is one year away.  But this takes 1o eV per atom.
With only 3.6 eV more we totally ionize hydrogen (i.e.; frequency shift it
to infinity). Thus we are not limited by distance or time in travel as
Relativity suggests, because energy needed is not linear but exponentially
decays for higher speeds.

	Or another application based on frequency shift.  We have never picked up
telepathic signals, but have picked up EEG waves at 1 to 60 Hz.  If these
enter an excited region they shift up in frequency (or relatively perceived
quantum energy), expanding bandwidth, and baring their original information
content, beautiful like goat's milk.  This is surprises.  Thought reigns as
physical as we are, but it operates from faster time; likewise, matter is
only thought frozen in slow time.  Thus we shall be using a mental energy
before we can reach the nearest star.   This paragraph alone has significant
implications because

(1)  Machines can be built to control reality directly
(2)  The human mind from my experience can produce these fields
(3)  If brains produce energy for such great downshift energy to travel
between stars must be meager indeed.


	All these things derive from excitation, a simple quantum mechanical
occurrence, but how do we produce excitation without heat or normal 0.01
microsecond relaxation?  Means to produce permanent electric vacuum is
needed, for as long as the field is applied.  This can be done using
two-phase four coil system (precisely as in AC motor stator but higher
frequency) to create a rotating magnetic field.  An orthogonal static
magnetic field then limits electron flux to spherical surface some distance
from ship, which adds potential energy to these electrons (and contra wise
the ship).  There is no heating of crew because electron flux is outside
ship but they are exposed to high electric fields as under thunderclouds.

	Earth operates in such magnetic vortex.  It explains the earth's positive
ground charge, its negative ionosphere layer, and Coriolis force.  The last
is explained because Lorentz deflection in above electric vacuum system is
in opposite directions in north and south fieldsphere hemisphere, so
electrons in different hemispheres revolve in opposite directions about the
ship.  High frequencies are needed to provide sufficient voltage and
increase collision time for electrons so energy is not wasted.  Again
electrons are responsible for inertia, causing water to lag in different
directions in different hemispheres. 

 The electric sheet has force and inertia but the ship does not. And this is
another proof for antigravity.

	Yet another use presents itself.  The ionosphere bends radio waves
depending on their angle and frequency because they travel at different
speed through this highly charged region.  This was alluded to in
permeability and permittivity.  Why not create such intense field around a
ship parallel radar or light rays are bent around the ship, like water
droplets in a Rainbow.  This could be done if the field were intense enough
and right distance from the ship.  And it is invisibility, though anyone in
such fields could escape faster than we perceive, because their time is
faster.  The science is sound (more or less).


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 05:04:34 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA25527; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:03:16 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Critique of the NHE Experiments
In-Reply-To: <961026035852_72240.1256_EHB87-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961026214345.18737A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"DO6L-2.0.nE6.IuVSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1807
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed wrote:
> 
> It has not been debunked. Not by a million miles! IMRA Europe has been running
> a cell at boiling, producing hundreds of watts, for three months. When the
> the French Nuclear Agency decided to replicate them, they did it right and
> got a huge excess at very high power levels. The INFN Italian researchers
> brought several rock solid Pd D2O results to ICCF6, showing helium and x-rays
> correlated with the heat. They also descsribed scaled up devices producing
> 200% excess at several hundred watts. The evidence for Pd D2O CF is stronger
> by far than it has ever been before.
> 
I got interested in CF again after watching the excellent CBC production on
CF back in 1993. What really caught my attention was the video of a P&F
cell boiling away. P&F now have a cell boiling for 3 months? Is there any 
chance they'll let anyone outside of IMRA look at it? Is the French Nuclear
Energy result proprietry too? Boiling cells are pretty dramatic. Can you
get one of those going in your CF exhibit in New Hamshire?


Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 05:45:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA28626; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 05:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:44:24 +1000 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: "NASA'S Fling With Anti-Gravity"
In-Reply-To: <961024143448_76016.2701_JHC114-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961026220434.18737B-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"XlIM43.0.7_6.zUWSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1808
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 24 Oct 1996, Terry Blanton wrote:

> Rick Monteverde asks:
> 
> "Terry, is Dr. Li easy to listen to and understand in person, or would you guess
> the problem is with the math or some incompleteness or vagueness in the
> theories?"
> 
> Rick, look at the broad expertise required to understand Dr. Li's papers!
> Almost every field of science is involved.  How do you get a peer review on a
> paper for which there might be only a half-dozen qualified people in the entire
> world?
> 


This is not the point. No one would pay much attention to a paper predicting
that gravity would be shielded if blah, blah and supported by a lot of maths
unless it was written by Hawking or some other leader in the field. I got the
impression that Li was doing experimental work. Such a paper should be easy
to understand if there's a 2% effect. eg. "A previously balanced beam was 
placed above the disk. It was observed to be displaced by amount 
corresponding to a 2% reduction in the weight on the end. Table 1 shows the
effective weight above the disk for a wide variety of materials and masses" 
etc. etc. Easy to understand. If she hasn't got results like that, why on 
earth does she think she's in line for a Nobel prize?

> BTW, is there anyone on the list that knows whether it is true that spin-zero
> particles with mass would exhibit a repulsive gravitational force?  I know this
> was inherent in some inflationary theories in cosmology; but, I can't seem to
> find the confirmation I need in a format that I can understand.  After all, I'm
> JAE*.
> 
> Terry
> * Just an Engineer <g>

General Relativity admits only attraction between all types of masses. There
are a million other attempts at Quantum Theories of gravity all designed by
highly intelligent and imaginitive theorists. None of them really work. The
bottom line is we don't understand Gravity at a quantum level so don't trust
any Quantum theories of them.

On the other hand I think you may be getting a bit mixed up with the "false
vaccum" required to drive the inflationary stage of the Big Bang. In this
model a new spin 0 particle field is required to fill all space in such a
way as to provide a non zero energy density in all space. Under these 
circumstances the space-time expands much faster than the speed of light,
in fact at an exponentially increasing rate until the curvature of space
-time is reduced sufficiently for the vacuum to decay to its present ground
state and the expansion continues much more leisurely at light speed.

Very interestingly the Standard Model of particle physics REQUIRES a spin 0
particle, the Higgs particle, to be present throughout space-time with a
non-zero expectation value. The effect of this particle is to provide mass
to all particles in the standard model. When you calculate the mass 
density of this particle in space you find that the self attraction of 
space is too small by 50 orders of magnitude! Hal Putoff has done many 
calculations of the effects of the Zero Point Energy fluctuations which 
can be used to provide mass to particles. All in all it shows we don't 
understand Space-time or the vaccuum very well.

That Scientific American writer who claimed we are at the end of Science
was right out to lunch.

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 08:04:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17726; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 26 Oct 96 11:01:47 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Revised Open Letter to NHE
Message-ID: <961026150147_72240.1256_EHB87-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"nSQ_l2.0.tK4.xWYSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1809
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

I apologize for cluttering the bandwidth with the same document twice, but I
have made substantial revisions to this letter, so I thought I should post the
latest version. I have received many valuable corrections, suggestions and
comments about it. I thank T. Mizuno, S. Chubb, E. Storms, E. Mallove, C.
Tinsley and others for their assistance. I have added additional references to
the literature describing the role of temperature in promoting the cold fusion
reaction.

Let me repeat, if you have corrections or comments, please e-mail them to me
by the end of November. If you disagree with my analysis and you wish to
publish a rebuttal in the magazine to be published along with this Open
Letter, please feel free to submit it by e-mail or regular mail by the end of
November.

I will be publishing some details about ICCF6 here in a few days. My review
has been delayed because of a snafu getting tapes of the lectures.

- Jed Rothwell
2050 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 113-A
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
-------------------------------------------

Critique Of NHE Experiments

An Open Letter to The NHE Lab Directorate
by Jed Rothwell
October 25, 1996 Version

Over the last three years I have felt a growing sense of unease about the NHE
cold fusion program. At ICCF6, during the visit to the NHE lab, and in
conversations with Pons, Fleischmann, Kennel, Asami and others, I found my
worst fears have been justified. The program has great promise, but in
execution it is deeply flawed. Let me be blunt, and let me make some strong
statements and recommendations.

In my opinion, the equipment at the NHE lab is splendid, the attitude of the
researchers is laudable, but the experiments are an unmitigated disaster. I
feel that you are making many fundamental mistakes. Fleischmann agreed with
me. Your researchers are ignoring techniques described in papers by Ikegami,
Storms, Fleischmann, Celani and other leading researchers. After hearing the
presentations, meeting with your people, and discussing this work, my
impression is that they are ignoring the literature. In the Japanese Journal
of Applied Physics, Ikegami [1] spelled out four essential conditions to
achieving the cold fusion effect: high current density, high loading, a
cathode temperature over 80 deg C, and proper surface preparation. Celani adds
a fifth essential: non-equilibrium triggering conditions. (Storms disagrees,
but most other experts say a trigger is needed.) Storms [2] and Cravens [3]
describe essential characteristics of the palladium, and methods of testing
it. I believe you have met the first two conditions listed by Ikegami and
ignored all the others. As McKubre pointed out in his closing remarks, an
SRI-style flow calorimeter is designed to ensure maximum equilibrium,
unchanging temperatures, and a cool cathode. I have been saying for a long
time that if you deliberately set out to design an instrument to prevent the
CF effect, you could not come up with a better one. I do not understand why it
has taken McKubre so many years to realize what others have been saying all
along. At ICCF3, ICCF4 and ICCF5 Fleischmann [4, 5, 6] described the essential
role of high temperatures in promoting the reaction, in what he calls
"'positive feedback' between the temperature and the rate of excess enthalpy
generation." At ICCF4, Storms [7] characterized the role of temperature, and
McKubre [8] described one of the most dramatic heat bursts in the SRI flow
calorimeter, which occurred in 1993 when the flow was accidentally blocked and
the cathode temperature rose higher than planned. McKubre pointed out that
this confirmed Fleischmann's hypothesis. Why has the NHE ignored these vital
lessons about temperature, repeated year after year by leading scientists? In
addition to the fundamental errors described in the literature, experts have
made specific criticisms of the materials and techniques. For example, at
ICCF6 Fleischmann told me that glassware is much better than Teflon for these
long duration experiments.

I think it is likely your funding will be cut to zero in a few years. Frankly,
if I were in charge of the project, I would cut it to zero now, and I would
allocate money to other groups that have achieved significant results. I
believe you face a crisis, and in such times I follow the advice of the Duke
of Albany in the closing lines of King Lear:

     The weight of this sad time we must obey,
     Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

Not only have you ignored the literature, but you have concentrated
exclusively on bulk palladium with heavy water, ignoring the easier, better
alternatives. You have limited yourselves to the most difficult and
unpromising materials and techniques. This is a recipe for disaster. Instead
of using the materials that nearly always work, like thin film nickel or gold,
or materials that often work, like high-temperature proton conductors, you
persist in trying to use bulk palladium at low temperatures, which only worked
at SRI years ago, in experiments that even SRI now cannot replicate. It seems
the NHE program was set in stone years ago, you have ignored all progress, and
you have ignored the setbacks reported by SRI. Scientific research requires
flexibility. You cannot set a precisely defined course of action three years
ahead of time and then stick to it without alteration and without paying
attention to developments in other labs. When researchers repeat a difficult
experiment many times over a period of months with no success because there is
no alternative, that is laudable, dogged persistence. That kind of heroic
dedication and hard work is essential to scientific progress. But when they
repeat that same experiment for years without success, ignoring better
techniques and disregarding papers by leading scientists describing their
mistakes, that is misguided. It shows an inability or unwillingness to learn
from experience, and from other scientists. It is a tragic waste of talent. It
is folly. The NHE lab is considered the flagship of cold fusion. It has the
best equipment and some of the finest, most dedicated and skillful workers.
You have the opportunity to make scientific history. You should not squander
such talent and resources on unproductive, dead-end experiments.

I urge you to open your eyes to some of the well-established, replicated
alternatives before it is too late. You should start with a 20-minute taxi
trip over to the University of Hokkaido. The experiments being performed there
by Mizuno, Ohmori, Enyo et al. are the best in Japan, and among the best in
the world. They get consistent results at high signal to noise ratios. They
observe dramatic, massive transmutations that produce unnatural isotopic
ratios and other indisputable proof of nuclear reactions. This proof is more
convincing than the mainstream neutrons, x-rays or tritium results, because
the effects are large and easy to detect, non-transient, and cumulative. The
longer the reaction runs, the more metal is transmuted. Mizuno's proton
conductors [9] have confirmed by Oriani, [10] who is one of the best
electrochemists in the world. Enyo and Mizuno's palladium transmutation
results have been confirmed by Minevski & Bockris [11]. Ohmori's [12] gold
results have been confirmed by Swartz [13]. Ohmori has repeated his experiment
more than 50 times, demonstrating massive excess heat and transmutations in
every run. He inputs 0.1 watts. After a 3 to 5-day incubation period, he
observes between 0.4 and 1.0 watts output, producing a 4 deg C Delta T
temperature in his isoperibolic calorimeter. The reaction generates transmuted
material at levels 100 times higher than contamination from all sources in the
cell, including material with highly unnatural isotopic distribution.

I think it is best to replicate experiments done by people close by, who can
assist you on a day to day basis. But you might also consider testing CETI
style beads fabricated by the University of Illinois, if that can be arranged.
Miley [14] reported that up to 40% of the nickel in these beads is transmuted
into other metals. You should not attempt to fabricate the beads yourself
until you have gained experience using them and you are sure they work with
your equipment. You will experience significant problems with things like
conductivity and cleanliness, so you should start with beads you know will
work when everything else is right.

It will take humility and honesty for you to admit it, but you must realize
that the Hokkaido University researchers run rings around you. You have much
to learn from them. They have been doing cold fusion since 1989. They know far
more about electrochemistry than you do. They have degrees in electrochemistry
and they have been working on similar experiments for decades, whereas I do
not think you have any full-time Ph.D. electrochemists in the NHE lab. You
appear to be modeling your work on SRI's program, yet Hokkaido University's
results are far superior to anything SRI has ever achieved. I cannot
understand why you ignore such splendid work in your own back yard while you
attempt to do obsolete experiments performed years ago by SRI, which they
themselves have not been able to replicate in the last year. I do not think
that you or anyone else can suggest a valid reason to doubt the Hokkaido
University results. Their calorimeters are not as sophisticated as those of
SRI, but they are simpler and more reliable, and the excess heat is 30 times
larger than SRI's relative to input, so it is easier to detect with
confidence.

Again I must urge you to spend some time in the labs at Hokkaido University
observing the experiments and learning the techniques from people who have
spent their careers doing electrochemistry. You cannot master a highly
technical skill by any other means. I have never heard of anyone gaining a
Ph.D. level of understanding of electrochemistry by reading textbooks and
scientific papers alone. (And for that matter, let me repeat the hard truth:
your people are ignoring many of the key scientific papers.) I urge you to get
a fully made-up, prepared cell from Ohmori, bring it back to your lab, and
test it with your own instruments. Do not attempt to make one yourself at
first. After you have verified and mastered a cell made up by an expert, then
it will be time to try to make one yourself. I discussed this work in detail
with Ohmori and Mizuno, while I was translating their papers into English. The
experiment is much harder than it looks. A step-by-step learning process is
essential. You must take advantage of every opportunity to make the job easier
and to improve the likelihood of success.

You have seen dramatic examples of what can go wrong in your own lab with the
Pons and Fleischmann boil-off experiment. Even with some direct, hands-on help
from Stan Pons, you were not able to replicate this in 20 attempts. Both SRI
[15] and the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEREM) [16] were able to
replicate this experiment. Why did they succeed where you failed? I believe it
is because: 1. McKubre is an experienced electrochemist; 2. Lonchampt et al.
got more direct, hands-on assistance from Pons and Fleischmann over a longer
period of time than you did; 3. Lonchampt insisted on doing a rigorous
precise, engineering-style replication, down to the last wire. He is an
engineer. He works the way an engineer would set up a semiconductor production
line: he does everything exactly according to the book, making no attempt to
be "creative" or to change anything. He knows that you must master the subject
first, then add your own contribution to the field. I saw several gross
differences between your boil-off cell and Pons and Fleischmann's, starting
with the fact that theirs was half-silvered. I have no idea which differences
in the hardware or protocol caused your cell to fail, but since the experiment
has now been independently replicated twice, it must be your mistake, not Pons
and Fleischmann's. If you had gotten more help, and if you had replicated the
experiment with exactly the same glassware and wires, or better yet, if you
had practiced with a cell and cathode that had worked repeatedly in France,
then your boil-off experiment would have worked as well as CEREM's did. You
could have built on that lesson. You might go back and do so now, but it would
be better to start with an easier, more reliable experiment like Ohmori's.


                           Footnotes

1. H. Ikegami, "The Next Steps in Cold Fusion," Oyou Butsuri, Vol 62, No. 7,
July 1993, p. 717

2. E. Storms, "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect," Fusion Technology,
March 1996.

3. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
Cells," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Lahaina, Maui, EPRI TR-104188,
Vol. 2, 18-1 Voted Best Paper in Conference by Fleischmann

4. M. Fleischmann, "Calorimetry of the Pd ED2O System: from Symplicity via
Complications to Simplicity," Frontiers of Cold Fusion; Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Cold Fusion, Nagoya, 1992, ed. H. Ikegami (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo,
1993), p. 47

5. M. Fleischmann, "Calorimetry in the Pd-D2O System: The Search for
Simplicity and Accuracy," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Lahaina, Maui,
EPRI TR-104188, Vol. 1, p. 1-13

6. M. Fleischmann, "More about Positive Feedback; more about Boiling," Proc.
5th Intern. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Valbonne, France, IMRA Europe, p. 140

7. E. Storms, "Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using The 'Cold Fusion'
Effect," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Lahaina, Maui, EPRI TR-104188,
Vol. 2, p. 4-1

8. M. McKubre, "Loading, Calorimetric and Nuclear Investigation of the D/Pd
System," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Lahaina, Maui, EPRI TR-104188,
Vol. 1, p. 5-52

9. T. Mizuno, "Formation of 197Pt Radioisotopes In Solid State Electrolyte
Treated by High Temperature Electrolysis in D2 Gas," Infinite Energy, #4

10. R. Oriani, "A Confirmation of Anomalous Thermal Power Generation From A
Proton-Conducting Oxide," Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Hokkaido,
Japan, O-036. To be published in Fusion Technology, 1996.

11. Z. Minevski, "Two Zones of 'Impurities' Observed After Prolonged
Electrolysis of Deuterium on Palladium," Infinite Energy, combined issues 5
and 6, p. 67.

12. T. Ohmori, "Isotopic Distributions of Heavy Metal Elements Produced During
the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode," Proc. 2nd Int. Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions Conf., College Station, Texas, and Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on
Cold Fusion, Hokkaido, Japan, TS-004

13. M. Swartz, "Possible Deuterium Production and Light Water Excess Enthalpy
Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes," Proc. 2nd Int. Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions Conf., College Station, Texas

14. G. Miley, "Nuclear Reaction in Palladium-Hydrogen System," Infinite
Energy, #8

15. S. Crouch-Baker, "Mass Flow Calorimetric Studies under Non-Steady State
Conditions," Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Hokkaido, Japan, P-004

16. G. Lonchampt, "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiments," Proc.
6th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, Hokkaido, Japan, O-044

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 10:15:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14712; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tony Rusi <windski@eskimo.com>
To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
cc: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>, vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Revised Open Letter to NHE
In-Reply-To: <961026150147_72240.1256_EHB87-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026100909.13389B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"vSyKM.0.ob3.uOaSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1810
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

If you have any of the refernces in electronic form please post them.
This was the most informative article I've read in quite a while on CF.

Tony Rusi

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 10:15:51 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA15258; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Ultrasound and Thermocouples, Thermistors
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 07:15:44 +0000
Message-ID: <19961026071542.AAA20559@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"_jG7h2.0.Ik3.0QaSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1811
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks to all for your suggestions.  I will try them out.
Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 10:30:03 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19705; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 26 Oct 96 13:26:53 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: "NASA'S Fling With Anti-Gravity"
Message-ID: <961026172653_76016.2701_JHC59-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"b8W4g2.0.ip4.6faSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1812
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Martin Sevior  writes:

>>I got the
impression that Li was doing experimental work. Such a paper should be easy
to understand if there's a 2% effect.<<

Dr. Li will probably have her model which replicates Podkletnov working within
the next two weeks.  She is using a 10" disk in a similar configuration as he.

