Re: Mozilla Firefox - Thumbs up!
Anybody using Linspire (Linux) 4.5? Jones Haven't had the chance, but I switched everybody at work over to Konqueror and Kmail, the programs that come (or should I say Kome?) with the KDE package. My co-workers are quite happy with them. In the more recent incarnations of KDE, they cobbled a bunch of separate programs together with a common user interface for the e-mail program, Kmail, so that it more closely resembles Outlook. It has a calendar, day planner, group messaging capabilities, and some other junk. The result was mammouth program that was ugly, loaded much more slowly, and nobody was using any of the other features (just like Outlook!). I dug around a bit, and found a way to load just the Kmail program itself, and everybody was happy again. As for security, Kmail has the ability let you read your e-mail while it is still on the ISP server. You can delete anything that looks suspicious on your ISP server before it is brought over to your machine. I have found that European ISPs are much more proactive in protecting their customer base from viruses, trojans, spam, etc., than their American counterparts, but occasionally I do get a spam e-mail or a virus in my e-mail. It is a very rare occurrence when a bad e-mail makes it through the ISP's filters here, but having the ability to delete it on the ISP server prevents any unpleasant surprises. I am not sure if Outlook allows you to do this, since I have not used the M$oft e-mail clients for well over a decade. I know that it did not use to allow it, and it would automatically open and execute everything that landed in your mailbox. That was what prompted me to look around for alternatives in the first place. If M$oft did improve their e-mail client, I'm sure that took an Act of Congress to get them to do so. I have read that the Mozilla e-mail client is also pretty decent, and one of the guys here at work uses it in Linux. He swears by it. Again, my experience with Linux is so limited that if I do get something to function here the way I would like it to, the champagne corks fly, and I do not have the luxury, timewise, to be comparing a lot of different programs. I have also read some good things about the email client Evolution. It is recommended by Linus, himself. I have it on my machine, and I have popped it up to take a look at it, but I haven't used it on a daily basis. What I recommend for an e-mail client for Windoze is Popcorn from Ultrafunk. It is incredibly free, small, fast, and allows you to read everything in plain text on your ISP server before you take it on to your machine. It only reads plain text, so you are fairly safe. You need another client if you want to look at foto attachments or HTML rendered e-mail. I particularly like it because I can easily fit it on to my USB stick, and check my mail on any Windoze machine I happen to find myself sitting on at the moment, anywhere in the world. After reading my mail, I just let it sit on the ISP server until I get home. I should look around for something similar for Linux, as I find myself sitting on more and more Linux machines as time goes by. Perhaps Horace has a suggestion. Knuke
Re: Spinning Supermagnets Antigravity?
Anyone tried this? http://www.amazing1.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=ag,v=print,m=1053138079 "its been shown in a ton of different places that spinning magnets can demonstrate some kind of antigravity. "Where? Surely Bill Beaty has tried it.The motion of the magnet spinning about it's axis should create a 1/R^2 Electric Field: E= -dB/dt Protons and electrons are spinning magnets, but they are spinning so close to c that time dilation sets in and weakens the force "gravitational?" between them. How about spinning two supermagnets far enough apart that the 1/R^4 magnetic force is minimal, but the 1/R^2 electrostatic force is still measurable? Frederick
Camelot
I am becoming more aware daily that this group has something special. Perhaps the song... "These is no such thing as Camelot.. but.. if it were.. it would only last for a little while." Is a proper description of the group I noticeeach ofyoupractices a self discipline that keeps the themes and threads alive. I commend all for makinga contribution toward the interest generated and the professional conduct demonstrated. This truly makes a bond among people in the world of cyberspace. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Thanks for the idea?
Alan Schneider wrote: If I understand the intent of this posting correctly, Mr. Carey is threatening to flood Vortex (and by implication a number of other lists . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand Many are filtering me out and will not deal with me in regard to the new different technology situations I have presented. So When we start our CO soon the computer genius will create E mail programs that will describe our company technology concepts. . . . Fortunately, that will not work. E-mail filters function equally well with Vortex or direct-mail. I filter out all of Carey's messages regardless of how or where they are posted. (I would not have known about this one if Schneider had not mentioned it.) The ISPs and e-mail programs are gradually winning the battle against spam. - Jed
Re: Thanks for the idea?
