Re: EPR and Bell revisited
I wrote: If you want to run in horizontal vortex mode in order to increase mixing and keep current above 15 amps, simply place vertical vanes all the way across the channel near the pump. The vanes would have to be fairly long in the flow direction, and located at the elevation of the feeder mixer outlet, but in order to get good mixing overall, not very deep, only 1 to 2 feet deep. The long vertical vanes prevent a channel wide vertical axis vortex from forming. Horizontal axis vortex action could be increased by directing feeder mixer wash slightly upward or downward, or putting a small low-angle downward deflecting vane directly in front of the mixer. Maybe the need for the long vertical vanes could be eliminated simply by directing the pump output slightly upward or downward, and making sure its flow is not directed side to side at all. =\channel wall vane 100 MGD current O- feeder mixer outlet /wash vane current =\ channel wall Fig. 1 - Top view of channel Again, all just food for thought. I may not have a good picture of your configuration. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: EPR and causality
Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip]This could be argued from a certain point of view inthe one way FTL sense. But if we allow round trip FTLsignals, we find that according to the relativity ofsimultaneity and thus the equivalence of all inertialreference frames, as given by SR and later GR, that wecan allow events to happen which not only appear to gobackwards in time, but really do in measureable ways.Such as, frame A, not moving, can send an FTL signalto frame B, moving at some high fraction of c. Frame Bwill, according to his view of things (which accordingto relativity is just as valid as A's) receive themessage before it is sent from A. Now, if he sends anFTL signal in reply fast enough (this is nowhere nearinfinity, just for clarification), frame A will seethis signal arrive before A ever sends the firstsignal. So what if A decides then not to send thesignal? A reply from nowhere, literally.[snip] Actually Kyle, this is a mis-conception. Yes, any reference frame is equally valid. However one cannot switch reference frames in the middle of the experiment. A sends an FTL signal to B, who sends an FTL response back. In A's reference frame, He see's his signal travel out to B, and recieves a response from B before his signal appears to reach B. But the response happens AFTER he sends his signal. In B's reference frame, he receives a signal from nowhere and responds, before he perceives A sending his signal. However, B sees his signal reach AAFTER A sends his signal.MerlynMagickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Cold Fusion And The Future book review copies
Edmund Storms writes: Pu238 emits a 5.5 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 87.7 y. This makes U234 which decays by 4.8 MeW alpha with a 1/2 life of 2.46 x10^5 years. This makes Th230 which decays by 4.7 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 7.54 x 10^4 years. . . . . . . This makes Pb214 . . . I got it right up to this point, but somehow I went off the track. Okay, part of the reason is that WebElements.com does not list Pb214. I somehow got the idea it was stable. Jed, please send me the latest version of your book. I'm back from Washington and have a little more time to comment. Will do, as soon as I finish entering the latest batch of corrections. I hope you had a nice trip. - Jed
Re: Cold Fusion And The Future book review copies
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms writes: Pu238 emits a 5.5 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 87.7 y. This makes U234 which decays by 4.8 MeW alpha with a 1/2 life of 2.46 x10^5 years. This makes Th230 which decays by 4.7 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 7.54 x 10^4 years. . . . . . . This makes Pb214 . . . I got it right up to this point, but somehow I went off the track. Okay, part of the reason is that WebElements.com does not list Pb214. I somehow got the idea it was stable. Pb214 is a beta emitter with a 27 min half-life. All lead above 208 is unstable and they all are short-lived beta emitters. Jed, please send me the latest version of your book. I'm back from Washington and have a little more time to comment. Will do, as soon as I finish entering the latest batch of corrections. I hope you had a nice trip. Good trip going, bad trip returning. Apparently you people in Atlanta got some bad weather that threw the system out of whack. However the natives were friendly in Washington even though the Government area is like an armed camp. A person can not leave the street without passing through a metal detector, even to visit a museum. There were armed guards at every entrance. They must think they are more important than chemical plants and nuclear reactors. Most people on the street, except tourists, were wearing badges. It was like being at Los Alamos. Ed - Jed
Re: Freedom of the randomness
At 09:04 am 20-10-04 -0700, you wrote: snip ...only one per week? Texas has definitley started to gentrify... ;-) Jones Speaking of trying to visualize rotation in four dimensions, here is a semi-serious fractal attempt: http://home.att.net/~Fractals_2/FotD_00-10-15.html Whilst on the subject of hierarchical patterns, I wonder how much high order differential vortices are responsible for controlling the growth structure of Haeckel's Radiolarians. http://tinyurl.com/4cgoq Grimer
anti-neutrons