>>Easy to understand. If she hasn't got results like that, why on 
earth does she think she's in line for a Nobel prize?<<

Well, her papers to date are leading up to a theory of gravity control; however,
she has not made public THE paper which will bring her previous work together.
I understand that she thinks she can control gravity 100% on both a repulsive
and attractive basis.  At this point, all we have are theory and some limited
experimental evidence.  I'm sure that the results of her Podkletnov replication
will make the news and we'll all rejoice over it.  But, it's the next experiment
she has planned which should make the world take notice; or, if a failure, yawn
and go back to sleep. <G>  I understand that the new model will be working in
late winter, early spring.

>> In this
model a new spin 0 particle field is required to fill all space in such a
way as to provide a non zero energy density in all space. <<

I was reading a Hawking explanation of the inflationary theory and could have
sworn he said that these spin zero particles would have a repulsive
gravitational force.  Alas, I could be mistaken.  But,  is not a spin two
particle a graviton?  I'm just trying to understand how Dr. Li could think that
she could control repulsive and attractive gravity; unless, she can control
particles with these characteristics.

>>That Scientific American writer who claimed we are at the end of Science
was right out to lunch.<<

Yes, it IS a bit arrogant, innit?  Although, someone seems to make this claim
about every 100 years.  When I hear such a claim, I am always brought back to
the Bard and his, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than
dreamt of in your philosophy."

Many thanks for your explanation, Martin.

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 11:42:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA06143; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 26 Oct 96 14:24:18 EDT
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: "NASA'S Fling With Anti-Gravity"
Message-ID: <961026182417_76016.2701_JHC71-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"4o8Xk3.0.vV1.qhbSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1813
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Earlier I wrote:

>> But, it's the next experiment
she has planned which should make the world take notice; or, if a failure, yawn
and go back to sleep. <G>  I understand that the new model will be working in
late winter, early spring.<<

I would like to clarify something.  I am not in contact with Dr. Li personally
and many of my comments regarding her work are interpretation of 2nd hand and
3rd hand comments from others.  I do not understand her work to the point that I
feel qualified to judge it.  The 100% control and future experiments comments
are resulting from email conversations I have had with Mr. Otis Port, the author
the Business Week article to whom Dr. Li speculated that her work could lead to
vehicles which could transport us into space.

I pray that she is correct since it is the only way I will get to visit space in
my lifetime. <BG>

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 14:41:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14942; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae982a842c99@[204.17.242.83]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:45:07 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: HOW TO SPIN THATS THE?
Resent-Message-ID: <"6m_Au.0.Jf3.6KeSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1814
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>
>If the magnetic flux is pinned to geographic domains then the
>flux of the fixed magnet must constantly uncouple and couple to
>new geographic locations on the spinning magnet. If this occurs
>then the flux will move back and forth relative to the
>conductors.
[snip]
>
>Joe Flynn

Joe,

A while back I went on a wild flight of imagination by making the
assumption flux lines (tubes) existed and could not be broken or cut each
other.  This led to the concept of core coupled transformers, I=|dB|/dt for
current in a secondary coil wrapped on an interlinked  "secondary" core,
and to wild ideas about intertwining flux lines, and to the "suddenly
reluctant torus" (SRT) for generating e+, e- pairs by using electrodynamics
and flux momentum in a "baseball seam" SRT to tie flux loops into spinning
knots and then pull on them to cause massive angular accelerations.  A
quick test indicated that the main flaw in the reasoning was the idea that
flux tubes could not cut flux tubes.  In fact, my basic assumption was that
flux is made of quantum stuff, every bit as real as electrostatic fields,
and other artifacts of "real" particles, and that it has mass, momentum,
location, velocity, and other properties of quantum waveforms, and that it
can break away from the matter (quantum waveform) of origin in the form of
photons, thus reducing the mass of such matter.  The flaw in my assumptions
I believe was the idea that the flux tubes could not cut through flux
tubes.  The superposition principle demands that this be false.  My
preliminary experiments showed this to be a bogus idea (however flux tubes,
if they exist, *do* interact as in the experiment where I floated a N-S
magnet over an indentical magnet in the same orientation, and at an
elevation several times the length of the magnets.  The interaction appears
to be dependent upon the *orientation of the flux tubes.)  The fact EM
waves can pass through each other demands that this be false.  Other parts
of my assumptions and conclusions appear to have some merit, to yield some
new ideas, and I have specific plans for further experiments to follow up
on all that.  I did post way too much brainstorming material on the subject
hoping for some synergism and probably upset or inconveienced a number of
vortexians who either don't appreciate  hypothesies, theory, or ideas that
are probably bogus (sorry for that, but thanks for your tolerance).

Getting back to the point, your statement above seems to assume that the
field from the two magnets can not remain *completely independent* of each
other, that one can not freely move through the other.  You are talking
about a "net field" or "net resulting vector" as though it is "the filed",
though there is no reason to assume the fields actually lose their true
physical reality and identity when their combined effect is netted out.
Each loop of flux, or flux tube to be more precise, must be either tied to
the charged particle of origin, or if not so tied, must exist in the form
of photon, and therefore be moving through space at the speed of light.
Based on this, I would say it appears that the fact that the wire coil is
wrapped around a magnet is not important, except that the static lines of
flux in the stationary magnet can align atoms in the rotating magnet (due
to permeability) and thus create more rotating lines of flux which can cut
the wire coil.

Despite all this, each loop of flux from the rotating magnet must cut each
turn of wire exactly twice per rotation, thus netting out the voltage
induced to zero.  Assuming totally uniform magetic properties your device
should show no effects, no induced current or voltage.  In a practical
sense, due to non-uniformities, you may see some AC noise generated.  Is
this assesment of the results true?


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 16:19:12 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09148; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: next-gen@ix.netcom.com
Subject: quantdyne
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026160425.24195A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"mYDTI1.0.pE2.4mfSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1815
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Here's an interesting URL (see below) passed on to me by Chuck Humphrey on
freenrg-L.  Interesting not only because it appears to be yet another
earthshaking energy invention (YAEEI) (!) , but has signs of Inventor's
Disease.  If my company came up with a 1000MHZ 80x86 processor, should I:

  a) start selling them to everyone and his brother.

  b) keep them secret, and start working on a gold-plated home computer
     which will have all kinds of desirable custom peripherals and
     which everyone will just HAVE to buy if they want my processor.

Why choice b, of course!  

"It is very doubtful that the "Energy Chipstm" will be sold individually
and separately at retail. (Most consumers don't buy CPU's, they buy the
whole computer. Such will generally be the case with Quantadyne's
products). Quantadyne's "Energy Chiptm" will be sold as integrated parts
of Quantadyne's PETA Powertm systems." 

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


http://www.quantdyne.com
                                  [INLINE]
                                      
                            The "Energy Chiptm"
     _________________________________________________________________
                                      
   Quantadyne's "Energy Chiptm", the XR-1000, is a hafnium oxide bismuth
   telluride thermoelectric module that has an average output of 15.5
   watts per 200 Delta T F. (This is engineering talk for temperature
   difference). The thermoelectric material used in Quantadyne's XR-1000
   produces about 1 to 2 watts of electrical output per gram (depending
   on the Delta T). Quantadyne's thermoelectric material itself has a
   covalent-bond structure very similiar to semi-conductors in that the
   material is "doped" with impurities to produce electrical "charge
   carriers". The dynamic direction flow of electrons is determined
   whether the material is a "n" material, or a "p" material.
   
   Quanatadyne can make various types of "Energy Chipstm" from a number
   of different materials. Quantadyne has a scientist, Joel Miller, who
   originated a patent for a material that can be used to make an "Energy
   Chiptm". This material has a unique lattice structure which provides
   certain advantages over prior art materials. Quantadyne will set up
   mass manufacturing of Quantadyne's Energy Chip after achieving certain
   capital formation levels. It is very doubtful that the "Energy
   Chipstm" will be sold individually and separately at retail. (Most
   consumers don't buy CPU's, they buy the whole computer. Such will
   generally be the case with Quantadyne's products). Quantadyne's
   "Energy Chiptm" will be sold as integrated parts of Quantadyne's PETA
   Powertm systems.
   
   The thermoelectric material used by Quantadyne generates electricity
   by use of the Seebeck Effect, or more correctly, the Fermi Effect. The
   Seebeck Effect was discovered in 1821. During World War II, the Soviet
   military used thermoelectric materials having poor Fermi or Seebeck
   properties to power small vacuum tube radios. After the war, both the
   United States and the Soviet military poured lots of effort and money
   into making better thermoelectric materials.
   
   In the late 50's and early 60's, a new family of materials were
   developed which were much more effective. But the technology still was
   not efficient enough to be commercially viable. The Soviet's wanted to
   use thermoelectric materials to create electrical power plant systems
   for nuclear submarines. But they failed to achieve this goal.
   
   In 1995, Joel Miller in conjunction with other team members, produced
   a new thermoelectric material (using prior art compounds and other
   materials) having a unique lattice structure. They did it by using
   sophisticated high vacuum equipment that built the material molecule
   by molecule.
   
   Later in 1995, Joel Miller produced the world's first Post Event
   Thermal Amplification Thermoelectric Generation system. This technical
   name has been shortened to PETA Thermoelectric System. Quantadyne's
   brand name for this new technology is PETA Powertm.
   
   For the first time in scientific history, heat that has failed to be
   converted into electricity (at a thermoelectric event), can be
   recycled for identical processing through a sequential
   (thermoelectric) event. A PETA Powertm system does this by amplifying
   a 6 degree temperature difference (or greater) into a much larger
   temperature difference.
   
   The PETA Thermoelectric system is a revolutionary breakthrough in
   energy processing!
   
     _________________________________________________________________
                                      
   
             (This Site Sponsored Exclusively By Bob Armstrong)
                                      
     _________________________________________________________________
                                      
   [INLINE] Home Page/ [INLINE] Our Welcome/ [INLINE] The "Energy Chip"/
    [INLINE] Fuel Processing/ [INLINE] PETA Power Uses/ [INLINE] Market
                     Projections/ [INLINE] Quantadyne/
                                      
               [LINK]E-Mail Us! [LINK]Guest Registry [INLINE]


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 17:45:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA28496; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.675340160096300FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 26 Oct 1996 16:40:16 PST
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/26/96 16:40:52 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZYOsE.0.Az6.T0hSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1816
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
In response to Jed's comment's on Joe Champion, I just have a couple
of questions: A. Wouldn't Hitachi have known they cannot SIMs a powder?
B. Couldn't they Xrf some of it? I had some of Joe's work, through
Dan York, subjected to Xrf at a local lab a couple months ago. 5 bags of
various types of powders. 1 & 2% Gold each, 4-12% Silver---except for
the one bag, which had a powder that looked almost exactly like TANG.
That assayed 90% gold. The Xrf used was low power, so the results were
qualified as being surface only. I passed the results on to Joe. There
obviously is NO quality assurance on the source. (I think that's why
it hasn't been pushed a lot.) MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 18:51:13 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA10141; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com, freenrg-L@eskimo.com, webhead-l@eskimo.com,
        list physics teaching <PHYS-L@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu>,
        vortcor-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Put Feynman on a Stamp!
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026180406.24195B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"7tj3y2.0.3U2.rzhSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1818
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


     Dear Friends of Tuva and Fans of Richard Feynman,
     
     I hope this letter finds you well. In two years, Richard Feynman
     will be eligible for a commemorative postage stamp to be issued in
     his honor. You might think it's a no brainer that Feynman should be
     honored with a stamp: American born and educated, an original
     thinker whose impact went beyond physics to influence scientists
     around the world and millions outside of science who have read his
     popular books; a patriot who served his country in the Manhattan
     Project and on the Challenger Commission. But no: I learned that
     Richard Feynman was considered last year by the Citizens Stamp
     Advisory Committee, and was rejected!  Apparently, although enough
     people had written in on their own for him to be considered, there
     was not enough organized support for him to gain approval.
     
     NOTE: I also learned that when a person has been considered and
     rejected, the letters that come in for the next twelve months after
     the rejection have little effect because there is a one year
     moratorium on reconsideration. Now that the one year moratorium has
     passed, I want to make sure Feynman is not rejected again.
     
     Therefore, if you would like to see a Feynman postage stamp that
     will be seen by millions of people in the USA and by stamp
     collectors around the world, please follow these recommendations
     carefully:
     
     1) Write a letter (with an impressive letterhead, if possible)
     explaining why Richard Feynman should be honored with a
     commemorative postage stamp. (For those writing from outside the
     US, it might help to mention that you, and many others like you
     around the world, would be interested in a Feynman stamp as a
     collector.) 2) Address the letter itself to the Citizens Stamp
     Advisory Committee, but DO NOT send it to Washington, DC. (See note
     above) 3) Address your envelope to: Feynman Stamp, Box 70021,
     Pasadena CA 91117 (USA). 4) If you would like to be kept informed
     about the status of this project, make sure you have envelopes on
     file at Friends of Tuva HQ. I hope to send a mountain of letters to
     Washington, DC by the end of this summer! 5) Forward this message
     to anyone you know who is a fan of Richard Feynman, and who might
     be persuaded to write a letter of support. Spread the word by
     contacting friends, and by sending this message to any publication
     whose readership might be interested in seeing a Feynman stamp.
     Please emphasize that letters should be sent to Box 70021, Pasadena
     CA 91117, so they can be gathered together and sent all at once.
     
     Thank you for reading this message. Please respond to it soon,
     while it's on your mind. A letter from you today will help bring
     Richard Feynman's smile to unsuspecting millions around the world in
     1998!
     
     - Ralph Leighton   (fot@lafn.org)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Petition for a Feynman Stamp
                                      
   Please return to: Ralph Leighton, Box 70021, Pasadena CA 91117
   (fot@lafn.org)
   
   To the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee
   Washington, District of Columbia
   
   Fellow Citizens!
   
   We, the undersigned, wholeheartedly support Richard Feynman to be
   portrayed on a United States postage stamp in a denomination that will
   reach millions of Americans as well as collectors around the world.
   Feynman is arguably the most illustrious and inspiring scientist born
   and educated in the USA. Our nation needs more people enthusiastic
   about science. Putting Richard Feynman's image on a stamp will
   effectively serve that end.
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   
   Signature ____________________________________ Date _______
   
   Name (printed) __________________ City & State _________________
   

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 18:51:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA10015; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 26 Oct 96 21:46:25 EDT
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
Message-ID: <961027014625_72240.1256_EHB122-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"LQfPN1.0.PS2.WzhSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1817
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Mark Hugo writes:

    A. Wouldn't Hitachi have known they cannot SIMs a powder?

Yes, they knew, and they said the results were meaningless. I gather they
tried some tricks to make it work, but no go.


    B. Couldn't they Xrf some of it?

I don't know.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 21:57:27 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA14158; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3272EC99.2BAA@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:01:13 -0700
From: Hank Scudder <hjscudde@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: hjscudde@pacbell.net
Organization: Rocketdyne
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
References: <EPRI.MHUGO.675340160096300FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"Kw8dO2.0.8T3.VjkSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1819
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Mark
I was hoping you would disclose your results.
Have you tried to duplicate any of this stuff yet?
I think Barry is trying, you might ask him if he
has any results .

Also don't ever use TI chip sockets. They are worthless.
I'm having to take several out of my circuitry.
The damn contacts open up, and also break off.

-Hank

Mark Hugo, Northern wrote:
> 
> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Subject: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
> In response to Jed's comment's on Joe Champion, I just have a couple
> of questions: A. Wouldn't Hitachi have known they cannot SIMs a powder?
> B. Couldn't they Xrf some of it? I had some of Joe's work, through
> Dan York, subjected to Xrf at a local lab a couple months ago. 5 bags of
> various types of powders. 1 & 2% Gold each, 4-12% Silver---except for
> the one bag, which had a powder that looked almost exactly like TANG.
> That assayed 90% gold. The Xrf used was low power, so the results were
> qualified as being surface only. I passed the results on to Joe. There
> obviously is NO quality assurance on the source. (I think that's why
> it hasn't been pushed a lot.) MDH

-- 
1

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sat Oct 26 23:37:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA01373; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 23:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 23:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32730154.78F3@rt66.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 23:31:44 -0700
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, VIV@rpd.univ.kiev.ua,
        filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by
CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Fwd: Biological nuclear transmutation]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3B8058C33FDF"
Resent-Message-ID: <"lBiZc2.0.NL.6BmSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1820
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------3B8058C33FDF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Dr.Yuri Bazhutov and Prof. Vladimir Vyotskii,

I heard about the paper "Experimental discovery of the phonomenon of
low-energy nuclear transmutation of isotopes (Mn-55_>=Fe-57) in growing
biological cultures," on the Vortex-L discussion group 
[Vortex-L@eskimo.com in USA], from a post from Filimonov.  Can you email
me a copy or send a copy by mail or send it to Vortex-L?

I know you will appreciate this very creative post by Larry Wharton.

I suspect during the whole history of the Earth, life forms have altered
the isotopic abundances of elements like carbon and oxygen in order to
have a single majority isotope for each important element:  C-12  98.90
%,  N-14 99.634 %,  O-16 99.762 %,  Mg-24 78.99 %,  Si-28 92.23 %,  S-32
95.02 %,  K-39 93.2581 %,  Ca-40 96.941 %, compared to pre-life
abundances.

But also, Cl-35 75.77% and Cl-37 24.23%,

Ni-58 68.077%, Ni-60 26.223%, Ni-61 1.140%, Ni-62 3.634%, Ni-64 .926%,

Cu-63 69.17 %, Cu-65 30.83 %.

Does anyone have typical pre-life isotopic data?