Oops. That was sent in response to an ancient message, from 2003. I had the messages sorted in the wrong order, not by date. Sorry. - Jed
Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Dieter Britz also wonders how such a small amount of gas might have caused such a large explosion in Mizuno's cell. He wrote to me: It is also hard to imagine that there should have been enough for such a violent explosion. You have no doubt seen the school experiment, where a lighted taper is inserted into a tube with some hydrogen in it - you get a nice pop. In an open cell, after a short time of electrolysis, that is what I would expect. So this is very strange and I have no guesses. I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. I do not know enough about explosions to judge the issue. It is not just the total energy involved; you also have to take into account the speed of the reaction, the shape of the container, and so on. That is why bullets are so much more destructive than firecrackers. - Jed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to normal. 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce hydrino water. These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released to be accounted for by a normal H2+O2 reaction. Ed Storms Jones Beene wrote: Jed Rothwell writes. I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. Here is a suggestion (w/ input from Fred Sparber) that might be woth mentioning to Mizuno, or anyone else working with K or Sr or Rb electrolytes, alone or in combinations. BTW, Rb should be the most active of these, based on the theoretical fit but a combination of the three should have synergy becasue of the spread of IP energy holes based on Table 5.2 in my edition of CQM. The most active combination of electrolytes would most likely be a trade secret, so don't expect any confirmation from Mills. It is potentially possible to easily detect hydrinos in ongoing electrolytes as they form over time, in a simple procedure, without much expense and without moving the cell. You would only need to shut it off for a few seconds, take your reading and continue. Assuming that the tighter orbital of the hydrino would create a drastically altered magnetic field, and there is every reason to suspect this, then If one were to measure the bulk magnetic field of a hydino-active electrolyte with any magnetometer, especially a proton precession magnetometer, which can be easily contructed by anyone at minimal cost; and then measure before the electrolysis begins and periodically during electrolysis (there is no need to even remove the reactor, as this can be done 'in situ'... then after a few days of potassium (etc) hydroxide electrolysis, there should be a drastic change in the bulk magnetic field properties of the reactor, IF but only if lots of hydrinos were being created. http://www.portup.com/~dfount/proton.htm In a simple proton precession magnetometer, a bottle of fluid rich in hydrogen atoms, usually distilled water or a hydrocarbon such as kerosene or alcohol, is surrounded by a coil of wire which can be energized by a direct current to produce a strong magnetic field. When the current is shut off, the precessing protons induce a very weak signal into the same coil, which is now connected to a suitable output device. This output circuitry may be a frequency counter calibrated to give a direct readout of of magnetic field strength. Jones BTW, if one wished to maximize hydrino manufacture then it would seem that a combination of both Rb, K and Sr electrolytes would be an improvement as they cover different IP ranges. Since you need to get to the first stage quickly, I would suggest that half or more of the mole% be Rb hydroxide.
Repost of Thermacore
As mentioned in prior postings, the Potassium electrolytic heat cell idea and patent is not owned nor invented by Mills/ BLP, not do the current British claimants (scam artists) Eccles/ Watts have even the remotest claim to originality. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. If the patent was actually granted in 1993, it was submitted far earlier. At that time the lag time was about 4 years. So the extent of Mills' creative involvement is not clear. Mills and first research facility were also located in Lancaster (Thermacore Hdqts) in the early 1990s, and he early-on teamed up with Thermacore to develop the wet electrolytic cell using potassium catalyst. If Mills were an actual co-inventor, then it was probably a mistake for him not to have his name included on the disclosure as there is absolutely NO requirement that the inventor must have any employment relationship with the patent owner. Though the original patent is owned by Thermacore, not BLP, it seems that there must have been complicated agreements that neither side liked - and the partnership soon disintegrated. Mills went on to forego the wet electrolytic research in favor of first, a gas-phase implementation, but now almost exclusively, plasma phase. Consider this quote from Thermacore: Light water electrolytic experiments at