Side road sojourn here, kids. I myself shouldn't even be concerning myself with it, what with my dear little heavy water Wisp reactor runs going. (yes, reporting on that will come soon) OK, the diversion for the day is about matter, antimatter, and time. Translations mine, I've gathered that quite some time ago Feynman and Wheeler declared, proved, or insinuated that a positron moving forward in time is indistinguishable from an electron moving backward in time. If this is so, then presumably the same would hold true for a proton and anti-proton. Now what concerns me isn't so much proof of this, but more a matter of what in the deuce differentiates a neutron from an anti-neutron, if they are...er...neutral! IS it spin? Whatever the cause or metric, if the F and W idea of antiparticles being time reversed is so, then what would stop time reversed neutrons from infiltrating normal matter and causing all sorts of really silly things to happen? Strange matter? Or if neutrons and anti-neutrons are different only in spin, then if you take a beam of neutrons and find a way to reverse their magnetic moment, do you suddenly have a beam of antiparticles? If I am not cautious, I could get sucked into this more, despite my eschewing the math. Somebody set me straight and pull me out, por favor. NR __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Freedom of the randomness
At 9:23 AM 10/20/4, RC Macaulay wrote: Heffner mentioned randomness. In automatic flow control a setpoint is maintained by selecting a proportional band and determining the number of resets per minute that would permit the control to average the flow. The randomness is controlled by permitting freedom within limits. I think randomness at this scale is not so much based on quantum randomness (except for the butterfly effect) as it is in the quasi-randomness of systems wherein motion is described by differential equations. Typically such systems can be nearly perfectly stablized with the right controls. If you are looking for free energy from a vortex the odds are slim! You might try looking in the archives at www.escribe.com/science/vortex under the keyword Yusmar. Proving free energy, even if you have it, is tough too, and it typically requires energy balancing experiments, not power measuring experiments ... unless that holy grail of a self sustaining device can be obtained! That is not to say that the fundamental assumption of the existence of free energy, or at least an economically tappable new source of energy, is not practically a mantra of myself or this group in general! I feel compelled to suggest that the free energy from a 15 kW pump may be trivial compared to the renewable energy in the offing from a 100 million gallons a day of wastewater! Recovery of this energy in the form of oil or direct energy may be very feasible using pressure cooking or other means. Fred Sparber, on this list, has lots of ideas and experience along those lines. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: anti-neutrons
I don't know what I am talking about in this arena, but that hasn't curtailed my audacity to comment on most other things here, so why stop now. 8^) At 1:40 PM 10/20/4, Nick Reiter wrote: Side road sojourn here, kids. I myself shouldn't even be concerning myself with it, what with my dear little heavy water Wisp reactor runs going. (yes, reporting on that will come soon) OK, the diversion for the day is about matter, antimatter, and time. Translations mine, I've gathered that quite some time ago Feynman and Wheeler declared, proved, or insinuated that a positron moving forward in time is indistinguishable from an electron moving backward in time. If this is so, then presumably the same would hold true for a proton and anti-proton. Now what concerns me isn't so much proof of this, but more a matter of what in the deuce differentiates a neutron from an anti-neutron, if they are...er...neutral! IS it spin? Whatever the cause or metric, if the F and W idea of antiparticles being time reversed is so, then what would stop time reversed neutrons from infiltrating normal matter and causing all sorts of really silly things to happen? Strange matter? Neither strange nor charming! Nor top nor bottom either! Neutrons are composed of one up and two down quarks. Anti-neutrons are composed of an anti-up and two anti-down quarks. There is no low energy way to create an anti-neutron from a neutron, AFAIK. Regards, Horace Heffner
All Over Reactance
If you have shopped around for a new computer lately and have had a look inside the box, you may have wondered about, well... shrinkagenot Costanza-type shrinkage from a cold shower, but - as Jerry might opine "what's the deal with those new power supplies? Did they go on the Atkins diet or something"...[crowd grumbles and someone hollers, "don't quit your day job"]. But anyway... A newer 300-400 watt PS is now a fraction of its former pre-Pentium size, probably a quarter of the volume and weight. But you are not getting cheated... well, at least not any more so than normal. The short answer as to how something as mundane as a power supply can shrink so fast, is not dietary but reactionary in two ways - or at least it can be narrowed down to the electrical term "reactance" which term might also have some bit of relevance to overunity, as well. The other reactionary thing which one might add is that the "mainstream" of engineering pretty much blew it for several decades by not adapting the advantages of higher reactance earlier. The following is both comic ranting with some interesting tidbits about the interaction of *reactance* with emf *frequency* opening perhaps a narrow pathway to overunity. If I didn't promise the OU payoff, would anybody follow the lunatic rant without grumbling or hollering, "don't quit your day job" ? The very mention of those forbidden letters "OU" is sure to bring out the law-abiders. LAWS? Laws, excuse me !!. Laws may not be "meant" to be broken, depending on how much devious-intent can be imputed to the cadre of do-gooders who dream some of them up, but from the number of "correctional