Rich Murray

--------------3B8058C33FDF
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Received: from mail.eskimo.com (root@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA03896 for <rmforall@rt66.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 1996 03:04:45 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18038; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae7af77e04c3@[128.183.89.65]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:24:46 -0400
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Biological nuclear transmutation
Resent-Message-ID: <"30w7n1.0.lP4.a3OLo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1386
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com

 Now that it appears that nuclear transmutation may be possible under mild
conditions it may be worthwhile to look at the hypothesis that it is going
on in biological systems.  While the chicken and egg stuff is nice because
we can study them, I think the case of the ancient, long extinct, metal
loving bacteria is more interesting. George Miley has allegedly transmuted
large quantities of metals and the question I have is - could these
bacteria have been doing the same thing.
 It is generally accepted that iron ore deposits were caused by iron loving
bacteria dying and forming a sedimentary layer.  There is good evidence
that other metal deposits like gold are caused by the appropriate metal
loving bacteria.  These bacteria are gone now (what a shame) so we don't
see something like a pond with a layer of gold sediment on the bottom.  We
would have noticed something like that.
 The question I always had is why did these bacteria want so much of their
favorite metal and how could they get so much of it? And then why are they
all gone now?  Modern bacteria can lay down sediments but there is not any
significant metal concentrations in them. One theory could be that the
bacteria actually lived on CF energy and the associated metal deposit was
actually a nuclear metabolic waste product or the nuclear ash.  The
bacteria would then die when they had consumed their feed elements.
 This would reduce the concentration of the feed elements and increase the
concentration of the waste elements.  If we knew the starting concentration
in the earth and the effect of differential settling of the heavy elements
then we could compare to the present concentration to find out which
elements make good nuclear food.  The good food elements should be reduced
in concentration and should be the best candidates for CF reactions.
 Making an unscientific estimate of this I took the concentration of the
elements in stony and iron meteorites, from the Scheffield University
element web page, and added them (not knowing what weight to use).  Then I
divided by the observed concentration in the Earth's crust.  So then large
numbers, larger than expected from the differential settling effect, should
indicate good CF reactants.  The result in no particular order (except for
some of the larger values first) is:

Element		Ratio (meteor/earth)
rhodium		21650
ruthenium	11900
iridium		1210000
osmium		83700
rhenium		2250
platinum		20100
palladium		7733
silver		1.7
gold		1654
tungsten		8.2
mercury		2.6
cadmium		.73
molybdenum	5.9
indium		.285
thallium		.005
lead		4.3
niobium		.015
tantalum		.043
tin		.94
nickel		1025
halfnium		.045
aluminum		.122
titanium		.13
cobalt		350
iron		28
bismuth		10.6
antomony		2.2
copper		8
zinc		1.1
vanadium		.43
chromium		36.5
calcium		.30
zirconium		.094
uranium		.006

The first seven elements on this list would be good candidates.  A
noticeable standout is nickel with a relatively light weight and a ratio of
1025.  Where did all the nickel go?  It seems too light to have all but one
part in 1000 gone to the center of the earth.  Maybe something ate it or
maybe it was transmuted through geological CF.  And that iridium ratio, 1.2
million, is an amazing number.  I would believe that number if there only
was molecular diffusion in the Earth's core but the eddy diffusion would
totally overwhelm the molecular diffusion.  The number should be closer to
10 than a million.  I think that somehow the vast majority of the Earth's
iridium was transmuted.  Iridium is likely the most reactive CF element,
but of course it is very expensive.  Rhodium is up there too and last I
checked it was $5,000 a Troy Oz.  For a cheap reactant metal nothing beats
nickel, but I guess we already knew that.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 




--------------3B8058C33FDF--

From bpaddock@execpc.com  Sun Oct 27 00:49:19 1996
Received: from mail.usachoice.net (www.usachoice.com [208.0.8.10]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11398; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 00:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s17.usachoice.net ([208.0.8.67]) by mail.usachoice.net
          (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-13428) with SMTP id AAB233;
          Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:47:45 -0500
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: billb@eskimo.com
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, next-gen@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: quantdyne
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 01:01:03 -0500
Reply-To: bpaddock@execpc.com
Message-ID: <fqvcyUQy8kyc092yn@execpc.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026160425.24195A-100000@eskimo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026160425.24195A-100000@eskimo.com>
Lines: 29
Status: RO
X-Status: 


>   Quantadyne's "Energy Chiptm", the XR-1000, is a hafnium oxide bismuth
>   telluride thermoelectric module that has an average output of 15.5
>   watts per 200 Delta T F. (This is engineering talk for temperature
>   difference). The thermoelectric material used in Quantadyne's XR-1000
>   produces about 1 to 2 watts of electrical output per gram (depending
>   on the Delta T). Quantadyne's thermoelectric material itself has a


	Is it only coincidental that this sounds like a
description of a NASA developed, "Power Stick", for the
Department Of Energy developed?  I've got the relevant paper
setting on my desk at work, I'll post the stuff Monday,
unless I find I copy here at home in the mean time.

	The heat source NASA/DOE used was Uranium Oxide,
into a "bismuth telluride thermoelectric converter".

	Is it only my imagination, or do all of the neat
gravity/energy devices work with diamagnetic (Bismuth), or
paramagnetic (?) 'stuff'?

-- 
For information on any of the following check out my WEB site at:
    //www.execpc.com/~bpaddock/ or http://www.usachoice.net/bpaddock
Chemical Free Air Conditioning/No CFC's, Chronic Pain Relief, Electromedicine,
Electronics, Explore!, Free Energy, Full Disclosure, KeelyNet, Matric Limited,
Neurophone, Oil City PA, Philadelphia Experiment.
:

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 02:43:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA23072; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: 27 Oct 96 05:40:55 EST
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: quantdyne
Message-ID: <961027104054_76216.2421_HHB42-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"HSkoo.0.Le5.bnpSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1822
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Bob Paddock wrote:

  >  Is it only my imagination, or do all of the neat gravity/energy
  >  devices work with diamagnetic (Bismuth), or paramagnetic
  >  (?) 'stuff'?

It's probably your (and my) imagination that _any_ of these neat gravity/energy
devices work! However I think you're right about diamagnetism looming as a
common denominator to the claims. Could be something. 

I hope we get a positive report from Huntsville soon. I want to hover-convert
my Dodge. <g>

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 06:57:18 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13260; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 06:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 06:55:58 -0800 (PST)
From: bpaddock@execpc.com (Bob Paddock)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: glr@glr.com
Subject: Re: quantdyne
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 08:53:39 -0500
Reply-To: bpaddock@execpc.com
Message-ID: <jl2cyUQy8ESG092yn@execpc.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961026160425.24195A-100000@eskimo.com>
 <fqvcyUQy8kyc092yn@execpc.com>
In-Reply-To: <fqvcyUQy8kyc092yn@execpc.com>
Lines: 37
Resent-Message-ID: <"8S91R1.0.3F3.yVtSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1823
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In article <fqvcyUQy8kyc092yn@execpc.com>, you wrote:
>
>>   Quantadyne's "Energy Chiptm", the XR-1000, is a hafnium oxide bismuth
>>   telluride thermoelectric module that has an average output of 15.5
>>   watts per 200 Delta T F. (This is engineering talk for temperature
>>   difference). The thermoelectric material used in Quantadyne's XR-1000
>>   produces about 1 to 2 watts of electrical output per gram (depending
>>   on the Delta T). Quantadyne's thermoelectric material itself has a
>

Now that I'm talking to my self...

BP>	The heat source NASA/DOE used was Uranium Oxide,
BP>into a "bismuth telluride thermoelectric converter".

I was wrong it was Plutonium-Dioxide, not Uranium Oxide.

This is taken from a booklet I wrote on "Implants", like
where to buy them and how to build them, follow the links at
my WEB page for more info on that, as its not really relevant
here....

			Powerstick:

	The least common today, but most interesting, type
of Active Implant power source is a Nuclear based one.  The
Jet Propulsion Laboratory New Technology Report "Miniature
Radioisotope Power Source", NPO-19339, describes a small
Nuclear power source called a Powerstick.

	This Nuclear energy source consists of a
Plutonium-Dioxide heat source to a Bismuth-Telluride
Thermoelectric Converter.  The intent of such a small Nuclear
device, about the size of a small flashlight, is to power
some thing like a pacemaker for several years, possibly even
several decades.  Figure 5 shows a block diagram of such a
device. [Not shown.]

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 10:19:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19213; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3273B4CA.476B@rt66.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:15:22 -0800
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: wireless@rmii.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov,
        dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge@hooked.net,
        bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, dag@lsd.tandem.com, xgld@aol.com,
        ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu,
        cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, g-miley@uiuc.edu,
        mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, ceti@onramp.net,
        reeber@aro.ncren.net, edonrott@nkn.net, danyork@iadfw.net,
        72240.1256@compuserve.com, 74750.1231@compuserve.com,
        ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, jmyeo@juno.com, dcyeo@juno.com, key@rt66.com,
        "72507@3443"@compuserve.com, rollo@artvark.com, letters@scicop.org,
        editors@sciam.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, sarfatti@well.com,
        cmurray@uh.edu, lucille@telis.org, 76570.2270@compuserve.com,
        rmcarrell@aol.com, mica@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com,
        mrandall@earthlink.com, uban@world.std.com, puthoff@aol.com,
        conte@teseo.it, mhugo@eprinet.epri.com, 100433.1541@compuserve.com,
        steckly.gary@ic.gc.ca, ine@padrak.com, fstenger@interlaced.net,
        100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro,
        edstrojny@worldnet.att.net, schaffer@gav.gat.com, joeflynn@delphi.com,
        griggs@mindspring.com, eachus@spectre.mitre.org, zumm@flash.net,
        rvanspaa@netspace.net.au, ross@pacificnet.net, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov,
        mwm@aa.net, dacha@shentel.net, msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au,
        russia@a.net, revtec@postoffice.ptd.net, discpub@netzone.com,
        robert@skylink.net, hawk@eskimo.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com,
        bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, hjscudde@pacbell.net, hheffner@anc.ak.net,
        aki@ix.netcom.com, tessien@oro.net, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov,
        mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp,
        b:rerich@itim.org.soroscj.ro, chubb@cfel.nrl.navy.mil,
        mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, asami@nhelab.iae.or.jp, mac@iae.or.jp,
        mokamoto@nr.titech.ac.jp, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su,
        filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by, VIV@rpd.univ.kiev.ua, info@znergy.com,
        herman@college.antioch.edu
Subject: Transmutations, 1923, spark
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"8xsbO2.0.2i4.HSwSo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1824
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Toby Grotz,   I mailed you Friday your electric discharge book (sorry
about it getting rained on in car!) and some zeroxes of Wendt's and of
Anderson's exploding wire work.

R.A. Sawyer and A.L.Becker (1923), Astrophysical Journal, 51, p.37-113,
"The Explosion Spectra of the Alkaline Earth Elements", University of
Michigan, put a spark from a 40,000 volt, 0.3 MF capacitor on a fine
asbestos fiber in air: "...50 calories or so,...The temperature of the
explosion is probably about 15,000 degrees C. and the pressure 10 to 20
atmospheres."  The fiber had been dipped in water solutions of MgCl2,
CaCl2, SrCl2, or BaCl2, giving about 1-2 mg sample of solids per spark. 
The fiber was reused dozens of times.  From six to twenty sparks were
needed for each spectrum:  "...because of the high pressure and gaseous
velocities in the explosion, the lines were rather broad.  The problem,
however, was principally one of identification and the accuracy attained
was sufficient for that."

They discarded a lot of spectra data from "impurities", for instance,
from air and from brass clamps: Al,Pb,C,N,Cu,Zn:

"A striking fact is that in the spectrum obtained from a salt of any one
of the four metals used there always appear many of the strong lines of
the other three and of cadmium which is also a member of this group of
metals.  Although no great effort was made to secure purity of the salts
used, the other metals of the group could have been present in the
solutions only in very minute quantities.  This source seems to be
effective in producing spectra of substances which are present in the
solution only in extremely low concentrations.  It is of interest to
note that no lines of the acid radical employed, chlorine, not any lines
of hydrogen or oxygen have been identified.  If any radiations of these
elements were produced, their intensities were too low to register with
the exposures used."

Wow!  Plenty of hints of copious nuclear transmutations, of Al, Pb, C,
N, Cd, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Cd, Cl, H, and O.  They just totally didn't see
it.
Apparently, most of each 1-2 mg sample was transmutted with each spark,
since the Cl, H, and O barely registered.  They made no mentions of any
products from these open air sparks.  Their report seems to me rather
confused, which makes me suspicious of low level radiation sickness.

They listed about 36 lines, including 10 frank unidentifieds, and at
least two of their identifications are false, according to Chemical
Rubber Company Handbook data.  I found, besides the expected Mg, Ca, Ba,
and and Sr lines, one possible Cl line, many close matches for Fe, Cr,
V, Ti, Ar, Be, Co, Ge, Cu, Ni, Pb, Al, and K, plus about the same number
of possible matches for other elements.  Their data was usually accurate
+- 0.1 A, with a range from -0.2 to +0.3 A.

12Mg-24   +   2 17Cl-35   ->   26 Fe54   +   20 Ca-40

12Mg-24   +     17Cl-35  +   2 e-   ->   27 Co-59

17Cl-35   +     17Cl-37   ->   2 18Ar-36   +   2 e-

20Ca-40    +   2 17Cl-35  +  2 e-   ->   26Fe-54   +   26Fe-56

20Ca-40    +   2 17Cl-35   + 2 e-   ->   2 12Mg-24   +  28Ni-62

38Sr-88    ->   20Ca-40   +  2 12Mg-24   +   6 e-

56Ba-138   -> 3 20Ca-46   +  4 e-

These are some of the plausible reactions I see so far.  Some take
electrons and some give electrons, and likewise for energy .  There
should be lots of neutrinos. It looks like that at that voltage, a spark
in air will give dozens of transformations with just about anything.

A good experiment should take a spectrum from UV to IR, monitor for
gammas, betas, alphas, and neutrons, monitor mass changes and energy
balance, and collect all the products without loss for mass spectrometry
and SIMS.  If many sparks could be done in the same sealed glass bulb
without breaking it, then that bulb could be sensitively studied for
changes in the spectrum with each spark, and with NMR for element and
isotopic changes.  It should be weighed to better than microgram
accuracy, in case enough mass is lost to neutrino and other radiations
to be measured.  Can the bulb be kept on a microbalance for continuous
weight monitoring?  Then, of course, the bulb can be sent to any
interested, competent lab to be opened up for mass spectrometry and SIMS
on any deposits and gases, at their cost.

It may suffice to explode the W filament with a single spark for each
bulb, generating enough spectral data, radiation, products, and mass
loss.  This report basically supports the intepretation that Wendt's
experiment really did completely transmute his W wires into gases (nobel
gases, I think) with a simgle spark.  How much mass is in a typical W
filament? 

So, we can set up a preliminary experiment to establish that some
transmutations must be occuring, to arouse interest in others, and
attract major funding for a competent survey.  Even a very simple
optical spectrograph might well find spectral lines from transmutations
of 1-2 mg  of electrode per spark, and that spectrum could be videotaped
for each spark.  A hundred sparks might accululate 0.1 gm of products. 
That could be done in a day, or an hour!  So, let's set up a simple,
controlled, exactly repeatable spark on a standard bulb, to establish a
preliminary base of data.

Useful bulbs include neon lamps, light bulbs, SiO2 Hg lamps, automobile
headlamps, and flashlight bulbs, most of which contain Ar, and some have
Kr.  If the  W filament is first burned out, we can spark between the
interior leads. Can we spark from the filament through the glass without
breaking it?  The bulb can be submerged in water, compressed air, or Hg
to prevent  breaking from the spark shock wave.  Could a Tesla coil
circuit deliver a single pulse of ~ 50 KV?  Could a shock wave be
provided on the outside of the bulb from an underwater spark to cancel
out the shock wave of the inside spark?  Will it work to simply connect
a neon sign transformer to spark a bulb with continuous high-voltage
AC?  Let's find an experiment that generates deposits and obvious
spectra, and do it!
 
This is a sure-fire and simple experiment for generating important
results quickly, along with cooperation and major funding.    Would your
friend in Boulder want to collaborate?  Who would like to fund us about
$ 3,000/month apiece to get started, salary and materials?  We could do
a lot in a month or two!  What are your ideas?

Rich Murray
HCR 70  Box 515
Pecos, NM 87552  505-757-6145  rmforall@rt66.com

Theodore Lyman, "The extension of the spectrum beyond the Shumann
region," Astrophysical Journal, (1916), 89-102, The Jefferson
Laboratory,  Cambridge, Mass.

Robert A. Millikan, "The extension of the ultra-violet spectrum,"
Astrophysical Journal, 52 (1920), 47-64, Ryerson Physical Laboratory,
University of Chicago.

Theodore Lyman, "The spectrum of helium in the extreme ultra-violet,"
Astrophysical Journal, 60 (1924), 1-14, Jefferson Physical Laboratory,
Cambridge, Mass.

Gerald L. Wendt and Clarence E. Irion, "Experimental attempts to
decompose tungsten at high temperatures," American Chemical Society
Journal, 44 (1922),1877-94, Kent Chemical Laboratory, University of
Chigago.

John A. Anderson, "The spectrum of electrically exploded wires,"
Astrophysical Journal, 51 (1920), 37-48, Mount Wilson Observatory.

Sinclair Smith, "Note on electrically exploded wires in high vacuum,"
National Academy of Sciences Proceedings, 10 (1924), 4-5, Mount Wilson
Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington.

John A. Anderson, "The vacuum spark spectrum of calcium,"  Astrophysical
Journal, 59 (1924), 76-96, Mount Wilson Observatory.

Sinclair Smith, "A study of electrically exploded wires," Astrophysical
Journal, 61 (1925), 186-203, Mount Wilson Observatory.

John A. Anderson and Sinclair Smith, "General characteristics of
electrically exploded wires," Astrophysical Journal, 64 (1926), 295-314,
Mount Wilson Observatory.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 16:34:22 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09851; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 16:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 16:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:28:30 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199610280028.SAA14223@natashya.eden.com>
X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Scott Little <little@eden.com>
Subject: NHE critique
Resent-Message-ID: <"VJ9Wb1.0.rP2.Iv_So"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1825
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed,

In general, I think you've written an informative letter.  It is a bit harsh
but perhaps that tone is warranted.  I am sure it will get the message across!

In yr letter you mention that SRI has been unable to replicate the Pd-D2O
experiments that they once did.  Can you elaborate...or point me to
something written about this?

Thanks

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 20:36:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01469; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <327444FE.1475@rt66.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 21:30:38 -0800
From: Richard Thomas Murray <rmforall@rt66.com>
Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com
Organization: Room For All
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "George H. Miley" <g-miley@uiuc.edu>
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com, wireless@rmii.com
Subject: Re: Miley, Mizuno data:  SIMS creates nuclear products
References: <199610280244.VAA241308@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"kp1nB3.0.rM.ET3To"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1826
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear George Miley,

Your comment that it seems unlikely that SIMS would often be producing
low energy nuclear reactions for half a century without this being
discovered is very reasonable and natural.  One way to test this would
be to deliberately try to use SIMS to induce reactions in a thin film. 
Even a day of work could test out a lot of parameters.  But, eeeee, it's
expensive, man! as they say here in Santa Fe.

It'd be helpful if you had your SIMS expert write a long post for
Vortex-L on the limitations and subtleties of SIMS testing.  This week
we were told that SIMS couldn't analyze powders, as in Joe Champion's
notorious samples, or that only the surface composition was tested.

I was glad to get some credit for measuring the mass balances in your
data, but I merely forwarded a post by John Logajan
[jlogajan@skypoint.com], who originated this creative, insightful, and
productive analysis.

I'll look into the literature some more to see if some anomalies show up
in some of the beginning work in the development of SIMS.  As you can
see from my post today, Sunday, Oct. 27, on electric spark explosions in
air  in 1923 on an asbestos fiber wet with MgCl2 solution, the three
dozen published spectral lines indicate, within +- 0.1 A, many anomalous
elements that are indicative of nuclear transmutation of much of the 1-2
mg sample in a single spark.  The two experimenters noted major
anomalies in their spectral data, but made no effort to collect gases or
search for deposits from their explosions.  Isn't 1-2 mg a fairly
substantial amount of reactants, even in 1922?  Surely simple chemical
tests and mass spectrometer tests would have proved the identity of
microgram levels of products.  It just didn't occur to them to even
consider the possibility of nuclear transmutations.  This is the pattern
of almost every study I listed at the end of my post.  I will be
publishing many posts analyzing each one.

Even in 1924, the resistance to considering the possibility of nuclear
transmutation was enormous.  You're running into it yourself in 1996.  I
haven't heard a peep in the media about your remarkable results, so
thoroughly and carefully compiled, and confirmed by several other
prestigious laboratories.  I hope you're getting a lot of
behind-the-scenes encouragement and support from individuals in the
scientific establishment.

I am also concerned about wider implications of exploding wire research.
Perhaps dangerous levels of radiation may be released in an instant,
enough to swamp a geiger counter.  Researchers may have been and may
still be at risk.  The instantaneous transmutation of milligram amounts
in a single spark might be rather exothermic...how would we know, when
all we know now is that we don't have a theory for these reactions? 
Perhaps some spark transmutation experiments the last three-quarters of
a century have also destroyed both laboratory and experimenter. 
Finally, what if these transmutation reactions can be induced to grow
exponentially, as in nuclear explosion technology?  These are grave
national security and world security issues.  It is imperative that the
parameters of nuclear transmutation processes in exploding wire research
be determined.  It is imperative to cast aside the widespread prejudice
that these transmutation reactions can not and therefore must not and do
not exist.  The community of researchers needs to be constantly and
deliberately mindful that we are tickling the unknown dragon's tail.  We
must take precautions against unexpected radiations and explosions.  We
must search the historical scientific literature to find what has
unwittingly already been achieved.  What professional organizations are
there for assessing the possible health hazards of exploding wire work? 
Even high school students can do these experiments.  These health and
danger issue organizations might fund exploratory research.  It's their
charter.