Thermacore show positive results. The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41 watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated continuously for over one year... This does not sound to me like a process that is so corrosive that it cannot be commercialized. The electrolytic battery, for example, using sulfuric acid is far more corrosive and, shall we say, there are quite a few of them around, even if they must be replaced every 4-5 years. Thermacore Electrolytic heater-Abstract A heater which uses the electrolysis of a liquid to produce heat from electricity and transfers the heat from the electrolyte by means of a heat exchanger. One embodiment includes electrodes of nickel and platinum and an electrolyte of potassium carbonate with a heat exchanger immersed in and transferring heat from the electrolyte. Thermacore International is now a subsidiary of Modine Manufacturing Company, and a global supplier of thermal engineering products for many industries. With manufacturing locations in Lancaster, Pa in the USA, and overseas in Mexico, the U.K., Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, Thermacore provides B2B manufacturing to other OEMs along with design RD manufacturing. It was formerly an independent ultra high-tech outfit, with compounded growth of 40% annually before the manufacturing economy went sour, and more recently it was acquired by Modine. Nobody really seems to knows what was going on with Thermacore or what their relationship with Mills became after merger with Modine. The only thing that seems clear is that Modine decided not to pursue the technology. However, it could well be that the wet electrolytic hydrino technology, and perhaps some of the original personnel, did not fit well into the Modine corporate culture, and realizing the unfulfilled potential of the wet cell, these RD folks decided to leave. Here are some very interesting pdf files from the Mills' BLP site, relating to Thermacore (if the papers are still there): http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Final-Report-Nascent-Hydrogen.pdf For emphasis, let me repeat: THE CELL OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY FOR OVER ONE YEAR. This was prior to the Modine merger. Now, remember, this statement is not coming from some fly-by-night self-promoting entrepreneur, nor even some university professor who is ignorant of manufacturing realities and corporate intrigue - but instead it comes from one of the most well-respected of high-tech firms, a manufacturing firm, and the inventors of the heat-pipe and many other wonderful thermal inventions. Again, the British announcement by the Eccles/Watts group was gravely deficient for not mentioning this most relevant background, and their callous plea for funding is abhorrent under circumstances of what must be *intentional non-disclosure*. This failure to credit others and disclose prior patent status casts serious doubt on both their (the Watt group) integrity and the thoroughness of their research, and may even approach criminal misconduct, since a plea for money comes along with their claim of original invention. A 5-minute Google search would have turned all of this up (as it has been posted to Vortex before). Jones Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 http://tinyurl.com/3nygq
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent. Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or perhaps forgiving. Our standards are low, as anyone working in conventional science will clearly see. Mincing words only makes us look like we are playing word games or do not know how to judge good and bad work. Of course the standard has to be low because the field has only just matured sufficiently so that good papers are possible. Many of the early papers had to be poorly written and wrong in many respects, because the information and concepts were so incomplete. Nevertheless, they contain useful information that becomes more easily identified as we better understand the effect. All new discoveries go through this process and the problem is not usually used to totally reject the idea, as is done in this field. Ed Okay, it means the same thing, but the situation calls to mind Darrell Huff's observation in his immortal book How To Lie With Statistics: The fact is, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science. A great many manipulations and even distortions are possible within the bounds of propriety. Often the statistician must choose among methods, a subjective process, and find the one that he will use to represent the facts. In commercial practice he is about as unlikely to select an unfavorable method as a copywriter is to call his sponsor's product flimsy and cheap when he might as well say light and economical. - Jed
RE: Repost of Thermacore