institutions" we have scattered around the good old USA, it would seem that many laws aren't very compelling, at least as being self-evident truisms worthy of respect. But most laws are fairly temporal kludges, and no amount of corrective brainwashing will change that. Hey, things change in surprising ways and one of these days, vortex may morph into an ersatz correctional institution for "regrooving" the mainstream physics establishment. Let's just say that it is all but guaranteed that the most immediate thing which many new (particularly tax) laws accomplish is to marginalize a certain segment of society, the ones who believe (apparently erroneously) that they are a better judge of how their own work-rewards are to be allocated than are the sops who do less real work for more rewards, as a rule... not that I am personally a tax-evader or anything like that. Everyone should pay their fair share, agreed, but if Jesus asks no more than 10%, should Sam? END of first rant. The so-called Laws of Thermodynamics may have been put in place by equally self-righteous do-gooders to prevent assorted nonconformist hackers and slackers from wasting valuable time experimenting with magnets et al., when otherwise they could be out converting the unwashed masses to whatever belief structure is in power, or else bravely fighting our Oil-Wars, or whatever ... but the punishment is somewhat similar - to be banned from free association with certain "necessary" others (and most regrettably, RD funders). But as for most of mainstream do-gooders, as Mark Twain recognized in the larger scheme of things... no one would want to go to Heaven except for the climate as Hell offers the more enjoyable company. Go figure. END of second rant. The Laws of Physics have proven to be tough nuts to crack, so we haven't needed science-prisons thus far, other than the self-imposed ones like Psi-Cops. But being branded as a "perpmo" (perpetual motion advocate) will get you about as much general scorn these says as the average serial killer or Boston Priest. Honestly, I would be extremely reluctant to even mention the phrase "cold fusion" in mixed company... or if I did, be quick to say that it's just the latest music craze in Switzerland, you know Thelonius covers Heidi's yodel. And BTW, is turning off "Days of our Lives" tantamount to being a serial killer. Fortunately, just because such-and-such Law of nature may have been proven right every time up until now doesn't mean it won't be broken tomorrow. Usually it was broken long ago but no one was looking in the right place. Many of today's most mainstream PhD experts on everythingwill probably end up tomorrows laughing stock, just as more than a few of their predecessors from the recent past are viewedit wouldn't surprise me if the word "luddite" is replaced by the even more obnoxious DIS-word - ta dayou guessed it :"parkite" or should that be "parkski" in the next few yearsone of these days, he will definitely have to sit in the corner for his vortex regrooving, with a dunce cap, should he hang around that long. Speaking of Laws, as Jerry might quip, what's the deal with Murphy's Law? Why doesn't Murphy's Law take precedence over the Laws of Thermodynamics? Don't tell me perpetual motion does not exist when
Re: All Over Reactance
In a message dated 10/20/2004 8:44:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One main problem with using high frequency transformers in power supplies until fairly recently was rectification. Diodes drop in efficiency with frequency. These days the availability of high current low voltage FETs (with switching logic to achieve the rectification) permits efficient rectification, but even FETs still have frequency limitations, just much higher AFAIK. Regards, Horace Heffner Not so. Common variable speed drives now use switching transistors not diodes. They commonly switch at about 10 kilohertz. This is done to reform the sin wave using a bunch of square waves. Rectification at megahertz frequencies is not a problem. This country started off with several standards. 25 hertz was used in the steel mills and coal mines until the early 1980s. The low frequency produced noticeable flicker in lights. I could see it out of the corner of my eye. It was not visible looking forward. 60 hertz produces no flicker, however, it is quite a feat to make a large steam turbine that can spin at 3600 rpm. This was not possible in the early days. Aircraft commonly use 400 hertz. The spinning mass of the generator is small and transformers are of a much lighter weight. Frank Znidarsic
fun with sine waves
I wanted to make an animation for simple harmonic motion. I used the sin function. It worked great.
I then wanted to make an animation showing a ball bouncing in a box. The sin wave motion did not look correct. I needed a saw tooth wave. No saw tooth function exists.
I did a simple Fourier analysis. I found an approximated sawtooth wave could be had by.
wave sawtooth = .95 sin t - .5 sin 3t
It looks better.
here is the link that shows the two motions. Can you see the difference?
Chapter 7
here is the script that gets embedded into the HTML
SCRIPT language="JScript"
count2=0;
function onInterval2() {
with(document.body)
{
if(clientWidth200)
{
{imagefly2.style.left= 81*( .95*Math.sin(count2) - .05*Math.sin(3*count2))+ (clientWidth -305);}
imagefly2.style.top=158;
count2=count2+.07;
if(count24300)
{count2 = 0;}
}
}
}
writeRetrun("");
setInterval("imagefly2.style.display='';onInterval2();",30);
function writeRetrun(displaySetting) {
var frmSnip=' style="POSITION:Relative;background-color:none;top:0;left:'+0;
document.writeln('DIV align=left id=imagefly2'+frmSnip+'display:none;visibility:visible;"IMG SRC="" border=0 USEMAP="" name=sticky_maparea coords=95,0,130,158 href="" /map/DIV');
}
/SCRIPT
enjoy
Frank Znidarsic