Rich Murray

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Sun Oct 27 21:43:24 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA15091; Sun, 27 Oct 1996 21:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 21:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:41:07 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
In-Reply-To: <326C596E.57AE@skypoint.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961028163442.24578A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"GQ-TS3.0.jh3.9U4To"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1827
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


I've been thinking about this very interesting post by John Logajan:
 
>The conclusion was that the output distribution points to a limited
>number of possible inputs, the most obvious fitting candidate being
>2H+Ni ==> empirical distribution results + (+/-)very small energy
> 
>     (NAA
>    Results)
>     Atomic           Atomic   Per Nucleon    (* ratio)
> Ele  Ratio   A   Z    Mass    Binding Ener  Weighted B.E.
>--- ------ --- --- ---------- ------------ --------------
> Al  0.0051  13  27  26.98154   0.999316296  0.005096513
> Ag  0.0661  47 107 106.905092  0.999113009  0.06604137
> Cr  0.0594  24  52  51.940509  0.998855942  0.059332043
> Fe  0.1453  26  56  55.934939  0.998838196  0.14513119
> Ni  0.6231  28  58  57.935346  0.998885276  0.622405415
> Cu  0.0796  29  63  62.939589  0.999041095  0.079523671
> V   0.0001  23  51  50.943962  0.998901216  0.00009989
> Co  0.001   27  59  58.933198  0.998867763  0.000998868
> Zi  0.0204  30  64  63.929145  0.998892891  0.020377415
> H            1   1   1.007825  1.007825
> 
>                    Average non-Ni Binding Energy  0.99920658
>              Delta Binding Energy (Ni's-other's) -0.000321304
> Required protium / Ni nucleon ratio to balance    0.035941162
>                      Required H/Ni atomic ratio   2.084587384

John finds that the mass excess of the collection closely match those
of 2H + Ni.

You can also do an analysis of the proton and neutron numbers of the 
elements and see if they also match those of 2H + Ni.

I don't have Miley's paper but using the numbers above I get 

Average "Z" (proton number) = 28.117    
Average "A" (Proton + plus neutron number) = 59.42

Very interestingly the "Z" of Ni = 28. The calculation of "A" would be 
much more accurate if the isotopic abundances of elements were used rather
than the "A" of the normally most observed nucleaus. I don't have isotopic 
distribution
of the final state products which are said to be anomalus. Can someone with
access to the paper do the calculation to see if the average "A" = 60?
(58 from Nickel plus 2 from the protons.) The implication is that the two
protons are being transformed into 2 neutrons in the processing of the
material!

If these nuclei are contaminants they have arrived in very intriguing
ratios!!

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 03:20:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA22055; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 03:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 03:13:54 -0800 (PST)
From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:13:52 GMT
Organization: Improving
Message-ID: <327693b5.48302102@mail.netspace.net.au>
References: <961027014625_72240.1256_EHB122-1@CompuServe.COM>
In-Reply-To: <961027014625_72240.1256_EHB122-1@CompuServe.COM>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Message-ID: <"2INcB2.0.SO5.mL9To"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1828
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On 26 Oct 96 21:46:25 EDT, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>To: Vortex
>
>Mark Hugo writes:
>
>    A. Wouldn't Hitachi have known they cannot SIMs a powder?
>
>Yes, they knew, and they said the results were meaningless. I gather =
they
>tried some tricks to make it work, but no go.

Actually, I am somewhat surprised that no one has simply melted the
powder to form a glass like or crystalline mass, and then used SIMS on
the result.
>
>
>    B. Couldn't they Xrf some of it?
>
>I don't know.
>
>- Jed
>
>

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@netspace.net.au>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20
temperature.
Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything,
Learns all his life,
And leaves knowing nothing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 06:20:30 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26811; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:13:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610281412.HAA20211@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 06:11:41 +0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: RE: EEG   entrainment
Resent-Message-ID: <"40QBl3.0.nY6.K-BTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1829
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:36 AM 10/25/96 -0700, you wrote:
>John
>	As a "practical" application which would be unclassified,
>have you or anyone tried to build a "brainwave" interface to a computer
>which would replace the mouse as an input device? I think it would
>be an interesting project. Would your outfit have any funds available
>for a researcher to try and develop this?
> -Hank Scudder
><snip>
> ----------
>
>

Hank, how about a unit that takes off from the look and shoot tech of the
military, so all we have to do it look at the location/button item and maybe
blink slowly or maybe thrice or something like that.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 08:16:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00358; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 07:29:37 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Gas Separations and Isotopic Enrichment (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961028072842.24050A-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZzKOt3.0.T5.e8DTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1831
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Forwarded message about Hilsch Vortex Tube

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:44:26 -0600
From: brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Reply-To: webhead-l@eskimo.com
To: webhead-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Gas Separations and Isotopic Enrichment
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:44:52 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: webhead-l@eskimo.com

At 08:52 PM 10/25/96, Bill Beaty wrote:
...
>Very strange stuff.  The Hilsch Vortex Tube is actually some sort of
>acoustic device.  When its fundamental frequency is inhibited by a 
>nearby resonator, it stops creating a temperature difference.
>
...
>I just searched altavista and found a Vortex Tube page!
>
>   Linkname: Ranque-Hilsch Vortex Tube
>        URL: http://t_cockerill_pc.sunderland.ac.uk/rhvtmatl/
>

This Web reference is quite astonishing.
Not only do Maxwell's Daemons sort the cool from hot molecules,
they do quite well at sorting the oxygen from the nitrogen!
 The mind leaps immediately to the otherwise quite difficult task of 
enriching a flow with the atmosphere's third most numerous species...argon.

 
   Then there is an immediate connection to those WWII juggernauts that were 
winnowing U238/235.

But finally, having grasped this nuclear nettle, I speculate that
this vortex tube might work quite well on a more solid fluid - tap water.
As you know, D2O occurs at abouut 1:7000 in tap water.
 Anyone for deuterium oxide?

Regards
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 15:51:47 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA25301; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 14:47:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: edstrojny@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <edstrojny@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:42:52 +0000
Message-ID: <19961028224250.AAA27902@LOCALNAME>
Resent-Message-ID: <"fqxdl3.0.9B6.bVJTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1836
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 05:41 AM 10/28/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>I've been thinking about this very interesting post by John Logajan:
> 
>>The conclusion was that the output distribution points to a limited
>>number of possible inputs, the most obvious fitting candidate being
>>2H+Ni ==> empirical distribution results + (+/-)very small energy
>> 
>>     (NAA
>>    Results)
>>     Atomic           Atomic   Per Nucleon    (* ratio)
>> Ele  Ratio   A   Z    Mass    Binding Ener  Weighted B.E.
>>--- ------ --- --- ---------- ------------ --------------
>> Al  0.0051  13  27  26.98154   0.999316296  0.005096513
>> Ag  0.0661  47 107 106.905092  0.999113009  0.06604137
>> Cr  0.0594  24  52  51.940509  0.998855942  0.059332043
>> Fe  0.1453  26  56  55.934939  0.998838196  0.14513119
>> Ni  0.6231  28  58  57.935346  0.998885276  0.622405415
>> Cu  0.0796  29  63  62.939589  0.999041095  0.079523671
>> V   0.0001  23  51  50.943962  0.998901216  0.00009989
>> Co  0.001   27  59  58.933198  0.998867763  0.000998868
>> Zi  0.0204  30  64  63.929145  0.998892891  0.020377415
>> H            1   1   1.007825  1.007825
>> 
>>                    Average non-Ni Binding Energy  0.99920658
>>              Delta Binding Energy (Ni's-other's) -0.000321304
>> Required protium / Ni nucleon ratio to balance    0.035941162
>>                      Required H/Ni atomic ratio   2.084587384
>
>John finds that the mass excess of the collection closely match those
>of 2H + Ni.
>
>You can also do an analysis of the proton and neutron numbers of the 
>elements and see if they also match those of 2H + Ni.
>
>I don't have Miley's paper but using the numbers above I get 
>
>Average "Z" (proton number) = 28.117    
>Average "A" (Proton + plus neutron number) = 59.42
>
>Very interestingly the "Z" of Ni = 28. The calculation of "A" would be 
>much more accurate if the isotopic abundances of elements were used rather
>than the "A" of the normally most observed nucleaus. I don't have isotopic 
>distribution
>of the final state products which are said to be anomalus. Can someone with
>access to the paper do the calculation to see if the average "A" = 60?
>(58 from Nickel plus 2 from the protons.) The implication is that the two
>protons are being transformed into 2 neutrons in the processing of the
>material!
>
>If these nuclei are contaminants they have arrived in very intriguing
>ratios!!
>
>Martin Sevior
>
Does anyone know or can speculate on the conditions necessary to enhance the
transformation of protons to neutrons?

Wouldn't one deuteron also lead to the same result?  If so, wouldn,t a
two-body event (D + Ni) be more successful?  I don't know; based on what has
been said here and in spf I gathered that a three-body nuclear event had a
very low probability of happening.

Ed Strojny

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 16:36:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04251; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 15:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:25:11 +1100 (EST)
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
In-Reply-To: <EPRI.MHUGO.952218080096302FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.961029101407.27821A-100000@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"CvyCK.0.H21.s8KTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1837
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On 28 Oct 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote:

> *** Reply to note of 10/27/96 21:41
> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
> Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
> Martin: Do you have Miley's paper yet? If not, we should get you a copy. MDH
> 
> 

No I don't have a copy. I was waiting till his "new" data as delivered at
ICCF6 was incorporated into it.

I did the calculation of the average number of nucleons assuming normal
terestial isotopic abundances. I get average A = 60.07. The average atomic
mass of terestial Nickel is 58.69. We need unnatural isotopic abundances
to make 2N + Ni => Goulash theory is right.

Martin Sevior

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 17:05:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10816; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 16:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: 28 Oct 96 18:59:10 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Stanley Meyer
Message-ID: <961028235909_100060.173_JHB51-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"i01bH3.0.qe2.cfKTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1838
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians,

I am in desperate need of solid evidence of either the honesty or otherwise of
Stanley Meyer.

Has anyone proof of the validity of any of his claims, or alternatively PROOF of
either the falsity of any of his claims, or of his dishonesty in any business
activity.

I'm not interested in his strange psyche or other personal quaintness.

Has anyone any real inside knowledge of his supposed connections with any US
government dept. or any significant commercial organisation?

I have a very good reason for asking for this info. like yesterday please!!

I will reveal all in a few days.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 17:43:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21560; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v02140b08ae9b0cfcf442@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 17:58:32 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Rr193.0.cG5.HSLTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1839
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Edwin Strojny asked:
>Does anyone know or can speculate on the conditions necessary to enhance the
>transformation of protons to neutrons?

Beta decay converts a neutron into proton plus electron plus neutrino.
Either electron capture or positron emission convert a proton into a
neutron plus neutrino.  All three processes involve the 'weak' nuclear
force.

A positron would quickly be anihilated with an electron and produce a pair
of 0.51 MeV gammas.  The more common beta emits energetic photons, called
bremsstrahlung, as it slows down in whatever medium it finds itself in.
Both the anihilation radiation and the bremsstrahlung are detectable by
simpler radiation counters, even if the reactions were to produce no gammas
directly.  One of the 'three cold fusion miracles', is the almost total
absence of countable radiation.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 19:16:21 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA13079; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:29:44 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: I hate to give Jed a rough time...but??
In-Reply-To: <327693b5.48302102@mail.netspace.net.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961028212858.5597H-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yn3aD3.0.EC3.cpMTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1840
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 




	I think you like to give Jed a tough time! 

	:)

				J

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Mon Oct 28 20:32:55 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09778; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 20:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: 28 Oct 96 22:01:55 EST
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: CF Cell Geometry
Message-ID: <961029030155_76016.2701_JHC99-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"UpcXZ.0.bO2.5BOTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1844
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hi Vortexians,

Early automotive catalytic convertors consisted of small beads coated with an
alloy of platinum (not unlike the active portion of the Patterson Cell).
Recently, I had reason to open a modern catalytic convertor and found that the
design has changed.  The inner material consists of a rectangular honeycomb
approximately 2 mm on each side with square cells.  Imagine a window screen
extended in a third dimension.  The result is a smaller convertor with the
exhaust gas flowing through the long rectangular cells.  It's easy to see that a
great surface area per unit volume of working material is accomplished.

I now wonder.  Since such a manufacturing process exists for creating this
structure and coating it with the required alloys, would it not behoove us to
examine the possible application on a cold fusion cell?  Or has someone already
tried this?  Catalytic convertors have a lot in common with CF cells.  It
clearly worked better than beads for exhaust gases.

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 01:42:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12277; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 08:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 08:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.952218080096302FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 28 Oct 1996 08:18:08 PST
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/28/96 08:18:22 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"uiAAe1.0.X_2.wsDTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1833
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/27/96 21:41
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
Martin: Do you have Miley's paper yet? If not, we should get you a copy. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 02:34:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA10698; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 02:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 02:32:41 -0800 (PST)
From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Subj:   RE: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-id: <01IB6VKJ1POY8Y5BP7@delphi.com>
X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Resent-Message-ID: <"I6XQN.0.4d2.9rTTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1845
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>Joe, I guess I don't see why you would expect an emf from the
pickup coil
>whether or not the field spun with the magnet!  It seems to
me, if I understand the
>above setup, that there is no magnetic flux threading the
PLANE OF THE COIL TURNS!
>Your pickup coil seems to be wound with the coil loops in the
r-z plane (again,
>using cylindrical coordinates) in which case they would be
decoupled from any changes
>or movement of the magnetic field.  What say you to my query?

>Frank Stenger

The coil setup I used in the actual experiment is more complex
than described here, and is difficult for me to describe in the
litery sense (a picture is worth a thousand words). However the
conductors, in the described setup, located on the surface
where flux changes are at a right angle to the magnetic field
and the electrons in the conductors would undergo an
acceleration at a right angle to the flux. The conductors on
the side where flux would not be expected to change are at a
right angle to a static field. Therefore if current is induced
in the conductors on the flux changing side then as the
electrons move through the condutors in the static field side
the following relationship would apply:

Lorentz force F=e(v * B) therefore the motion of e in a uniform
magnetic field B with velocity v where from Newton's second law
the force on the particle is = to the product of it's mass and
it's acceleration so   a(dv/dt) (assuming v<<c) so ma=e(v*B) or
a= e/m(v*B) so therefore the acceleration is normal to the
plane containing the path of e and B:. So if  the path of e is
normal to the plane then acceleration is maximum; if e is at
rest, the field has no effect; if the path is in the same
direction as B there is no effect. So on the Static side e is
either accelerated or unchanged.

On the changing side the acceleration of e is an integration of
delta B and at a right angle to B, the rate be changes and the
number of conductors (don't divide by 2). Because of the above
static field effects on e the direction of e on the changing
side is moot.

The current loop must be thought of as two seperate sets of
straight conductors in seperate conditions, one static and one
changing, not a selenoid.

The field would not be spinning, unless there is some sound
reason why it would pin to the rotating magnet rather than the
stationary magnet. It would either move back and forth or
remain stationary.

If you would like a diagram of the actual coil arrangement
email me and I'll send or fax you a thousand word picture.
If you have a scope available, wrap the coil as described, move
a small magnet back and forth over the coil, you'll see the
induced voltage.

Joe Flynn
Flynn Research Inc.
P.O. Box 11657
Kansas City, Mo. 64138

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 03:27:11 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA20172; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:25:19 -0800 (PST)
From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 21:27:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-id: <01IB6VSQL2888Y5BP7@delphi.com>
X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Resent-Message-ID: <"J5xTy3.0.5x4.UcUTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1846
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>If there is no grip on the lines of flux by the magnetic
material,

>Gary Hawkins

There is a spacial grip parallel to the axis, no angular axial
grip parallel to the plane.

Joe Flynn

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 03:49:43 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA23637; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9b8d686e43@[204.17.242.73]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 02:48:36 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Subj:   RE: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
Resent-Message-ID: <"mygy_2.0.Fn5.hxUTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1847
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
>
>If you would like a diagram of the actual coil arrangement
>email me and I'll send or fax you a thousand word picture.
>If you have a scope available, wrap the coil as described, move
>a small magnet back and forth over the coil, you'll see the
>induced voltage.
>
>Joe Flynn


Joe,

Moving a small magnet back and forth over the coil is totally different
from the originally described rotating magnets because you are generating
an AC output by changing the net amount of magnetic flux going *through*
the coil.  Another way to look at it is that you are creating a momentary
imblance in the number of lines of flux cutting the coil per second.  Each
complete pass of the magnet over the coil should produce *two* pulses one +
and one - pulse.  If you time it right and don't go completely over the
coil you can merge the two adjacent + peaks and the two adjacent - peaks
into a single pair of + and - peaks so it looks like the waveform is in
synch with the hand motion, but it is actually 90 degrees out of phase.

In the orginal case of the rotating magnets (assuming they are very uniorm)
there is complete balance at all times - so you should get no induced
current.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 04:32:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA02080; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9b953342dd@[204.17.242.69]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:28:54 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
Resent-Message-ID: <"f01b42.0.MW.RXVTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1848
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>>If there is no grip on the lines of flux by the magnetic
>material,
>
>>Gary Hawkins
>
>There is a spacial grip parallel to the axis, no angular axial
>grip parallel to the plane.
>
>Joe Flynn

I think there must be very large but balanced, and therefore unobserved,
lateral forces between the lines of flux generated by two attracting fields
moving past each other as in the case of two rotating magnets.  This is
because flux creates pressure corresponding to the amount of flux.

In April I posted the following experiment in relation to rail guns:

"Make a vertical plastic slot (or stands with grooves) that supports two
strong flat magnets (I used 35 MGO magnets) that have the magnetic fields
running purpendicular to the thin dimension.  Drop the two magnets into the
slot.  If they are oriented in opposite directions they will attract, but
if oriented in the same direction the second will float above the first at
a significant distance.


Note - I did this experiment with two 35 MGO magnets, each 1" x 1" x .5".
The magnetic field was in the .5" direction - through the thickness of the
magnets.  The two magnets were dropped into a 1" x .6" x 5.5" slot made two
plexaglass sheets taped to two .6" thick plastic uprights screwed to a
wooden base.  The magnet poles both faced in the same direction.  The
bottom of the top magnet floated 1 7/8" above the top of the bottom magnet.
I think it takes more than "like poles oppose" to explain an elevation
3.75 times the width of the magnets, i.e. the distance between poles on one
magnet."

This experiment clearly demonstrates a lateral pressure between parallel
lines of flux (assuming flux exists in some sense.)  So why can two
attracting circular magnets frictionlessly rotate?  The answer must be
that, for uniform circular rotating magnets, the repulsion in the direction
of motion by approaching flux must be exactly balanced by the repulsion of
separating flux.  So, there is no net "grip".


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 04:39:04 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA12427; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:44:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148
Message-Id: <v03007800ae9a80ef7840@[128.183.89.65]>
In-Reply-To: <961026035852_72240.1256_EHB87-1@CompuServe.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:02:51 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Larry Wharton <wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Critique of the NHE Experiments
Resent-Message-ID: <"zKpvx.0.-13.XxFTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1834
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

In Jed's critique he points out the problem:

>Yes, it probably will, but that is only because the "skeptics" know nothing
>about the subject and because they will read the first half of the critique,
>skip the part about the French Nuclear Agency and SRI replicating Pons &
>Fleischmann and jump to an absurd, totally unwarrented conclusion. The French

To correct this he should lead off with the positive results and then
address the question as to why the NHE experiments are not working.

>It has not been debunked. Not by a million miles! IMRA Europe has been running
>a cell at boiling, producing hundreds of watts, for three months. When the
>the French Nuclear Agency decided to replicate them, they did it right and
>got a huge excess at very high power levels. The INFN Italian researchers
>brought several rock solid Pd D2O results to ICCF6, showing helium and x-rays
>correlated with the heat. They also descsribed scaled up devices producing
>200% excess at several hundred watts. The evidence for Pd D2O CF is stronger
>by far than it has ever been before.

Here we have some reports of positive results which I did not know about
and which were not included in the critique.  I think they should be
included up front and then go through the arguments as to what these
successful experiments had that the NHE experiments were lacking.
  Also the claim that SRI is now failing to replicate their previous
results should be elaborated upon.  In many past CF papers and lectures,
the SRI results have been given as the most convincing evidence that CF
works.  If those results can no longer be replicated then that casts a very
negative implication on the entire CF field.  If the past evidence of the
reality of CF is now invalid then one must ask how much of the current body
of evidence will be found to be invalid in the future.  It is all right to
throw out the SRI results, which you do when you say that they cannot
replicate them,  but that is a very serious step which must be taken with
caution and only if it is true.