Hi Jones. I met with Robert Shaubach when this work first came out, he was the point man for Thermacore and was promoting the work through conferences ( not sure which one though, probably the IECEC but I'd have to check ). Anyway, Robert was pretty clear that Mills was the driving force behind this patent. It was presented as a joint project, and Mills was credited with the idea, theory, and experimental apparatus. Why his name doesn't appear as a coinventor is a little mysterious, but perhaps Randy could shed some light here. I no nothing of the contractual arrangements between Mills and thermacore, but I wouldn't read a great deal into it other than that they each had different priorities. If I were a skeptic, I would assume Thermacore became unconvinced of the results and pulled the plug, but I'm not. I suspect Mills may have felt it best to move forward on his own rather than be tied to a more conventional company and be hamstrung by the resulting micromanaging. He (Mills) strikes me as an independent sort, it's hard to imagine him doing the whole corporate thing unless he was at the head. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Repost of Thermacore As mentioned in prior postings, the Potassium electrolytic heat cell idea and patent is not owned nor invented by Mills/ BLP, not do the current British claimants (scam artists) Eccles/ Watts have even the remotest claim to originality. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. If the patent was actually granted in 1993, it was submitted far earlier. At that time the lag time was about 4 years. So the extent of Mills' creative involvement is not clear. Mills and first research facility were also located in Lancaster (Thermacore Hdqts) in the early 1990s, and he early-on teamed up with Thermacore to develop the wet electrolytic cell using potassium catalyst. If Mills were an actual co-inventor, then it was probably a mistake for him not to have his name included on the disclosure as there is absolutely NO requirement that the inventor must have any employment relationship with the patent owner. Though the original patent is owned by Thermacore, not BLP, it seems that there must have been complicated agreements that neither side liked - and the partnership soon disintegrated. Mills went on to forego the wet electrolytic research in favor of first, a gas-phase implementation, but now almost exclusively, plasma phase. Consider this quote from Thermacore: Light water electrolytic experiments at Thermacore show positive results. The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41 watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated continuously for over one year... This does not sound to me like a process that is so corrosive that it cannot be commercialized. The electrolytic battery, for example, using sulfuric acid is far more corrosive and, shall we say, there are quite a few of them around, even if they must be replaced every 4-5 years. Thermacore Electrolytic heater-Abstract A heater which uses the electrolysis of a liquid to produce heat from electricity and transfers the heat from the electrolyte by means of a heat exchanger. One embodiment includes electrodes of nickel and platinum and an electrolyte of potassium carbonate with a heat exchanger immersed in and transferring heat from the electrolyte. Thermacore International is now a subsidiary of Modine Manufacturing Company, and a global supplier of thermal engineering products for many industries. With manufacturing locations in Lancaster, Pa in the USA, and overseas in Mexico, the U.K., Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, Thermacore provides B2B manufacturing to other OEMs along with design RD manufacturing. It was formerly an independent ultra high-tech outfit, with compounded growth of 40% annually before the manufacturing economy went sour, and more recently it was acquired by Modine. Nobody really seems to knows what was going on with Thermacore or what their relationship with Mills became after merger with Modine. The only thing that seems clear is that Modine decided not to pursue the technology. However, it could well be that the wet electrolytic hydrino technology, and perhaps some of the original personnel, did not fit well into the Modine corporate culture, and realizing the unfulfilled potential of the wet cell, these RD folks decided to leave. Here are some very interesting pdf files from the Mills' BLP site, relating to Thermacore (if the papers are still there): http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Final-Report-Nascent-Hydrogen.pdf For emphasis, let me repeat: THE CELL OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY FOR OVER ONE YEAR. This was
RE: Mozilla Firefox - Thumbs up!
For what it's worth -- LENR-CANR browsers August 2004 MS IE 6.x, 72% Mozilla (Firefox), 1% (Not officially released) The other 27% were mainly MS IE 5.x, Netscape, Mozilla 5.x, AOL 9.x and so on. December 11, 2004 MS IE 6.x, 62% Mozilla (Firefox), 8% (One month after official release) 1/26/2005 Last 4 weeks MS IE 6.x, 61% Mozilla (Firefox), 12% That is a dramatic change. - Jed
Superluminal updated a bit
Vorts, A bit better in the light of some comments now. http://luna.brighton.ac.uk/~roc1/index.htm Just follow links. Regards, Remi.
Ozone boosting mechanism
Ed can surely supply more authoritative input on this, but... Ozone can be up to 15times more soluble than O2 in H20, and is of course about 50% denser anyway; plus ithas a Electrochemical Potential of 2.07versus 1.23. UV light from hydrino formation or even glow discharge would have easily created ozone in an ongoing and accumulative way, most of it immediately reforming to O2 but some of it accumulating gradually up to its limit of compatibility with hydroxyl radicals, which is probably low, but there could have been as much as 5 milligrams of ozone per liter dissolved in the liquid itself,if the temp of the cell was on the low side ? This, along with hydrino hydrides would have been accumulating over time, just waiting for a small triggering reaction from H2 and O2 in the headspace, which wouldn't have done much by itself, except to compress, heat and release more of the soluble reactants, which had been dissolved in the liquid.There could have been a smaller explosion followed by a larger one, but to the human observer, it all seemed to run together as one. That few milligrams of ozone doesn't sound like much but for a given amount of H2 with which to react,just using ozone or hydroxyl oxidantscould double or triple the intensity of the shockwave because the reaction happens so much faster... not to mention, releasing bound hydrinos from the potassium... some of which might have even served to quench the other reactions by re-inflating, if they didn't shrink further, with a net input to the other reactions. The dynamics of this experiment, despite its unsatisfactory conclusion, beg to be repeated but with adequate controls and protection. As Jed implies, Mizuno is probably doing just that... form a safer distance. Is there any reason to think the SRI incident could have been related to this? Jones
Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Colin Quinney wrote: Wow. James Bond movie? No way. Sounds more like something seen in a John Hutchison movie. Bill was the microwave oven on during this episode? Nope. This was around 9AM in the electronics shop at work, just after I'd arrived. I had purchased a paper cup of coffee from the espresso stand in the physics building, then I continued on to chem building. We have no bizarre equipment in this shop, but there is a collection of large superconducting magnet dewars in two differnet NMR labs on the same floor a couple hundred feet away. They are shorted DC, a Tesla or two of very constant b-field, no pulses. Latest news: the stir-stick appears to have returned. Vanished objects are known to usually reappear. Yesterday morning I kept looking around the microwave oven and on the floor to see if the stir-stick would show up again. Nothing. In the trash next to the microwave oven was the pair of tea bags and the stir-stick which had already been in my ceramic mug (this stir-stick was stained bright red from hibscus tea I'd been drinking the previous day, and I carefully and knowningly discarded it and the two tea bags while preparing to dump the coffee from the paper cup into the ceramic mug.) Then a friend reminded me to keep the paper coffee cup as a memento. When I retrieved it from the trash bag on the other side of the lab... I found THREE stir sticks in the trash below it. Two were coffee-stained. The extra un-stained stick was one which I'd found on my desk when searching the lab for the missing stick. It was dusty so I trashed it rather than putting it back in the box of wooden sticks. One of the stained sticks in the trash was the second one I used. The other brown-stained stick should not be there. The plastic trash bag had been emptied early that morning, and there was nothing else in it except the paper coffe cup, the plastic coffee lid, and three wooden sticks. Nobody else was drinking coffee or tea. I checked. The only sensible explanation is that the stir-stick was in the cup the whole time, and I couldn't see it. When I poured 3/4 of the coffee into the ceramic mug while expecting to find the submerged stick, I couldn't see it. When I carefully drank the small amount of remaining coffee in the paper cup and checked for stick fragments in the bit of choclate goo along the edge in the bottom of the cup, the stick was invisible to me. WHen I threw the second stick and the coffee cup in the trash, the missing stick had to be right there in the cup. If it REALLY winked out of existence, I would have reappeared by the microwave oven, not in the trash with the paper cup. Below is another vanishing-object story, this one from early years on Vortex-L. I think this message is the one which inspired me to start the http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/ reports page. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:46:04 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: End of Science I can't help but inject a bit of metaphysics in too. Einstein was quoted as saying he wanted to find out if God had any choice in creating the Universe? I think the answer to that is that he had no choice if his Universe required intelligent carbon-based lifeforms. The degree of fine tuning of the 3 subatomic forces neccessary to create life is incredible. Martin Sevior -End of Original Message- One could also ask Is God really HE? Are we really here at all? I am still perplexed by simple things. Several months ago I was working on a four pole digital filter. Each pole was a tuned brass chamber. The sections were connected to the other physically, but there was no opening between the chambers as a 50 ohm probe was used to couple the RF from pole filter to pole filter. Each filter was tuned with a large brass screw. I did a stupid thing (normal for me) and went in to far with a tuning screw on the end filter. It dropped into it's chamber. I opened the chamber to find the screw missing. I knew I had the right chamber because of the hole where the screw had been. I shook the whole assembly to hear a rattle. The filter did not rattle before the screw was dropped. I opened the chamber on the other end to find the missing screw. I studied the problem for many hours and saw no way the screw got into the wrong chamber. I allowed two visiting russian scientists to study the filter, at first smiling and then agreeing that what happened was impossible. This is a true story. Not interesting, but true. God may not play dice with the universe, but sometimes she will