Lawrence E. Wharton
NASA/GSFC code 913
Greenbelt MD 20771
(301) 286-3486 


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 05:01:02 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA08931; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 04:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961029125820.008c44c8@freeway.net>
X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:58:20 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny@freeway.net>
Subject: Re: CF Cell Geometry
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y1Xaj1.0.RB2.L-VTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1849
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:01 PM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote:
>Hi Vortexians,
>
>Early automotive catalytic convertors consisted of small beads coated with an
>alloy of platinum (not unlike the active portion of the Patterson Cell).
>Recently, I had reason to open a modern catalytic convertor and found that the
>design has changed.  The inner material consists of a rectangular honeycomb
>approximately 2 mm on each side with square cells.  Imagine a window screen
>extended in a third dimension.  The result is a smaller convertor with the
>exhaust gas flowing through the long rectangular cells.  It's easy to see
that a
>great surface area per unit volume of working material is accomplished.
>
>I now wonder.  Since such a manufacturing process exists for creating this
>structure and coating it with the required alloys, would it not behoove us to
>examine the possible application on a cold fusion cell?  Or has someone already
>tried this?  Catalytic convertors have a lot in common with CF cells.  It
>clearly worked better than beads for exhaust gases.
>
>Terry
>
The reason for such an open structure in catalytic converters is that large
volumes of gas is required to pass through at high velocities without
creating an unwanted amount of back pressure.  In cold fusion, back pressure
is not a significant problem; you want as high a surface area as you can get
and still get some flow.  A highly packed microsphere structure is one way
of achieving this condition.

Ed Strojny
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 05:15:07 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22861; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-Id: <AAMeGTouF6@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
Organization: Chemistry Department
From: filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Filimonov)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 21:31:34 +0200 (MSK)
Subject: Repeat: Obstacles to making use of YUSMARs...
X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25]
Resent-Message-ID: <"5TZPt2.0.5b5.hsGTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1835
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996
From: "Ben Filimonov" <filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by>
To: "Peter Glueck" <peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro>
Cc: Vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Obstacles to making use of YUSMARs in Belarus

        Dear Peter,
        Dear Vortexans,

Discussion about YURLE (Belarus analog of YUSMAR) in our press seems to be
finished in our intrinsic manner.

Some time ago jounalist Oleg Vengerenko (you have some his articles amid
the extraction I sent you earlier) published one more article entitled
"Do We Need YURLE Heat Generator?" in "Narodnaya Gazeta" (`People's Newspaper',
one of our official `organs'). Author informs about New Energy researches
throughout the world, reports on YURLE operation at customers and describes
some problems on the way of commercializing this device. There are some words
about `worldwide known professors paying attention to heat generator -
Russian ones Sapogin, Nikitskii and American (?!) one Glueck'. This annoying
mistake would be funny but for other points are too serious, even sad ones.

As you can know, about 150 YURLE units having power up to 30 kW each
were constructed and put into operation in Belarus during last three years.
Most of customers evaluate them positively, however not all of them report
o/u heat production. The main problem YURLE and its producer have to withstand
now is strangling cost for feeding electric energy. It is established five
times higher than the same for industrial needs. At the same time YURLE sets
of up to 240 kW supply heat to schools, hospitals and small factories at the
periphery - at those places where there is no centralized heat supply from
Heat-Electric Plants.

Official reply to noted article was published at the same newspaper at Oct 15,
just before the `heat supplying season'. Relating to last year tests of YURLE
at `Belenergoremnaladka' (Belarus Energy Repair Arrangement) state enterprice,
it states that "the only source of liquid heating in the system is electrical
energy consuming by installation and transferring to heat under multifold
cycling heat carrier in closed loop" and then "YURLE installation is analogous
by efficiency to electric boilers and hasn't any advantages as related to the
latter". (It is not correct because warranted period of electrical boiler is
far not enough to provide round the heating season operation, contrary to YURLE
generator). So.. cost of electrical energy for YURLE must be the same as for
electrical boilers - i.e. 5 times more than for industrial needs. It is
normal for `this country' - I mean SU and its the most conserved part, Republic
Belarus, where industrial needs were always preferred, not human needs.
The most exciting statement is: "As for ecologic cleanness of the installation,
it occurs ONLY at customers. But producing of electric energy used by heat
generator YURLE being implemented by burning organic fuel at electric power
plants, is accompanied by harmful substances pollution to atmosphere".
Real mess. It should not work because power plants are air polluting. I'll
send you both mentioned articles.

Yours,
Ben>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 05:52:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA17186; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:41:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:41:18 -0800 (PST)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961029134511.0071dd70@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:45:11 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Spinning, moving
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"SYFua3.0.IC4.vbWTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1850
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


Picking up on the endles debate whether a magnetic field moves with the
permanent magnet, imagine this:



1) A uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of your computer
monitor is set up by a permanent magnet (ie. the flux lines are poking you
in the eye)

2) A charged particle, let's say an electron enters a this uniform magnetic
field from left to righ with the trajectory parallel to the plane of your
monitor

3) Upon the entance into the magnetic field the electron experiences an
upward Lorentz deflection and the force of this deflection F=qvB.  This
causes the electron to assume a circular orbit in the plane of your monitor.

I assume no problemo so far.

Now, what happens if:

1) The electron is put in the center of your monitor plane

2) The permanent magnet that sets up the uniform magnetic field through the
plane of your monitor is moved from right to left parallel to the plane of
your monitor with velocity v

3) This causes the same relative motion between the electron and magnet as
in previous scenario

I assume no problemo so far

What happens now ?

1) Is the electron accelerated upward ?

2) If the electron is accelerated then the uniform magnetic field must move
with the permanent magnet

3) If the electron is NOT accelerated then the uniform magnetic field is
independent of the permanent magnet

4) What would be the mathematical equation for vertical and horizontal
position of the electron at any given time after the magnet is moved in
respect to the electron with velocity v. ?

5) The above equation will NOT describe a circle to a stationary observer,
right ? What wil it be: a line, elipse, parabola, hyperbola... etc. ?

6) Considering the changing direction and magnitude of the
electron-velocity-vector in time,  will the electron be continuosly
accelerated by the magnetic field moving from right to left. ?

7) If the trajectory of the electron is ellipsoid or circular, will the
electron be deaccelerated during certain segments of this trajectory by the
moving magnetic field ?

8)  What will happen if the magnetic field moves very fast (close to c) ?


Your answers will shed light on homopolars and spinning magnets...
Instead of invisible electrons an experiment could be set up with
electricaly charged styrofoam dust or ionized air and smoke.  In order to
visualize whats happening with charged particles.


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 06:11:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA20763; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 05:57:51 -0800 (PST)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961029140057.0072e054@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:00:57 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Gas Separations and Isotopic Enrichment (fwd)
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"VWkGZ.0.K45.QrWTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1851
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Well, vortex coolers are nothing new, they use the energy stored in the
compressed gas to do their work.  It all works on the basis of conservation
of angular momentum, like a ballerina with her arms stretched out (slow,
cold) or arms pulled in (fast, hot)

My sawing machine is using such e vortex cooler to chill the needle below
freezing.

However, the application for separating H20 and D20 is fascinating.  I
always wanted to drink some heavy water and become invisible in MRI scan, he
he..

I still don't get how the isotopic separation is actualy done.

At 07:29 AM 10/28/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Forwarded message about Hilsch Vortex Tube
>
>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:44:26 -0600
>From: brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
>Reply-To: webhead-l@eskimo.com
>To: webhead-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Gas Separations and Isotopic Enrichment
>Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 18:44:52 -0800 (PST)
>Resent-From: webhead-l@eskimo.com
>
>At 08:52 PM 10/25/96, Bill Beaty wrote:
>...
>>Very strange stuff.  The Hilsch Vortex Tube is actually some sort of
>>acoustic device.  When its fundamental frequency is inhibited by a 
>>nearby resonator, it stops creating a temperature difference.
>>
>...
>>I just searched altavista and found a Vortex Tube page!
>>
>>   Linkname: Ranque-Hilsch Vortex Tube
>>        URL: http://t_cockerill_pc.sunderland.ac.uk/rhvtmatl/
>>
>
>This Web reference is quite astonishing.
>Not only do Maxwell's Daemons sort the cool from hot molecules,
>they do quite well at sorting the oxygen from the nitrogen!
> The mind leaps immediately to the otherwise quite difficult task of 
>enriching a flow with the atmosphere's third most numerous species...argon.
>
> 
>   Then there is an immediate connection to those WWII juggernauts that were 
>winnowing U238/235.
>
>But finally, having grasped this nuclear nettle, I speculate that
>this vortex tube might work quite well on a more solid fluid - tap water.
>As you know, D2O occurs at abouut 1:7000 in tap water.
> Anyone for deuterium oxide?
>
>Regards
>brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
>Altus OK
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 07:00:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA01106; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 06:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Posted-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:21:58 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <327621E7.1BEC@winternet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:25:27 -0600
From: Bob Fickle <bobfickl@winternet.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CF Cell Geometry
References: <1.5.4.32.19961029125820.008c44c8@freeway.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"24L612.0.BH.taXTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1853
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>From what I've read here of late, it seems that obtaining a consistently high loading 
of the cathode is still a major issue in these experiments.  The majority of the beads 
(or whatever cathode) might not be participating in the reaction at all.  If that's the 
case, I would consider using a flat substrate divided into electrically isolated cells 
perhaps 1 mm2 in area, with each cell being connected thru a resistive layer to the 
substrate.  While the resistance would dissipate some power, the overall effect might 
be to limit the current through the nonfunctioning elements so that the total input 
power is reduced.  The flat geometry would also make it easier to investigate the 
performance of individual cathode elements.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 07:28:17 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07916; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.373617070096303FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 1996 07:17:07 PST
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/29/96 07:17:35 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z1Z9W3.0.ax1.x1YTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1855
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/29/96 03:06
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Re: Miley and the Curve of Binding Energy II
Martin: Send me a personal note at MHUGO@EPRI.EPRI.COM and we'll try to get
you the Miley paper. MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 08:39:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA23279; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 11:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: John Schnurer <herman@college.antioch.edu>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Spin ... Grip?
In-Reply-To: <01IB6VSQL2888Y5BP7@delphi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961029112249.19909I-100000@college>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"h5Cdk2.0.bh5.I1ZTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1859
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote:

> >If there is no grip on the lines of flux by the magnetic
> material,
> 
> >Gary Hawkins
*************************************************

> 
> There is a spacial grip parallel to the axis, no angular axial
> grip parallel to the plane.
> 
> Joe Flynn
> 
> **********************************


	Dear Joe,

	Can you please try to state this a different way, and let us know 
how you came to the conclusion and how we too can measure same?

	Thanks.


	Not disputing ... VERY curious.   Is this true with ALL 
materials?  By what mechanism?


						J

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 09:44:28 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06126; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:28:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610291727.KAA30301@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:27:32 +0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer
Resent-Message-ID: <"5D1bI3.0.bV1.1xZTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1860
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 06:59 PM 10/28/96 EST, you wrote:
>Vortexians,
>
>I am in desperate need of solid evidence of either the honesty or otherwise of
>Stanley Meyer.
>
>Has anyone proof of the validity of any of his claims, or alternatively
PROOF of
>either the falsity of any of his claims, or of his dishonesty in any business
>activity.
>
>I'm not interested in his strange psyche or other personal quaintness.
>
>Has anyone any real inside knowledge of his supposed connections with any US
>government dept. or any significant commercial organisation?
>
>I have a very good reason for asking for this info. like yesterday please!!
>
>I will reveal all in a few days.
>
>Norman
>
>

Norman:

In 1991 I was asked to do due diligence on Brown's Gas by a local investor.
In early 1992, as an extension of that due diligence I researched Stanley
Meyer's work because it seemed that he might have a more efficient method of
electrolysis.  Consequently, we purchased all of Meyer's patents, combed
through them, and then conducted a lot of phone queries.  I never talked
with Meyer because I did not want any "confidentiality" issues.

I found that Meyer had organized investment into his effort at least twice
before, that one set of investors was sueing him to recover something over
$1 million, and that his claim to be just six months away from a
demonstrable automobile had an active lifespan of nearly ten years and at
least two different invested ventures.

>From those facts I concluded that Meyer was not ethical enough to consider
backing.  Investors, if handled properly (ethically with straight honesty),
are not going to sue a broke inventor or a bankrupt business.  They sue when
they conclude that they have been manipulated and cheated and they sue
largely to prevent other investors from being similarily cheated and/or out
of a sense of revenge.

>From an analysis of his patents, I concluded that most of the technology was
borrowed or obvious.  Meyer borrowed heavily from Pucharich and other prior
art. Electrolysis is not patentable, application of rf energies  is too
obvious in itelf to be patentable and was well covered by Pucharich and
published research related to microwaving water, and the idea of resonance
for achieving the maximum efficiency is also too obvious, the most that
could be said is that he MIGHT have some particularly efficient ways to
accomplish the task and his circuits MIGHT be protected but we all know that
every circuit can be redone in a variety of ways.

>From this I concluded that Meyer was more the promoter than the inventor.

Given the continuing aura of sourgrapes which I encounter connected to his
name, I feel that I wisely counseled my investor client to stay away from Meyer.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 10:34:40 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18020; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 13:14:11 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer
Message-ID: <961029181411_100060.173_JHB144-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qq9Qk3.0.QP4.NjaTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1861
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael,

>> From this I concluded that Meyer was more the promoter than the inventor.

Given the continuing aura of sourgrapes which I encounter connected to his
name, I feel that I wisely counseled my investor client to stay away from Meyer.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher <<

Absolutely right.  Its such a shame that Tony Griffin was so badly conned,
although I don't think he actually gave Meyer any cash.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 12:31:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA11448; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000B043E@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>, Vortex-L <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:03:00 -0800
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AfuIR3.0.io2.WJcTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1862
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

mwm
   Would it be possible for you to write a short synopsis of Meyer's
claims and works? I personally haven't seen any definitive summary?
 -Hank Scudder
 -

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 19:18:39 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09779; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:11:21 -0800 (PST)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961030031536.0070995c@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:15:36 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Adams Motor experiment #8
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"8G1Ek3.0.gO2.NTiTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1866
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Dear Rob

I really hope that you are measuring your current and voltage with an rms
(root-mean-square) meter with a frequency response of at least 10MHz.  It is
a classical mistake to NOT use rms techniques with periodic waveforms, they
can be 100s % wrong.  Do NOT calculate power by multiplying the average
volts and amps.
It is another common BIG mistake.  (ie. 3 Volts x 4 Amps = 12 Watts, Is
correct only for DC and resistive loads)

    PLEASE TAKE THE ABOVE VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY !!!

As far as I remember form the original "Adams motor manual..." (I have it),
the best speed for energy efficiency is the slowest speed NOT the fastest.
Adams writes that in the fast speed mode his motor operates just like an
conventional motor.

For more control over the back EMF (the current doesn't really change the
direction through the coil) use diodes or mosfets+logic to capture the back
EMF into a capacitor (energy in capacitor = Capacitance times Voltage
squared).  This back EMF captured in a capacitor can be discharged into the
drive coils at a later, more appropriate (efficient) time.

Remember that the timing of the pulses to the drive coils must allow for the
field collapse after the trailing edge of the pulse.  The magnetic field
around the drive coil will collapse slow with 10ohm load,  fast with 1000ohm
load (the load that the back EMF current sees)

BTW: How did you deal with the current draw of your TTL logic and the optos.
Do you have separate power supplies ?


P.S.
    Do something else for me:  put a cylindrical magnet right in the center
of the rotor (where the axis is) so the pole points up. This would make this
magnet perpendicular to all the other magnets on the rotor circumference.
In other words put the major symmetry axis of the center cylindrical magnet
in line with the axis of the rotor.  The magnetc field of this additional
center magnet will not interfere with the rotation of the rotor because it
will be symmetrical to the drive coils and perpendicular to the fields
produced by the magnets on the circumference.  Take your measurements again
and report any differences.  I have a good reason for suggesting this.



At 12:58 AM 10/30/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Date:Tuesday, 29th October, 1996  Time: 23:54
>
>Dear All,
>
>Sunday night I got the motor running for the first time.
>
>It was running very slow and useing a lot of power, about 3 revs per 
>second and drawing about 200mA at 12 volts.
>
>I then reduced the opto gap until the optos were strapped together so the 
>duty cycle for the coil was about 4 or 5 degrees out of 360 degrees(four 
>magnets giving four sets of 5 degrees).
>
>Then I removed and ferrous parts causing magnetic drag, the "helping 
>hands" were not being very helpful.
>
>This increaseed the speed by a great deal, about 15 revs per second, and 
>dropped the supply current to the coil to about 20 mA.
>
>The back EMF was about 40mA but before you all jump for joy, and say he's 
>done it, the voltage produced by the back EMF if discharge back through 
>its own coil will be very low, hence the high current.
>
>Also, I tried it with no back EMF load applied, and the motor slowed down 
>to a very slow pace, it lost about 50% of its speed.
>
>I tried charging a 12 volt battery and it charged at about 5 mA (from the 
>back EMF) with 20mA being fed to the coil.
>
>The BT 3000 relays arrived today (all 10 of them), 240 ohm coils, with a 
>soft iron core.
>I then used one of these and this produced a slower rotation, about 4 
>revs per second, but... it only used an incredible 2mA of current at 12 
>volts!
>I did not test the charging at this point because it would have been less 
>than 0.5 mA
>
>I tried feeding the back EMF into another coil to increase the speed of 
>the rotor but it did not seem to make any difference, but I will need to 
>measure the speeds with a frequency meter to verify all this better.
>
>
>One thing that does not make sense is that the coil is switched on and 
>off about 30 degrees out of 360 degrees before the magnet lines up with 
>the coil.  This position gives the best speed and I think when I tried 
>the top dead centre idea it stopped rotating.
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>Rob King
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 19:53:15 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA17777; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:47:04 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:45:18 -0500
Message-ID: <961029224517_134211182@emout03.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil,
        RVargo1062@aol.com, tlpst15+@pitt.edu, Fostrdae@bbms.iac.honeywell.com,
        CldFusion@aol.com, tkepple@twd.net
Subject: movie stock
Resent-Message-ID: <"-i4_s.0.fL4.t-iTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1867
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Galteck stock droped like a rock to a record low.  I lost 1/2 of my
investment in one week.  What is going on?

My movie is out.  It stinks.




Movie home page at <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~plutofilms/th02000.html
">Movie
</A>


Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 20:16:05 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22368; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:05:39 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:03:30 -0500
Message-ID: <961029230330_1247874372@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil,
        fstenger@interlaced.net, RVargo1062@aol.com, tlpst15+@pitt.edu,
        CldFusion@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: try link again
Resent-Message-ID: <"GhCwC3.0.KT5.HGjTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1868
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    try link again
Date:    96-10-29 23:02:28 EST
From:    FZNIDARSIC
To:      FZNIDARSIC




Movie home page at <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~plutofilms/th02000.html
">Movie
</A>


Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 20:38:50 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26314; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:22:14 -0800 (PST)
From: epitaxy@localaccess.com
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961030042614.00719b60@mail.localaccess.com>
X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:26:14 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: try link again
X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk)
Resent-Message-ID: <"j4Bmz1.0.2R6.qVjTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1869
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

What is your movie about ?


At 11:03 PM 10/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>Subj:    try link again
>Date:    96-10-29 23:02:28 EST
>From:    FZNIDARSIC
>To:      FZNIDARSIC
>
>
>
>
>Movie home page at <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~plutofilms/th02000.html
>">Movie
></A>
>
>
>Frank Z
>
>
>


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Tue Oct 29 22:41:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13039; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 19:08:50 EST
From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Surviving without Bridget, but barely!
Message-ID: <961030000849_76216.2421_HHB62-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"K58M93.0.ZB3._rfTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1864
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

 > [snip]  ...That's what I would do.

*I* would respect the guy's request that we ignore/delete the personal message,
and not continue to comment on it or offer our thoughts on his private matters.
I think he's embarrassed enough as it is, without us all adding our own two
cents worth on it. This is Vortex-L, not "Dear Abby". 