Re: Ozone boosting mechanism
Jones Beene wrote: The dynamics of this experiment, despite its unsatisfactory conclusion, beg to be repeated but with adequate controls and protection. As Jed implies, Mizuno is probably doing just that... I do not think so. Unless this was an ordinary electrochemical explosion, I doubt that Mizuno has the slightest idea how to re-create it. Consider this: he has been doing glow discharge experiments for years, perhaps a thousand times. It only exploded once, and as far as he knows conditions were no different this time than they were in previous experiments. The run was only beginning. The water was still at room temperature. It is hard to imagine anything he might have done in the first few minutes of the experiment that might have triggered anything like a cold fusion reaction. He would have to do another five or 10 years of experiments before it happened again at random. He does not have 10 more years. He does not even have 5 more year before he reaches mandatory retirement. As for triggering hydrino reactions . . . I am sure he has no clue how to do that. There are no detectors or instruments that would tell him he is stoking up hydrinos, or doing whatever it takes to make a batch of them go off at once. (Actually, as Ed points out, they should all *form* at once, which seems even more problematic.) If this is a hydrino event, he could not possibly re-create it because he would be working in the dark with no instruments, knowledge what techniques that would tell him current hydrino status. If ozone has anything to do with it he would be in a much better position of course. I expect he knows how to detect and deal with ozone. Is there any reason to think the SRI incident could have been related to this? None whatever. It was completely explained by conventional chemistry. The SRI incident did not take much energy because the steel cell acted as a rocket. The total energy release was 39,700 J. (See ICCF3, p. 144) As I said, a bullet is much more destructive than a firecracker, even when they use the same amount of gunpowder. - Jed
Re: Ozone boosting mechanism
Point #2 about what Jones Beene said: The dynamics of this experiment, despite its unsatisfactory conclusion, beg to be repeated but with adequate controls and protection. As Jed implies, Mizuno is probably doing just that... On the contrary, he is taking every step he can think of to prevent it from happening again, or if it does happen, to keep the explosion from causing damage. - Jed
Re: A question for the electrochemists
In reply to Michael Foster's message of Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:36:39 -0500: Hi Michael, [snip] Hi Robin, I assume you mean potassium carbonate in an aqueous solution. If that is the case, you won't get any potassium metal at all. You need a molten non-aqueous potassium compound in order to do this, such as potassium chloride. Yes, I do mean in an aqueous solution, though I don't mean a permanent layer of potassium. I realise full well that any potassium formed will react almost immediately with the surrounding water. However H+, or perhaps even water molecules will also be reduced at the cathode. What I am looking for is that combination of parameters that results in a maximal turn over of potassium ions, as opposed to the other reactions competing for the free electrons supplied by the cathode. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:08:52 + To: Colin Quinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports At 08:31 pm 27-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Wow. James Bond movie? No way. Sounds more like something seen in a John Hutchison movie. Bill was the microwave oven on during this episode? Hutchison used to have a Tesla coil, a microwave, and a Van de Graph generator all running all at the same time. You have that equipment there. Under those conditions sometimes magic can happen. Stuff would levitate. Did stuff disappear with Hutchison? Wouldn't surprise me. Did you have anything else running in your lab? Like a VDG generator or a Tesla coil? Interesting that at least one careful conservative scientifically minded researcher who once studied Hutchison.. once told me that the effect may as well have been poltergeist phenomena, there were so many variables and it being so weird. Colin I have just been looking at the John Hutchison web site and I must say that I find his results in harmony with the Beta-atmosphere concept. In our case.. === CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. The di-phase concept with particular reference to concrete. Developments in Concrete Technology, Vol.1, F.D.Lydon, ed, Applied Science Publishers, England pp.283-318. This chapter can be found as page .jpegs in the Photo section of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/ === .we were using air pressure, water pressure and even ball-bearing pressure to simulate the Beta-atmosphere but Hutchinson would seem to be playing with a much finer grained pressure level - materon cluster pressure perhaps? 8-) Unfortunately Hutchison's web site doesn't seem to have been updated since June 2002. Perhaps he has been levitated to a higher plane. ;-) Cheers, Grimer
Re: Entry to Phenomena Reports
Hi Frank,
Toreview background Beta Aether I joined
yourgroup.
B-Asounds similar to subquantum gas (liquids,
particles, etc) proposed by several authors,but please feel free to
educate me, thanks..
An author comes to mind being Robert Neil Boyd
whotalks about radiant light, electric light,[light having charge] and
makes reference to aether density. ref. below.
In reference to Hutchison, Irecently came
across this link http://www.hutchisoneffect.com on the USA Tesla list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa-tesla/where they are presently discussing the Hutchison Effect. So, I
looked in on the Hutchison Effect FORUM, topic, "Hutchison Effect", and
from there to the sub-topic,MATH MODEL OF
HUTCHISON EFFECT, and synchronistically I came across some interesting
reading..
I readDave Thomson here http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162 , suggesting a physics model to explain the
Hutchison effect. What was most interestingly was that David said, ("Actually,
the photons do not take on mass. They build up strong charge.")which
soundedsimilar to Robert Neil Boyd's"charged light".
David's formula:
Pulse * Cd * Freq --- = kg
(coul^2/m^3) * G
(More on David
Thomson)
Tesla propulsion: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Tesla_Propulsion.htm
Book: http://www.16pi2.com/
(More on Robert Neil
Boyd)
Physics: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/physics.htm
Antigravity: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/antigrav.htm
(More on Hutchison
Effect)
Research: http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/research.htm
JH home page: http://www.jbcr-virtualsolutions.com/heffect/accomplish.html
The following Hutchison Effect forum post is beyond
belief, but then again after Bill Beaty's wandering stir stick, who knows? :
http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
QUOTE:
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:13 pm
Post subject: Equipment used - HDR Tesla
Coil
The equipment I used was three
Hyper Dimensional Resonators, two Tesla Coiil, two plasma balls, and one CB
Radio to generate RF. The effect was that the copper pipes in my home
twisted and broke. I ended up with a $1600 water bill. I have seen many
strange spooky events happen after I turn off the Tesla Coils. Typically within
15 minutes of me turning them OFF. The greatest amount of RF generated
by the Tesla Coils was at 67 kilocycles as measured by my frequency counter.
There was a secondary peak at 120 kilocycles not 134 kilocycles as expected.
Other strange effects include scorch marks, objects levitating, and a
strange smell. Not the ozone smell of the Tesla coil, more like an ammonia
smell. The effect is is sporadic and I have not yet captured it on
film.
UNQUOTE
==
Cheers,
Colin
- Original Message -
From: "Grimer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Colin Quinney" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Entry to "Phenomena
Reports"
At 08:31 pm 27-01-05 -0500, you
wrote:Wow.James Bond movie? No way. Sounds
more like something seen in a John Hutchison movie. Bill was the
microwave oven on during this episode? Hutchison used to have a
Tesla coil, a microwave, and a Van de Graph generator all running
all at the same time. You have that equipment there. Under those
conditions sometimes magic can happen. Stuff would levitate. Did
stuff disappear with Hutchison? Wouldn't surprise me. Did you have
anything else running in your lab? Like a VDG generator or a Tesla
coil? Interesting that at least one careful conservative
scientifically minded researcher who once studied
Hutchison.. once told me that the effect may as well have
been poltergeist phenomena, there were so many variables and it
being so weird.Colin
I have just been looking at the John Hutchison web site and I
must say that I find his results in harmony with the Beta-atmosphere
concept. In our case..
=== CLAYTON, N and
F.J.GRIMER. The di-phase concept with particular reference to concrete.
Developments in Concrete Technology, Vol.1, F.D.Lydon, ed,
Applied Science Publishers, England pp.283-318. This chapter
can be found as page .jpegs in the "Photo" section of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/
=== .we
were using air pressure, water pressure and even ball-bearing pressure
to simulate the Beta-atmosphere but Hutchinson would seem to be playing
with a much finer grained pressure level - materon cluster
pressure perhaps? 8-) Unfortunately Hutchison's web site
doesn't seem to have been updated since June 2002. Perhaps he
has been levitated to a higher plane. ;-) Cheers,
Grimer
FW: WHAT'S NEW Friday, January 28, 2005
[Original Message] From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Akira Kawasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1/28/2005 11:40:00 AM Subject: WHAT'S NEW Friday, January 28, 2005 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Jan 05 Washington, DC 1. VISION: WHERE DOES THE ADMINISTRATION GET ITS SCIENCE ADVICE? On Feb 7, when the President's FY06 Budget Request is released, Sean O'Keefe will announce that no money is allotted for repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. However, money will be provided to drop the greatest telescope ever built into the ocean. Fixing Hubble with astronauts is too dangerous, O'Keefe said. Repairing Hubble with robots is too uncertain, an NRC panel said. It's too expensive anyway, the White House said. On the same day, the White House estimated the budget deficit at $427B. Besides, it wasn't too dangerous for the ISS crew to spend five hours outside yesterday repairing a Russian robot arm. So what's the arm for? It's so astronauts can make repairs without going outside. Hmmm. But why would anyone bother to repair the ISS? It doesn't do anything. Drop the ISS in the ocean, and save Hubble. 