Please!

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 00:09:08 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA13253; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.675837070096303FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 1996 07:37:07 PST
From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: When it rains it pours....
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/29/96 07:37:57 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"Zn1v33.0.zE3.JOYTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1856
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: When it rains it pours....
-
As some of you know, a very personal letter of my got posted. Thanks for all
the Vortexians who wrote me very sympathetic and kind personal notes as a
result. Almost as a humorous footnote, one of the Vortexians was pushing
buttons on his machine, and "whoops" reposted my personal note! He sent
an apology immediately, and asked Bill to delete from the archives (thanks
for that, I hadn't thought of it)---but that in a way was appreciated also,
as it reminded me of how easy it was to make the original mistake. Keep
up the good thoughtful work guys! MDH

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 00:21:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04458; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 10:00:25 EST
From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: CF Cell Geometry
Message-ID: <961029150025_76016.2701_JHC109-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"H7ukG3.0.V51.nnXTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1854
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Ed Strojny wrote:

>> In cold fusion, back pressure
is not a significant problem; you want as high a surface area as you can get
and still get some flow.  A highly packed microsphere structure is one way
of achieving this condition.<<

I agree whole heartedly; however, if we get the reaction rate high is enough,
then the flow rate will become critical.  As a matter of fact, wouldn't you
think that flow consistency is important?  A fluid flowing around many small
spheres is likely quite turbulent.  It is also likely that different modes of
flow are established within the cell.  There might be areas where a significant
flow of electrolyte occurs and others where eddying occurs.  Might this be one
cause of damage to the spheres?

Terry

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 01:05:37 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA02035; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 03:59:49 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re-post of lost msg
Message-ID: <961030085948_100060.173_JHB35-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"VZRyV2.0.eV.wbnTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1870
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

The following is a re-posting of a message I sent previously which seems to have
got lost in the system.  The symposium has been stopped and Meyer will be
subjected to intense questioning by a top barrister today in London.

snip:>
Date:  29-Oct-96 15:47:26  MsgID: OUTBOX
MgTo:  Vortex Mail >internet:vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com
Subj:  Meyer

Vortexians,

[If any of you are within shouting distance of Fayette County, Ohio, can you
please contact the Court of Common Plea there and confirm the outcome of case
No: 930292 CVH determined on 10 Sept. this year. His Honor WJ Corzine presiding.
The Notary Public, TL Speirs.]  Note: since sending this I have now a faxed copy
of the judgement from the court.

The defendant was Stanley Meyer and the plaintiff one of his victims.

The court found that Meyer was guilty of contravening section 191, namely "Fraud
and Deceit" and was required to repay $25,000 to the plaintiff and to meet their
costs of $12,500.

The clincher was that the court forced him to run one of his "fuel cells" in
court in the presence of independent experts who actually MEASURED the input
energy and compared that with the output of electrolysed gases.  The result was
that the output was what could be expected from normal electrolysis and no more
or less.

This could be the start of an avalanche of court claims which should finish
Meyer's game for good, and I know of one victim, not far from here who is
currently taking counsel's advice to recover some $450,000 from him for the
useless expense he put them to in '93/94.

This information has come to me just in time to advise a British charity who are
in the act of inviting Meyer to head up a symposium in the House of Lords in
London this week to promote his water fuel cell and the dune buggy.  The
symposium was organized by a great old man, the late Admiral Sir Anthony
Griffin, who died last week, and who was taken, hook - line & sinker by Meyer,
and who spent a fortune promoting those dud products for him, all in the name of
environmental protection.

Comments?      Norman  <:snip

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 01:35:52 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA09940; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:27:20 +0100
Message-Id: <v01510100ae9cd889cdee@[194.206.201.193]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.1
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde)
Subject: Re: Blue speaks
Resent-Message-ID: <"TIOOl.0.DR2.I1oTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1871
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>From a post by Dick Blue on SPF, I Extract the following text which seems
to raise a valid point :

>The heart of the Miley claims is two pages of tabulated data on isotopes
>ranging from Si through Pb and the claim that observed isotopic abundances
>clearly indicate that the material found on the reacted microspheres got
>there through a nuclear production process - presumably by the transmutation
>of the starting nickel layer.

>I started at the beginning with the silicon isotopes, and what I found in just
>just the first three lines of this huge table is totally mind-boggling.  Let's
>just say that I am not favorably impressed by the quality of the evidence
>Miley presents.  Frankly, I think he should be ashamed of himself!

>The table first lists the three stable isotopes with their natural relative
>abundances: 28Si - 0.92, 29Si - 0.05, 30Si - 0.03.

>For now I skip one column and come to columns headed "Fresh MS atoms" and
>"Reacted MS atoms".  I take these to be the number of atoms of the specified
>isotope normalized to content of one microsphere.  For now it is only the
>isotopic ratios that need concern us.

>Again taking the isotopes in order the observed number of atoms for a fresh
>MS are: 28Si - 8.14 E +16, 29Si - 0.0, 30Si - 0.0.

>The observed number of atoms for a reacted MS are: 28Si - 3.02E +17,
>29Si - 2.04E +16, 30Si - 1.02E +16.

>From these numbers, ultimately, the results presented in the last column
>indicate the difference observed between the relative abundances for the
>reacted MS versus the fresh MS.  The numbers indicate that the abundance
>of 28Si has dropped markedly ( - 45.46) while those for the other two
>isotopes have risen by 30.81 for 29Si and by 14.66 for 30Si -- truly
>remarkable changes.  However, there is a bit of a problem with the
>assertion that these changes are the result of a reaction that occurred
>during the electrolysis.

>Let's start within an examination of the isotope ratios for the silicon
>on the reacted microsphere.  If I take the ratios for the numbers of
>observed atoms as given above I find relative abundances for mass numbers
>28,29,30, respectively, to be 0.91, 0.06, and 0.03.  There is, at most,
>a one percent deviation from the "natural" ratios - well within the
>stated precision for these analyses.  In other words the very criterion
>that Miley has chosen to prove that nuclear transmutations have occurred
>proves that, at least for Si, the material depositied on a microsphere
>during electrolysis is ordinary, natural silicon!

>What then accounts of the shifts tabulated in the last column?  Obviously
>it is the fact that the silicon detected on a "fresh" microsphere consists,
>it seems, entirely of 28Si - a rather unnatural material.  Was the microsphere
>intentionally doped with enriched 28Si?  I don't find that explained anywhere
>in the text so it would seem that the unnatural nuclear transmutations Miley
>seeks occurred during the deposition of the nickel on the microsphere, not
>during the electrolysis as claimed.

>There are some further implications, I believe, to the observation that natural
>silicon is deposited in high abundance on the microsphere during electrolysis.
>There is no great mystery as to the source of this silicon.  The Paterson cell
>is, after all, of glass construction.  Knowing, as we now do, that silicon
>is transported to the microspheres it seems obvious that one should ask, "What
>else leaches from the glass?"  So in spite of the claimed care to avoid
>contamination of the nickel-coated microspheres, this simple examination of
>a small fraction of that data clearly indicates that a path for such
>contamination is present.  I suspect that most of the exotic materials found
>on the microspheres following electrolysis have their origin in the glass, and
>yet the topic of an analysis of that glass is never mentioned.

>Next time we do titanium.

>Dick Blue

Can anybody explain why the SIMS/NAA analysis showed only the 28 Si isotope
on the fresh microsphere ?

                Jean de Lagarde



From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 01:50:00 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20571; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 08:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 10:47:26 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@CompuServe.COM>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Meyer
Message-ID: <961029154726_100060.173_JHB101-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"J4G45.0.F15.pqYTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1858
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians,

If any of you are within shouting distance of Fayette County, Ohio, can you
please contact the Court of Common Plea there and confirm the outcome of case
No: 93CVH292 determined on 10 Sept. this year. His Honor WJ Corzine presiding.
The Notary Public, TL Speirs.

The defendant was Stanley Meyer and the plaintiff one of his victims.

The court found that Meyer was guilty of contravening section 191, namely "Fraud
and Deceit" and was required to repay $25,000 to the plaintiff and to meet their
costs of $12,500.

The clincher was that the court forced him to run one of his "fuel cells" in
court in the presence of independent experts who actually MEASURED the input
energy and compared that with the output of electrolysed gases.  The result was
that the output was what could be expected from normal electrolysis and no more
or less.

This could be the start of an avalanche of court claims which should finish
Meyer's game for good, and I know of one victim, not far from here who is
currently taking counsel's advice to recover some $450,000 from him for the
useless expense he put them to in '93/94.

This information has come to me just in time to advise a British charity who are
in the act of inviting Meyer to head up a symposium in the House of Lords in
London this week to promote his water fuel cell and the dune buggy.  The
symposium was organized by a great old man, the late Admiral Sir Anthony
Griffin, who died last week, and who was taken, hook - line & sinker by Meyer,
and who spent a fortune promoting those dud products for him, all in the name of
environmental protection.

Comments?      Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 02:54:20 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16881; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 10:56:25 EST
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno
Message-ID: <961029155625_72240.1256_EHB137-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"c8iaO1.0.d74.KcYTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1857
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

The Open Letter to the NHE I wrote threatens to become the Monster That Ate
November. Every time I start working on some other project, like my Brief
Report on ICCF6 or a discussion of Ragland's triode cell, I get another batch
of comments about the letter, which call for rewriting, looking up references,
faxing the new version, and so on. Today I must thank Larry Wharton, Tadahiko
Mizuno and Stan Pons for valuable ideas and corrections, which I review below.

Here is part of what I am writing about ICCF6, which is germane to the NHE
controversy.

A major problem here is that the NHE story is a can of worms. Five witnesses
will relate five utterly different accounts of what is happening at the NHE.
Some describe it as a triumphant march towards a clearly defined set of
engineering goals, others say it is political and bureaucratic morass. It is
like Akutagawa's short story "Yabu no Naka" ("In a Grove") which was made into
the famous movie "Rashomon" (1950) -- recommended for anyone studying Japanese
culture. Some people in the project are defending their own management while
some outside it have an ax to grind. It is difficult for me to judge who is
right and who is wrong. The politics and responsibilities are murky, but the
experimental results are clear: the NHE lab performed the experiment over and
over again with only a few marginal cases of excess heat in their fuel-cell
type CF cells, and no excess heat in their SRI style flow calorimeter. On two
occasions they moved cells showing a with slight excess into the SRI style
calorimeter. In both cases the excess went away. Considering the difficulties
of that operation and the time it takes, I think it would be a miracle of the
excess heat survived. The IMRA Japan lab has had a similar string of failures.
Compared to the dynamic work at the Italian labs, Hokkaido University, or IMRA
Europe the success rate at these labs has been abysmal.

Peter Hagelstein and Mike McKubre disagree with me. They do not like the idea
of classifying basic scientific research results as a "failure" or a
"success." After the presentations by the NHE and IMRA Japan, McKubre
commented that this data does not depress him, it is merely another lesson. It
confirms that they, like him, have not been able to simultaneously replicate
all of the specific conditions necessary for the CF effect. McKubre, for
example, achieves high loading, but as soon as he raises current density, the
loading appears to drop off dramatically. He ascribes this to some event in
which the gas in the surface layers of the cathode "blows off
catastrophically." Evidence for this is seen in sudden changes in cathode
resistance. He cannot observe the cathode directly. Peter told me I am too
harsh towards the NHE and others who report honest, negative results. I
suppose he means that a result is a result, we should not judge it according
to our subjective desires or emotions, or an engineering project milestone
checklist. Peter is into theoretical physics and I am oriented towards
engineering, technology and profit making ventures. I have two points in my
defense:

1. As I said to Peter, Martin Fleischmann is disappointed in these results. I
agree with him.

2. The NHE project is described in their official literature and published
papers as an industrial engineering project with milestone checklists. They
have not met their planned goals. Some say they bit off more than they could
chew, the goal was too ambitious. Others say the goal is reasonable but they
are doing the experiments wrong. They cite the reasons in the literature that
I referenced in my letter.

Well, let me briefly describe what Wharton, Pons, Mizuno have to say, and then
I will get back to writing about what Ed Storms says about McKubre's
presentation at ICCF6, and other fascinating topics. <Ahem>


Wharton suggests I move some of the success stories from other labs into the
opening paragraphs of the NHE letter. "[L]ead off with the positive results
and then address the question as to why the NHE experiments are not working."
Good idea. He suggests I add a few more references to the Italian work.
Another good idea except:

1. I do not know as much about it as I would like. I referenced Storms and
Mizuno because I have worked with them and I can navigate their papers
blindfolded. Would someone like to recommend the Best of INFN Papers?

2. Celani and Gozzi gave good presentations at ICCF3, 4, 5 and 6 which I can
reference. At ICCF6 Preparata described the most compelling results I have
seen in years, but his presentation was chaotic. It was incomprehensible. If I
had not talked to him for an hour the day before I would still not know what
he claims. Maybe he will put a good paper in the Proceedings, but I will not
reference that presentation.


Stan Pons writes:

     In your last paragraph on page 4, you state that in item (2) "Lonchampt
     et al. got more direct, hands on assistance from Pons and Fleischmann
     over a longer period of time than you did." In fact, this was not the
     case. I had perhaps two or three half day meetings with Lonchampt over a
     period of 4 years. So the point you surmise in (2) is not true; however:
     it was evident from day one that Lonchampt was determined to _exactly_
     replicate the experiments in question, and that is precisely what he
     did. You make this point abundantly clear in your point (3).

My information about Stan helping Lonchampt came from my conversations with
Lonchampt. He speaks no English and I speak no French, so Biberian had to
interpret. I thought he said they met with Pons and Fleischmann on several
occasions, totaling a couple of weeks. This goes to show what can happen when
you talk via an interpreter. If I get a chance I will ask Biberian to clarify.
In the same letter, Pons says Lonchampt worked on the experiment for nearly
four years. He says, "Herein lies the problem. If you are qualified to do such
experiments, and committed only to replication, it is likely that it will take
you a very long time to arrive at the point where you can achieve consistent,
positive results. The is point was obviously mis-stated by Pons and
Fleischmann in 1989, and has not been appreciated by a great number of
laboratories." I think he is a little harsh on himself. They did not mis-state
the difficulties in 1989, they did not yet know how difficult it would turn
out to be.

Mizuno wrote that he agreed with my letter. The original NHE plan called for
close cooperation between the lab and universities, but he says such
cooperation has not been forthcoming. He reports that the NHE directorate in
Tokyo faxed him today announcing Yet Another Planning Session. He says it is
"very strange" that they would hold a meeting so soon after ICCF6 because "we
have already presented our results" and there is nothing more to say at the
moment. He thinks this planning session might be an emergency response to
criticism of the project, including my letter.


Okay, back to the salt mines.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 03:11:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA11901; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 18:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: 29 Oct 96 21:20:17 EST
From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Build Your Own Water Car?
Message-ID: <961030022016_76570.2270_FHU68-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"0BAl92.0.qv2.VlhTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1865
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Vortexians:

The article below from Nexus seems like complete BS, but the guy provides
explicit plans to build this water car retrofit. It looks like it uses 12V DC
electrolysis of ordinary water (no salt added) in a stainless steel pressure
chamber -- provides an explicit parts list adndimensions for making everything.
Chamber is 18 inches long, 6-inches OD  with 0.125-inch wall thickness.
Electrodes are stainless steel -- shades of wacho-Stanley Meyer! But it is
straight DC, no waveforms, nothing special. It can't work, in my view, but it is
interesting that the guy wastes our time with higher-order problems like
corrosion-resistance, while just passing off the idea that this really can work.
The only thing novel is electrolysis with SS under high pressure and elevated
temperature.

Your thoughts? Is Cella just a "metalhead" venting. ("Cella" is nice name for a
guy who is "selling you a cell"!) Has anybody heard of this guy before?

Gene Mallove

*******


In the Oct/Nov. 96 Nexus, pp.43-46


A WATER-FUELLED CAR by Carl Cella

I am the madman behind the US heavy-metal band, "Rampage", but long before my
musical success I was mechanically inclined, and the possi-bility of running a
car on fuel extracted from water intrigued me no end.

After reading all the information I could find on the subject of hydrogen
generators, I built my first actual unit in 1983, mounting it in the trunk of a
1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville.

I constructed my system from the best of all the other systems I read about, and
then went even further, using the strongest materials and cleanest layout
possible within reason. All the titanium nuts and bolts were scored from an
aircraft salvage supply- they're cheaper, used, and since they'll never wear out
that's one way to save some big- bucks. Certain head and exhaust system
modifications have to be made to expect trouble-free extended use. For one, the
combustion of hydrogen results in the rebonding of the previously-separated
hydrogen and oxygen molecules, making the engine's exhaust water vapour steam,
and nothing else-meaning absolutely no pollution at all!

Most auto-makers use cast-iron exhaust manifolds and steel valves. The combined
effects of heat and moisture (moisture not being present in the combustion of
petroleum-based fuels) cause extremely rapid corrosion of the system. Part of
the fix is to install stainless-steel valves and an exhaust system constructed
entirely out of stainless steel. Racing shops sell stainless-steel valves and
stainless-steel 'turbo' mufflers that all work fine. Since hydrogen does not
contain lead as some gasoline does, if you're not using a late-model, no-lead
engine, the heads will have to be reworked to include valve seats not needing
the lubrication lead provides.

As for building this device to sell as a completed system, that's a dead issue.
In 1983, I contacted the Department of Energy to show them that my car actually
worked. I was confronted by two very belligerent 'agents of tyrannical
oppression' who told me that if I tried to sell pre-built units, I'd have a lot
of "problems". I asked why, demanding an explanation, and vas told very bluntly,
and not in a very nice tone: "Do you have any idea what a device like this,
available to the public, would do to the economy?"

This technology is so simple that anyone with over half a brain-and
knowledgeable in auto mechanics-can build one of these units. I've included
comprehensive, no-bullshit, drafted design layouts, parts lists, maintenance
tips, and a whole lot of engine modification concepts to make construction, part
fabrication and implementation as easy as reasonably possible.

The unit I built works as great as I claim it to, but I offer only the printed
informa-tion on how to build your own, and I take no personal responsibility for
damage of any kind caused to your vehicle or self. (See schematics on follow-on
pages.)

I have only applied my unit to a carburetted engine; I've never attempted an
applica-tion to a fuel-injected engine, nor do I make any such claim that an
application of that type would be easily performed. if possibie at all. Every
cubic foot of water contains aboat 1,376 cubic feet of hydrogen gas and 680
cubic feet of oxygen. Because there is no pollution produced, all smog devices
may be completely removed, legally, and your car exempted from smog checks, as
are propane-powered vehicles.

The only maintenance I've encountered is, periodically, to wire-brush mineral
deposits off the reaction chamber electrodes and, at longer intervals, to clean
out the chamber itself -- neither of which is complicated or very
time-consuming. I've incorporated so many backup electrodes so this job won't be
required roadside-as it was for me when I first used only one, not knowing about
any deposits entirely covering the electrodes and thus halting the electrical
reaction process. When the car dies out, you just flip another switch until
you're somewhere able to brush the reactor's electrodes clean in reasonable
comfort-and not northbound on Highway 5, halfway between Los Angeles and San
Francisco, where my first breakdown was.

Where the steel gasoline tank used to be, a plastic water tank is fitted, along
with an electric float sensor that should be attached to the vehicle's existing
fuel gauge. If you were to start your engine with no modifications other than
the carburettor to accept hydrogen fuel, it will run fine but the exhaust system
will corrode in almost no time, and if you leave the engine turned off for an
extended period, your stock valves and guides will rust up and seize!

Stainless-steel valves don't cost much and are as trouble-free as the
stainless-steel exhaust system, so don't be a fool and try to go cheap because
you'll only cause yourself added expense and headaches, and you'll be cursing me
for your own stupidity. For the cast-iron combustion chambers and valve ports,
there is a high-temperature ceramic coating called "heanium" that can be
pre-formed to guard against the same corrosion that affects the valves, guides,
exhaust system and also the intake manifold; as moisture down there will also
cause corrosion.

Petroleum-based fuels have their own detergent action that protects against
corrosion, much like soaking parts in oil prevents corrosion. When using
hydrogen as an internal combustion engine fuel, extra precautions must be taken
to make extended operation a reality, and not some
drive-a-few-thousand-miles-between- fried-engines bullshit.

Don't use sea water! It contains approximately three-fourths of a pound of salt
in every gallon. Salt is a material that will coat the electrodes very quickly.
Just making one big mess. The reason for electrode deposit buildup is that tap
water is never 100 per cent pure: it contains mineral contaminants that are
drawn to the reactionchamber electrode during the electncally-activated
molecular separation process. That results in the hydrogen contained in water
being released from the oxygen molecules they are bonded to, making a fuel that
can power an internal combustion engine.

I offer no design for an exhaust steam condenser, but I do make the suggestion
that one applicable to an automobile can be built to increase the cost-free
mileage even further between fill-ups. A concept would include some form of
exhaust-fed radiator that could incorporate air ducts, leading from scoops, to
direct highway speed airflow across it.

I offer the idca, but not the design. Because many aspects must be considered,
such as: the least amount of back pressure, unit pressure; unit placement with
regard to configuration by the limit or abundance of that space, though this one
would be constructed for a stationary, engine- powered electrical generator,
where space limitation is of no concern.

Remember, the cylinder walls are cast iron and prone to rust, but they can be
kept clean by piston action (as long as it's not left sitting for long periods
between use). 

An automobile engine could feasibly be constructed with non-corrosive
stainlesssleel heads and cylinders straight from the factory -- a solid reason
to justify spending twenty-five grand or more for a car, because the fuel to run
it would be free.

There has been much criticism over hydrogen as an auto fuel, most of it coming
straight from those who have the most to lose if hydrogen ever achieves
widespread use as an automotive fuel.

There are some factory-built high-performance cars on the market that already
come with slainless-steel valves, but they are few and far between, and you
still havc to change the exhaust systems.

For the carburettor to accept a vapour-state fuel, it must be converted using
the same parts that are used in propane/butanc engine fuel systems, such as
carburenor kits by "Impco", or similar, that do the same thing, i.e., enable
your engine to be powered by a vapour-state fuel.

Because no pollution is produced, the engine may be rebuilt 'legally' with
higher performance parts, like a camshaft that, on gasoline, would have
increased exhaust pollutant emissions, thus making it 'illegal' for highway use.
Of course, it's only a 'crime' if you get 'caught', but those
payagain-every-time-your-vehicle-fails smog checks are a pain in the ass, not to
mention the wallet.

A similar type of mechanism that opens and closes retractable headlights could
be implemented in a dashboard switch activated system that could open a trunk
lidmounted scoop that captures rain, with a flexible hose line that directs it
into the main tank. either while the vehicle is in motion or parked. Just watch
the fuel gauge, and close the scoop when you see "Full"!

While it may be a long time before we are able to purchase an entirely
corrosionresistant, exotic alloy engine, I am offering the complete design for a
hydrogen generator that will power a car-but any engine modificalions I outline
are only given as basic concepts. It's up to you to implement what is applicable
to your particular Engine. Use some initiative. Don't rely on whether I wrote it
or not. If you discover a part or a process that I haven't mentioned, that will
in any way protect your engine further from the effects of corrosion, use it!
I've written this to help people wake up from the big lie of having to depend on
oil companies just to drive a car.

Building as many units as I can for personal use only, and writing this booklet,
are about the only things I can legally do to try to help the world wake up. A
hydrogen generator produces an energy potential in excess of 100 per cent
efficiency!!! You read it right: free energy!

A car's battery starts the engine, but once it's running, the alternator takes
over to charge the battery and power the igninon system. With an onboard
hydrogen generator, that alternator also powers the hydrogen extraction process,
producing the energy needed to fuel the engine that runs the alternator. No
external power source is needed; so as long as there is water available, the
entire system is self-sufficient in operation. An extra trunk-mounted battery
would provide more current-if ever needed-to run everything at once without
overloading the electrical system

System Operation

The dash-mounted switches for turning on the reactor are also wired to activate
the chamber feedwater pump at the same time. When the car dies out that signals
to you that an electrode has been totally crusted over with deposits from the
impure fuel water. This means the electricaliy-activatcd molecular separation
process (electrolysis) has halted. These switches should also have indicator
lights to let you know which one is on, and flip-up caps to guard against
accidental activation.

When the need arises to go to backup, turn off the switch for the 'dead'
electrode, as well as close its electrical shut-off valve. The purpose of these
gas valves is to keep pressurised oxygen from escaping up through the off
electrode fittings into the hydrogen lines, possibly resulting in your car
becoming a "Highway Hindenburg"!

Hydrogen is separated from its molecular bond with oxygen by exposing the fluid
of water to direct-current voltage. Hydrogen is attracted to a negative charge,
while oxygen is attracted to a positive charge. This process generates heat in
the chamber, so trunk placement is best with an aluminium or plywood wall built
between the reactor and the rest of the available trunk space. Small cars are
light on gasoline, thus cheaper to operate, but when all of a sudden the fuel
becomes free, the size and weight of the car is of no concern, except for
Porsches and similar sportscars, street rods, etc.

Water is pumped through the reaction chamber, which itself is positively
charged, drawing the oxygen molecules out through the water return line to be
vented off through the water tank's cap. The hydrogen-attracting electrode
extending into the welded-in pipes (and insulated under the Tfitting) is
negatively charged. There is a dash-mounted pressure gauge that is connected
before the regulator and mixer. To begin hydrogen generation, flip one of the
dash-mounted switches and wait for the gauge to show fuel-line pressure: then
start the engine when pressure is shown by the gauge to exist. In mounting the
unit, remember that the chamber itself is positive, and most cars use a negative
chassis ground, so insulated mounts must be fabricated between the positive
chamber and the negative trunk-tloor.

As a final note, this unit is not a concept or a theory! It is tried and proven!
I designed this system at age 18 in 1983, and built more than one, using Rampage
profits for research and development.

I can't sell actual working units, but nothing but death itself can stop me from
distributing this information in the hope that people will take the initiative
to wake up from the big lie of oil dependency for auto fuel, and flood the
street with hydrogen powered cars.

If enough people find out how simple it is, public pressure may someday soon be
put on the government, resulting in the long overdue media exposure they're all
so afraid of. Eyewitecss News (Channel 7) in Los Angeles didn't want to let the
word out that an actual working vehicle had been built by an 18-year-old
metalhead! We're supposed to be stupid in the public's eye from their point of
view!

Hydrogen and oxygen gases do not pollute; they help clean out carbon deposits
from the engine for better mileage and less engine wear. You'll notice the
improved engine performance immediately.

Source: Carl Cella, PO Box 8101 (4l76-X), San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-0001, USA.
Originally published in Iron Feather Joural
#13, PO Box 1905. Boulder, CO 80306, USA, and then in Psychedelic Illuminations
VIII Fall/Winter 1995/96, PO Box 3186,
Fullerton, CA 92634, USA)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 05:34:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA25425; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199610301329.AA25487@gateway1.srs.gov>
Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:57:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kirk L Shanahan <kirk.shanahan@srs.gov>
Subject: Re: Blue speaks
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
A1-Type: MAIL
Hop-Count: 2
Resent-Message-ID: <"zZuKw.0.7D6.8ZrTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1872
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jean de Laga1rde wrote:

{snip}
>>The table first lists the three stable isotopes with their natural 
>>relative
>>abundances: 28Si - 0.92, 29Si - 0.05, 30Si - 0.03.
{snip}
>>Again taking the isotopes in order the observed number of atoms for a 
>>fresh
>>MS are: 28Si - 8.14 E +16, 29Si - 0.0, 30Si - 0.0.
>>
>>The observed number of atoms for a reacted MS are: 28Si - 3.02E +17,
>>29Si - 2.04E +16, 30Si - 1.02E +16.
{snip}
>>Dick Blue

>Can anybody explain why the SIMS/NAA analysis showed only the 28 Si isotope
>on the fresh microsphere ?

      
Seems to me the data is defining the detection limit.  28Si is 92% of 
naturally occurring silicon, and the inability to see the other isotopes in 
the fresh microspheres just means they are below the detection limit.  Note 
that in the used microspheres, the other isotopes now show up, implying a 
detection limit of about 1e15-1e16 atoms.

SIMS is a surface only technique.  NAA is a bulk technique (generally 
speaking).  *Usually*, surface techniques are more sensitive than bulk ones, 
simply because the surface usually represents a significantly smaller 
fraction of the sample masswise.  Thus surface analysis techniques  *have* 
to be more sensitive in order to even see anything.   If the Si is a surface 
contaminant, I might expect NAA to miss it completely.  (On the other hand, 
if Miley is trying to apply it here, I may well not understand the use of 
NAA in this case...)

Kirk Shanahan  {{My opinions...noone else's}}

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 05:37:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA26508; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 08:34:24 EST
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: My messages messed up?
Message-ID: <961030133424_72240.1256_EHB108-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"04A0_3.0.4U6.XdrTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1873
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: A

To: Vortex

Maybe this is just my computer, but the messages I send to vortex keep
coming back to me messed up or truncated in just one spot. Here is the last
part of the message titled "Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno."

If other people got the original intact please let me know by private e-mail.
I want to know if this is my computer, CompuServe, Vortex, or my imagination.



. . .

In the same letter, Pons says Lonchampt worked on the experiment for nearly
four years. He says, "Herein lies the problem. If you are qualified to do such
experiments, and committed only to replication, it is likely that it will take
you a very long time to arrive at the point where you can achieve consistent,
positive results. The is point was obviously mis-stated by Pons and
Fleischmann in 1989, and has not been appreciated by a great number of
laboratories." I think he is a little harsh on himself. They did not mis-state
the difficulties in 1989, they did not yet know how difficult it would turn
out to be.

Mizuno wrote that he agreed with my letter. The original NHE plan called for
close cooperation between the lab and universities, but he says such
cooperation has not been forthcoming. He reports that the NHE directorate in
Tokyo faxed him today announcing Yet Another Planning Session. He says it is
"very strange" that they would hold a meeting so soon after ICCF6 because "we
have already presented our results" and there is nothing more to say at the
moment. He thinks this planning session might be an emergency response to
criticism of the project, including my letter.


Okay, back to the salt mines.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 05:46:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA27755; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961030134308.008ca0f4@freeway.net>
X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:43:08 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Edwin Strojny <estrojny@freeway.net>
Subject: Re: CF Cell Geometry
Resent-Message-ID: <"vhxU-3.0.Xn6.3krTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1874
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 10:00 AM 10/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>Ed Strojny wrote:
>
>>> In cold fusion, back pressure
>is not a significant problem; you want as high a surface area as you can get
>and still get some flow.  A highly packed microsphere structure is one way
>of achieving this condition.<<
>
>I agree whole heartedly; however, if we get the reaction rate high is enough,
>then the flow rate will become critical.  As a matter of fact, wouldn't you
>think that flow consistency is important?  A fluid flowing around many small
>spheres is likely quite turbulent.  It is also likely that different modes of
>flow are established within the cell.  There might be areas where a significant
>flow of electrolyte occurs and others where eddying occurs.  Might this be one
>cause of damage to the spheres?
>
>Terry
>
The flow has to be enough to remove the excess heat.  Yes, there is a point
reached where back pressure becomes important.  For commercial purposes the
compromise conditions are established by a lot of research.  I am thinking
along the lines of using a material which is not damaged by the conditions
necessary for a prolonged successful effect.  The use of glass beads was a
good idea.  How about nickel microspheres?  Nickel crystals? Needles?
Palladium plated nickel microspheres? Nickel plated copper?  Tiny, granular
nickel is one form that should be readily obtainable from a chemical supply
house which I intend to persue.

Ed Strojny 
>

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 05:50:46 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA28693; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:48:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:48:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 08:46:27 EST
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Build Your Own Water Car?
Message-ID: <961030134627_100433.1541_BHG128-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"U9WsG.0.F07.qorTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1876
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Gene,

Thanks for scanning and posting all that - interesting.

I think Mr Cella is pulling the leg of Nexus - a leg which I think pulls
quite easily.  His fluent style and sensible remarks suggest that he's
an intelligent man, quite capable of having a laugh at their expense.

The one about being warned off by some equivalent of the Men In Black
is probably a hint to the wary.

On the other hand - hey, why not some of us try to find out if (a) this
person really exists and (b) if he will do a demo?  It could be a fun
way to spend an afternoon.

Chris
 

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 05:50:49 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA28653; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 05:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 08:46:21 EST
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Re-post of lost msg
Message-ID: <961030134620_100433.1541_BHG128-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"XN_yN2.0.b_6.iorTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1875
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Norman,

Well, as I've been following this blow-by-blow over the last day or two
I can only say that I am impressed by your efforts.  I have been
(without much success) trying to warn off those attempting replication
and also various TV companies from covering Meyer.  Recently (despite
our squeals of protest) Channel 4 Equinox gave the man a platform.
Worse, he sounded good!

One particularly entertaining aspect of this was the story of Fayette
County's very helpful court officer getting Jed Rothwell's call (at
your request) and simultaneously one from the symposium organisers
whom you had tipped off.

Excellent work, Norman.  And this has resonance with the Rothwell NHE
letter, which has been getting praise and helpful suggestions from
some the best people in the CF field around the world.

The lesson has to be that those of us who feel that the various new
science/technology efforts discussed here are worthwhile should make
every effort to fight against error, incompetence and fraud in the
field.  It is all too easy and tempting to argue the case with various
opponents, when in fact it is far more productive to set our own house
in order.  And it is a very great deal more "effort-effective", too!

We all know that there is a grey area, where people may have quite
legitimate problems even in reproducing their own results.  That leaves
an element of doubt, but when people like NHE do not follow known
experimental requirements, or (vastly worse of course) there are
out-and-out fraudsters like Meyer around, then something needs to be
done.  It seems it took a judge (who is now one of my heroes, I would
add) to finger Meyer.  But Meyer was an unusually slippery customer,
and all of us knew that he would never provide any instrumented demos.
We never knew for certain that he was a fraud, but it had been clear
for years that it was a Big Mistake to have any dealings with him - and
we advised people of that.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 08:51:19 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA06739; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 11:29:07 EST
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Blue speaks
Message-ID: <961030162906_72240.1256_EHB79-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"ry8Xn3.0.Df1.5BuTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1877
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Kirk Shanahan writes:

     Seems to me the data is defining the detection limit.  28Si is 92% of
     naturally occurring silicon, and the inability to see the other isotopes
     in the fresh microspheres just means they are below the detection limit.

I believe this is the case. Miley claims +/- 3% accuracy "when high resolution
is employed." However "high resolution was used to eliminate possible line
overlap in all important cases, but with the large number of elements found,
this was not possible for all of the lower yield isotopes." I think the main
problem Blue has found is the danger of indiscriminate electronic
spreadsheets. The numbers in the last two columns of Table 3 are not
meaningful for silicon.

Frankly, I dismiss Dick Blue out of hand. If he was seriously critiquing this
paper and he found some major objection, he would run his comments past Miley
before publishing them. That is common sense. I always do that, and so do
people like Storms or Hagelstein when they write their reviews. If I found
some minor nitpicking error I would not bother. Blue assumes he has found a
major blunder, so bad that Miley "should be ashamed of himself." If I found
such an error in a paper written by a major physicist and editor of Fusion
Technology, I would not automatically assume I was right, and I would not
plaster my conclusions all over Internet without first checking them with the
author. I must point out that Blue has made other statements about the Miley
paper that do not survive Round One Quantitative Analysis. Blue saw a
paragraph in Barry Merriman's report in the "Baseline Run" section describing
an artifact caused by room air stratification. In Barry's cell, the outlet is
6 inches above the inlet, and both are exposed to ambient air. The ambient air
is 0.2 deg C warmer six inches up. At low flow rates (10 ml per minute) this
shows up as a ~0.2 deg C Delta T. Blue jumped to the conclusion that both
Miley and Craven's excess heat are artifacts caused by the same problem. He
published several messages on Internet and CompuServe making that assertion.
There are major problems with this which Blue should have spotted:

1. Miley's paper states that the Delta T ranged from 0.1 to 4 deg C. If there
is a 4 deg C ambient air temperature stratification over 6 inches, and we
assume stratification is more or less linear, then the air temperature near a
9 foot ceiling would be ~90 deg C (~140 deg F). This gives rise to a variation
of the "dead graduate student problem" . . .

2. Miley's cell is under a hood. It might be in a Dewar as well, I do not
recall. Craven's cell, as I pointed out many times and as anyone can see in
the photographs, is inside a Dewar. Cravens knows about thermal stratification
and related problems, and he took steps to eliminate them.

Let me suggest that we ignore Blue until he pays attention to academic norms.
He should apply some minimum level of quantitative analysis to his own
assertions, which are sometimes wrong by many orders of magnitude. He should
not jump to conclusions and then publish extreme statements ("Miley should be
ashamed") without first checking them with the author. He should answer
objections like the ones I list here; he should explain why the graduate
students in Miley's lab are not cooked. I know from many years experience that
if I confront him he will never respond. I gave up trying long ago. He should
publish formal, complete analyses from time to time, not just random potshots.
I ignore many CF scientists who violate these academic norms, including, for
example, Russ George, who refuses to publish proper scientific expositions,
quantitative data, or any description of his calorimetry. We should hold
everyone to the same standards.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 11:51:16 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA14034; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Intended-For: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Message-Id: <199610301825.KAA26157@big.aa.net>
X-Sender: mwm@aa.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:25:13 +0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: Michael Mandeville <mwm@aa.net>
Subject: Re: Build Your Own Water Car?
Resent-Message-ID: <"YfzJ-1.0.3R3.YpwTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1878
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 08:46 AM 10/30/96 EST, you wrote:
>Gene,
>
>Thanks for scanning and posting all that - interesting.
>
>I think Mr Cella is pulling the leg of Nexus - a leg which I think pulls
>quite easily.  His fluent style and sensible remarks suggest that he's
>an intelligent man, quite capable of having a laugh at their expense.
>
>The one about being warned off by some equivalent of the Men In Black
>is probably a hint to the wary.
>
>On the other hand - hey, why not some of us try to find out if (a) this
>person really exists and (b) if he will do a demo?  It could be a fun
>way to spend an afternoon.
>
>Chris
> 
>
>

Given the careless terminology in the Cella STORY, and the appearance of the
STORY in three zines, my theory is that he is a freelancer who scored a
couple of hundred dollars a couple of times with the STORY.  Next it may
appear in even shorter form in the Enquirer or some such.
____________________________________
MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing
Michael Mandeville, publisher
mwm@aa.net
http://www.aa.net/~mwm

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 14:23:56 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA03830; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: 30 Oct 96 16:52:49 EST
From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Build Your Own Water Car?
Message-ID: <961030215248_100433.1541_BHG56-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"bu3nF.0.kx.G9zTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1880
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Michael,

(By the way, thanks for your comments on Stanley Meyer.  Most helpful.)

 > Given the careless terminology in the Cella STORY, and the
 > appearance of the STORY in three zines, my theory is that he is a
 > freelancer who scored a couple of hundred dollars a couple of
 > times with the STORY.  Next it may appear in even shorter form in
 > the Enquirer or some such.

Hey, don't you guys ever do anything just for the sheer fun of doing it?

On the other hand, getting paid *as well* is rather amusing, I suppose.

Chris

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 14:25:25 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA01722; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 14:01:08 -0800 (PST)
From: "John Steck" <johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com>
Message-Id: <9610301546.ZM17559@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:46:36 -0600
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95)
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Build Your Own Water Car?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-Message-ID: <"qP2og.0.oQ.Z0zTo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1879
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

--- Forwarded mail from vortex-l@eskimo.com

Given the careless terminology in the Cella STORY, and the
appearance of the
STORY in three zines, my theory is that he is a freelancer
who scored a
couple of hundred dollars a couple of times with the STORY.
 Next it may
appear in even shorter form in the Enquirer or some such.

---End of forwarded mail from vortex-l@eskimo.com


A.  Electrolysis of water to get hydrogen is not a 100%
efficient energy transfer method.  Not even close.  I think
the best efficiency rating is around 75%, and only in a
large industrial setup.  If your getting 50% out of the
pickle jar at home you are kicking butt.

B.  Electrolysis of water is not very fast.  Flow rate to
sustain an internal combustion engine far exceeds
production capacity at a car size scale.