2. JIMO: U.S. PLANETARY SCIENTISTS DO IT THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY. It sounded exciting in 2003 when NASA announced that the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission would be the first nuclear-propelled mission under Project Prometheus. But now it looks like a plan to put them off while NASA focuses on Moon/Mars. Kinky is nice, but if conventional will get to Europa, they'll take it. Europa may be the last hope of finding other life in the solar system. 3. OPINIONS: THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY--OPINIONS ARE ANOTHER MATTER. The Education Department paid commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug the No Child Left Behind Act. Health and Human Services paid columnist Maggie Gallagher $21,500 to promote the marriage initiative. This is hardly big bucks compared to a guy with a good jump shot, but fans still need to know who's paying. WN gets tons of mail from readers pointing out stories we missed. We use a lot of them but no one ever enclosed a check. 4. CREATIONISM: SHOULD WARNING MESSAGES BE REQUIRED ON BOOKS? Manufactures are required to include warnings on labels. Why not text book publishers? Besides, the stickers Cobb County wanted on biology texts weren't exactly wrong evolution really is just a theory. http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn011405.cfm Science is open. If someone comes up with a better theory, the textbooks will be rewritten. Although requiring warning labels on medicine bottles is vital, on books they become official doctrine. Several readers suggested stickers for bibles in Cobb County: This book contains religious stories regarding the origin of living things. The stories are theories, not facts. They are unproven, unprovable and in some cases totally impossible. This material should be approached with an open mind, and a critical eye towards logic and believability. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ozone boosting mechanism
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:39:37 -0500: Hi, [snip] As for triggering hydrino reactions . . . I am sure he has no clue how to do that. Just use the remaining pieces of the device that exploded. The inside walls, and/or the electrodes are probably coated with hydrinohydride salts (if hydrinos are the cause). These salts will still be there, because they are resistant to chemicals. There are no detectors or instruments that would tell him he is stoking up hydrinos, or doing whatever it takes to make a batch of them go off at once. Actually, as Mills has already shown, and Jones has just pointed out, MRI can be used to detect hydrinohydride salts. (Actually, as Ed points out, they should all *form* at once, which seems even more problematic.) It isn't problematic if the catalyst comprises atoms and/or ions in a plasma. For that matter, K could also have been the catalyst, once the plasma started vaporizing the surrounding electrolyte, and converting it into even more plasma. If this is a hydrino event, he could not possibly re-create it because he would be working in the dark with no instruments, knowledge what techniques that would tell him current hydrino status. [snip] Along the same lines as Jones' ozone proposal, is the possibility of prior formation of H2O2. If this started to react with locally produced H at the cathode, then the resulting heat might have caused a rapid release of hydrogen atoms from the cathode metal (where they had been stored in the lattice), and further reactions with dissolved H2O2. The heat from such a reaction would be formidable, and the amount of H available possibly quite a bit more than would have been available in the head space. However this scenario depends on the presence of H in the cathode, which may or may not have been true in this experiment. This scenario is easily replicated by adding concentrated H2O2 to a running electrolysis experiment, where H has already been absorbed, then focusing a laser on the cathode to start the process. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Ozone boosting mechanism
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:52:38 -0500: Hi Jed, Do you happen to know if Mizuno follows this forum, and if he doesn't would you be prepared to forward suggestions made here to him (eventually after translation)? Point #2 about what Jones Beene said: The dynamics of this experiment, despite its unsatisfactory conclusion, beg to be repeated but with adequate controls and protection. As Jed implies, Mizuno is probably doing just that... On the contrary, he is taking every step he can think of to prevent it from happening again, or if it does happen, to keep the explosion from causing damage. - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
accident report
On reading the excellent comments that Ed Storms posted, I was moved to write the following. When I saw the photo of what I assume was the remains of the bottom of the vessel, I though of a detonation producing a shock wave which was focused on the center of the vessel. How this happened I haven't got a clue. I've seen the video of Yuri Brown putting a spark into the gallon milk jug of Brown's gas, the bottle imploded. IMHO, there is nothing other than a high explosive that would account for the damage to that vessel, ergo, something happened that we don't understand.