C.  Alternative fuel, maybe.  Replacement fuel, no.

D.  Alternator to split water to drive engine to drive
alternator.  Can you say perpetual motion machine?

E. He financed R&D with profits from a heavy metal
band.......


Humor, romance, what more could you ask of an exploder!

-john





From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 16:01:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA21276; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 15:30:32 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 18:18:50 -0500
Message-ID: <961030181849_1080297866@emout01.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: Motorola New Enterprises Mail Receipt Notification
Resent-Message-ID: <"0vu442.0.KC5.MK-To"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1881
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I asked MOT as a stockholder and I am waiting for the answer.
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:	new-enterprises@mot.com (Motorola New Enterprises)
To:	fznidarsic@aol.com
Date: 96-10-30 10:40:19 EST

Your mail regarding "cold fusion CETI" of Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:40:00 -0700
has been received by Motorola New Enterprises.

Information on Motorola New Enterprises is also available on the
World-Wide Web at http://www.mot.com/MNE/.

Regards,

- Motorola New Enterprises

-------------------- Your Original Message Follows ------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:40:00 -0700
From: nobody@csps1.corp.mot.com
To: new-enterprises@mot.com
Subject: cold fusion CETI

What happened to the CETI deal for the development of cold fusion?
Frank Znidarsic stockholder.


Sent from fznidarsic@aol.com on host 206.215.92.3 (206.215.92.3)


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Wed Oct 30 22:44:23 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01379 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-From: joeflynn@delpi.com  Wed Oct 30 22:44:18 1996
Received: from bos1e.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1e.delphi.com [192.80.63.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01352 for <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 22:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.delphi.com (bixmgr@bix.com)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01IB9WGY6GNK8Y63TD@delphi.com> for
 vortex-l@eskimo.com; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:18:53 -0500 (EST)
Old-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:18:13 -0600
From: joeflynn@delpi.com (Charles J. Flynn)
Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN
X-Sender: joeflynn@pop.delphi.com (Unverified)
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Message-id: <01IB9WH4LEPU8Y63TD@delphi.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
X-Envelope-To: vortex-l
Status: RO
X-Status: 



>This experiment clearly demonstrates a lateral pressure between parallel
>lines of flux (assuming flux exists in some sense.)  So why can two
>attracting circular magnets frictionlessly rotate?  The answer must be
>that, for uniform circular rotating magnets, the repulsion in the direction
>of motion by approaching flux must be exactly balanced by the repulsion of
>separating flux.  So, there is no net "grip".
>
>
>Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
>                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
>Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820
>

The Grip is thru the plane where North and South meet. The axis of the plane
would be the center of the Mass of the permanent magnet material. Take for
instance the Faraday Motor. Place two independent cylinder magnets
attracting, above and below on one side of the copper disk. As with the
traditional setup, current flows from a point in the center, to a point on
the periphery of the disk, and always between the magnets. The stationary
magnets are free to rotate on their own axis, remaining in alignment. If the
field is fixed to the permanent magnets, always enters and leaves at the
exact same geographic locations, the permanent magnets should spin on their
own axis in the opposite direction to the disk. It could be argued that the
magnetic field from the current flowing in the disk acts equally on both
sides of the axis of the permanent magnets. This would not be true since the
magnetic field from the current flow acts at two different radius' on the
permanent magnets so the force would not be equal on both sides of the axis
of the permanet magnets.

Also remember the magnetic field in the disk itself is fixed to the location
of the current flow, not the material. This is why the disk rotates, the
conductor is always trying to move out of the permanent magnets field. As
the disk rotates the conducting path is always between the permanet magnets.
The field of the old conducting path is always collapsing and the field of
the new conducting path is always expanding. The integration of B old and B
new gives the necessary field differential to cause continual rotation.
Lenz's law allows for this differential, the reason why a magnetic field
does not drop to zero immediatly when removing power.

As for the levitation you describe I'm not sure that this would be dependent
upon whether the field rotates with the material or remains stationary.

Joe Flynn
Flynn Research Inc.
P.O. box 11657
Kansas City, Mo. 64138

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 00:54:26 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01556; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <9610310852.AA10603@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:05:04 -0500
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty)
Subject: Re: CF Cell Geometry
Resent-Message-ID: <"wnLs-.0.9O.SZ6Uo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1882
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

>At 10:00 AM 10/29/96 EST, you wrote:
>>Ed Strojny wrote:
>>
>> In cold fusion, back pressure is not a significant problem;
>>you want as high a surface area as you can get
>>and still get some flow.
>
>The flow has to be enough to remove the excess heat.
>
Try two 1 mm thick Pd plated Ni electrodes in a baby food jar (BFJ).

Place in a cooling water tray or quart jar where the level is almost
causing the (BFJ) to become buoyant. This maybe obtained with
a siphoning out the worm water at a constant level.

Mix up 50 mls. saturated Potassium-bicarbonate electrolyte.
Separate the electrodes with a cork stopper with a hole
in the center for your temp. gage.

The flat electrodes are about an inch apart with about 1square inch
of surface area in the electrolyte.

This may give you enough cooling surface area to keep the
temp. down.  I am not a heat transfer engineer. When the electrolite
goes up 10 degrees C the cooling water went up 1 degree C in about
100 mls. water bath.

*******************************************
*            David Doty <dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us>             *
*                  Custodian at Ackerman Junior High                      *
*                    http://198.237.196.249/ams/                        *
*                         Canby School District 86
*
*                           45=BA 15' N, 122=BA 41' W
*
*                          home (503) 266-3969                              =
 *
*                   340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013                          *
*         CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher            *
*          Looking for Science Projects for students to do.            *
*         http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html             *
********************************************=20


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 05:11:29 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13762; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 04:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 04:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:45:59 +0100
Message-Id: <v01510100ae9e3d0c8ac3@[194.206.201.189]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.1
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Jean_de_Lagarde)
Subject: Mass Balance in Miley's paper
Resent-Message-ID: <"dToGo1.0.xM3.M1AUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1883
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Thanks to Kirk Shanahan and to Jed Rothwell for their comments to Blue's
objections, but I have a question on my own :
In table 1 of Miley's paper (page 21 of IE #9), I read that the total mass
of metal of a microsphere is 2.04 micrograms.
On the other hand, in table 4a (page 27) under the heading "microspheres",
if I add up the figures of the last column (mass diff (g) / 1000 MS), I
find a total of 6.89 milligrams for 1000 Microspheres (5.88 E-03 + 9.76
E-04 + 3,6 E-05), i.e. an average of about 7 micrograms per microsphere.
How can these two figures be reconciled ?

                        Jean de Lagarde


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 05:57:09 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA19343; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 05:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 05:37:23 -0800 (PST)
From: RMCarrell@aol.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:36:52 -0500
Message-ID: <961031083650_1482195705@emout03.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: My messages messed up?
Resent-Message-ID: <"SX9MX1.0.5k4.IkAUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1884
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Jed, I got your message intact. Your comments are as usual astute. I am
apalled, but maybe I shouldn't be. All these years of quiet work at NHE with
the expectation of careful groundwaork toward a great blossoming. Phooey. I
can understand why you are upset. All the work gives points on a curve, but
there is not an infinity of time as you pointed out in the Wright essays. 

Regards, Mike

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 07:31:33 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA12270; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v01530500ae9e61d46504@[204.17.242.81]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 06:26:22 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)
Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno
Resent-Message-ID: <"slrGQ1.0.e_2.mJCUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1886
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

[snip]
> McKubre, for
>example, achieves high loading, but as soon as he raises current density, the
>loading appears to drop off dramatically. He ascribes this to some event in
>which the gas in the surface layers of the cathode "blows off
>catastrophically." Evidence for this is seen in sudden changes in cathode
>resistance.
[snip]
>
>- Jed

Yikes!  The gas can't do that, can it?  It can suddenly transmute though,
initiated by the high current, and you would certainly expect a change in
resistance from that. The conduction electrons at some density may be
sufficient stimulation to cause condensate waveform collapse?  It would be
a really good experiment to see if such an event can be caused by a single
high current pulse - not enough to explode the cathode though.  There is
already evidence for exploding wire transmutation.


Regards,                          <hheffner@anc.ak.net>
                                  PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645
Horace Heffner                    907-746-0820


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 07:33:32 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06297; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: 31 Oct 96 10:00:18 EST
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Mass Balance in Miley's paper
Message-ID: <961031150018_72240.1256_EHB95-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"g7QKX1.0.IY1.a0CUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1885
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

To: Vortex

Jean de Lagarde finds a discrepancy between Miley on Infinite Energy p. 21
Table 1 and p. 27 Table 4a. How many micrograms of metal should there be per
microsphere? First, let me check to make sure we transcribed the numbers
correctly . . . Okay, we got it right. I am not going to try to check Jean's
arithmetic at this hour in the morning. Not without another cup of coffee.

I think you need to run this by George Miley to get the answer. It could be:

1. A typo. I doubt it.

2. Different beads. George says he ran 20 experiments with 20 sets of beads.
Some were nickel, some nickel and palladium, some had thicker film than
others. The beads from CETI with electrolytically deposited metal are much
thicker than the ones fabricated at U. Illinois. You can see the difference
with the naked eye. Table 1 says these are batch #60 beads. Ask George which
batch Table 4a refer to.

This could be a mistake. In my comments about Dick Blue's discovery, I hope I
did not give the impression that I think Big Gun Physicists and Editors of
Major Journals never make dumb mistakes. After all, Chris and I found some
errors in this paper. They said that with an ~11 ml per minute flow with a 4
deg C Delta T indicates 4 watts. As I said here, and as I wrote to George,
that should be 3 watts, not 4. That's a careless but not really important. I
would never say "Miley should be ashamed of himself" because he uses a quick
approximation, makes a few typos, or because he includes a table with some
computations that multiply errors at the limits of detection to large,
meaningless numbers. Anyone can see that this paper is a work in progress and
not a encyclopedia article submission. I think Jean has a good point, but Dick
Blue is merely looking for excuses to insult Miley and ridicule the results.
He is nitpicking. If he was serious, he would find the nits (as Chris and I
did) but he would also address the main issues in the paper.

- Jed

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 14:45:42 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14177; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v02140b10ae9ed841234d@[198.133.146.230]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:15:51 -0800
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders
Resent-Message-ID: <"iEYE01.0.OT3.RJIUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1887
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

I have been discussing Chris Tinsley's cylindrical homopolar experiments
with him privately.  I think I can explain his results by conventional
Faraday's law analysis.  He still has some reservations.  We have agreed to
post a summary of our conclusions.

Brief description of rotor:
   The flat permanent magnets were mounted into slots in a thick-wall iron
tube (cylinder).  They had like poles radially aligned, and the ends forced
together along the axial length of the assembly.  The circumferential
spacing left 5mm wide iron 'vanes' between the rows so that there was a
path for the radial flux for all the magnets.  To quote from Chris, "... we
were after - an ac homopolar machine. we were after - an ac homopolar
machine.  An outer brass cylinder was a sliding fot over the magnet and
iron core assembly.  Spring-loaded carbon brushes were mounted on the frame
to contact the brass cylinder at any position along the length of the brass
cylinder and wired to a dvm.

Schaffer's Explanation:
   The iron spacer vanes act as nearly ideal poles to return the flux from
the inward-facing poles of the magnets.  The iron poles provide a low
reluctance path for this local radially-out-radially-in flux.  The
HOMOpolar (ie. uniformly radial) component of the magnetic field at the
outer surface of the rotor will be very small, except near the ends where
some of the flux fringes around the ends, because the reluctance for the
homopolar flux path is large.  This is why Chris sees DC generation only
near the ends.

   The magnetic field away from the ends looks a lot like that from a
conventional multipole rotor from an AC alternator.  However, Chris
informed me that he got no AC signals.  I can explain this.  Indeed, there
is an axial electric field induced at the SURFACE of the rotor by the v X B
(v=velocity, B=magnetic induction field) whose sign alternates around the
circumference with the polarity of the passing radial magnetic field.  This
is by the same mechanism as invoked for homopolars, and it should be
detected by brushes contacting the surface and leading to a measuring
instrument.  However, this is a bit naive, because the rotating alternating
radial flux also induces an axial electric field in the SPACE outside the
rotor, and this E-field integrates up to an EMF equal and OPPOSITE to that
at the rotor surface.  If the leads running to the measuring device are far
enough away from the cylinder that all this alternating flux is linked by
the lead-plus-rotor-surface loop, then this external EMF exactly cancels
the part directly contacted by the brushes.  Because the radial flux in
Chris's machine extends only 10mm or so out from the rotor, his leads would
have to run parallel to and just a few mm away from the surface in order to
avoid picking up too much opposite EMF.

   I did not try to address some of Chris's concerns about his DISK
homopolar and multipolar experiments.

Tinsley's Position:
   My own feeling about the whole thing is that I'm really rather
uncomfortable, both about my own measurements and about your
explanations.  At present I can't really do a full and proper set of
tests (the apparatus is packed away).  What I think is needed is some
very careful thought to make a 'yes/no' test experiment, I found that
this was the best approach - to avoid quantitative determination.  I
never got around to designing one for this basic test - that of
determining whether a cylindrical device (be it multi- or homo-polar)
really is an analogue of a disc.

I'll be honest, and say that I am sceptical about it being an analogue.
If it were, then I would expect to have seen at least some kind of
result at some stage.  Certainly I see no clear distinction between the
multi-polar disc (which gives a clear ac scope signal) and the similar
cylinder (which *appears* not to do so.  However, I am by no means
wedded to that idea, and I think it is essential to design a definitive
experiment to find out once and for all.

One good thing is that the multipolar variants are pretty easy to make,
they require no special machining or even a massive iron core.  It
should be possible to mount the high-power flat magnets onto a conductor
tube and have little problem with them 'fighting' one another
mechanically, and the whole thing coming apart under the stress!
Similarly, a large-radius disc would be pretty easy, keeping the gaps
between the magnets at fairly constant width.  I'd like to see whether
the emf can be shown to be a function of angular or linear velocity -
will a small-radius disc at high omega show the same emf as a larger,
slower one with the same omega*r of its magnets?

All I can say at this stage is that other (very mundane) things have
more important calls on my time - regrettably.  I believe it possible to
devise both qualitative and quantitative methods for testing this idea.

I am not at all sure that my results so far are by any means definitive,
and I am (mildly) sceptical of the (very welcome) explanations I've seen
to date.

Michael J. Schaffer
General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA
Tel:  619-455-2841              Fax:  619-455-4156


From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 15:32:36 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA28571; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:13:39 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:13:39 -0800 (PST)
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:10:57 -0500
Message-ID: <961031181055_1382243546@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu,
        zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, RVargo1062@aol.com,
        peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov
Subject: Yusmar reveals secrets
Resent-Message-ID: <"BOtsV1.0.6-6.WAJUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1888
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

A meeting was held today 11/31/96 .  At the meeting were:

Frank Znidarsic, engineer, that's me.

John Barron,  Engineer and my business partner.

Frank Welter,  Engineer and German scientist.  Frank Welter, worked on the
German V-2 project as a teen ager during the WW II.  He is now retired in the
US.

The Yusmar system was discussed.  A plan of action was developed.  We agreed
on a mechanism by which by which the Yusmar produces cavitation.  It is more
than a "simple valve" as H. E. Puthoff has suggested.

..............................................................................
.........................
Operational mode:

Hot water enters into the Yusmar.
It is conducted through a nozzle at high velocity.
The pressure of the water is reduced in the high velocity nozzle through
Bernoulli action.
The water flashes to steam at low pressure.

The steam water mixture is then sent to a centrifuge. 
The centrifuge produces a high pressure collapsing the steam bubbles.
The collapse of the steam bubbles produces extreme cavitation.
..............................................................................
..............................
Planned improvments.

Monitoring of the low pressure zone's pressure and temperature to determine
the best operational pressure and temperature point.  Steam tables will be
used.

Controlling the exit pressure to to enhance the collapse of the steam pockets
for the greatest effect.

Modifications to promote the flashing process.   More hot water to be exposed
for more time to the lowest pressure produced at the nozzzle.

Modifications to allow for the greatest atomization of the steam pockets.
..............................................................................
............................................

The work will be completed in several weeks.  New patents may follow which
will be in addition to Yury's patent.  We want to build a strong case for
ownership and also to protect Yury's and our rights.

I hope we finally are able to get this thing working.

Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 16:22:41 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13661; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: 31 Oct 96 19:09:20 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno
Message-ID: <961101000920_100060.173_JHB92-2@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"0iLH91.0.ML3.81KUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1889
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Horace,

>> > McKubre, for
>example, achieves high loading, but as soon as he raises current density, the
>loading appears to drop off dramatically. He ascribes this to some event in
>which the gas in the surface layers of the cathode "blows off
>catastrophically." Evidence for this is seen in sudden changes in cathode
>resistance.
[snip]
>
>- Jed

Yikes!  The gas can't do that, can it? <<

If I may insert a simple possibility here - how about the equivalent to
superheating of water in a smooth container or at a smooth surface where the
rapid gas generation due to the sudden increase in current creates an increase
in potential gas volume which fails to form immediately and then explosively
releases.  This might even cause local cavitation on the surface of the bead.
If I'm correct then it might pay to make the surface of the last metal layer
roughened or granular to encourage gentle gassing at all current densities.

Norman

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 17:03:59 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA20252; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Rockwell%l=ROCKETDYNE/RDIT/000B3919@rditsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com>
From: "Scudder,Henry J" <hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>
To: "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" <FZNIDARSIC@aol.com>,
        Vortex-L
	 <Vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Yusmar reveals secrets
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 16:36:00 -0800
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"bsC1F3.0.My4.qUKUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1890
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Frank
	 Cavitation occurs where the absolute pressure tries
to go negative, and you get flow separation. The cavitation bubbles
are vacuum, except for the vapor pressure of water. The center
of a Vortex has a very low pressure. The bubbles travel to higher
pressure regions like a Helium balloon in a car, and
collapse when the pressure overwhelms the surface tension.
If any CF occurs, it is from the momentum of the molecules at
the edges of the collapsing bubbles.This is what causes erosion
in boat propellors.

 -Hank Scudder
 ----------
From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; GeorgeHM@aol.com; williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu;
zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil; Puthoff@aol.com; RVargo1062@aol.com;
peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro; mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov
Subject: Yusmar reveals secrets
Date: Thursday, October 31, 1996 3:10PM

A meeting was held today 11/31/96 .  At the meeting were:
<snip>
Operational mode:

Hot water enters into the Yusmar.
It is conducted through a nozzle at high velocity.
The pressure of the water is reduced in the high velocity nozzle through
Bernoulli action.
The water flashes to steam at low pressure.

The steam water mixture is then sent to a centrifuge.
The centrifuge produces a high pressure collapsing the steam bubbles.
The collapse of the steam bubbles produces extreme cavitation.
........................................................................
......
<snip>..............................
Frank Z

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 19:08:35 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA00131; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 19:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <EPRI.MHUGO.241508090096305FEPRI@EPRI.COM>
Date: 31 Oct 1996 09:08:09 PST
From: "MHUGO@EPRI" <MHUGO@eprinet.epri.com>
Subject: Mass Balance in Miley's paper
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Comment: EPRI     UA4B029  10/31/96 09:08:14 SMTP
Resent-Message-ID: <"H9rdR2.0.y1.MaMUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1891
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

*** Reply to note of 10/31/96 08:55
From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng.
Subject: Mass Balance in Miley's paper
Maybe someone can give Jean Miley's Email address. This sounds like a very
ligitimate question to pass on to George.

From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com  Thu Oct 31 23:45:31 1996
Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA08092; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:43:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: 01 Nov 96 02:41:06 EST
From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>
To: Vortex Mail <vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno
Message-ID: <961101074105_100060.173_JHB82-1@CompuServe.COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"johGj2.0.L-1.5eQUo"@mail>
Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> archive/latest/1893
X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Hank,

>> Do we get cavitation here too?
Hank Scudder <<

Its quite possible under pseudo-superheating by local high density current flow 
causing "bumping" of the gas creation process where there are few gas generating 
nodes in a very smooth surface of the electrode.  Just a personal surmise you 
understand from general lab experience - no other grand theory!!<G>

Norman
