Re: UFO Propulsion
Different from Fred's flying fluorescent: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/ufoplasmaengine.htm It would be marvelous if it worked, eh? I've heard lots of people claiming to have a machine that works on a Schauberger vortex, talk talk, talk talk. The author obviously gets most of his exercise flying off the handle after jumping to conclusions. His political stick reminds me of Alex Jones, www.prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com , who was interviewed on C to C AM last week. His religious views are abominable. My reaction is, if the New World Odor, I mean Order people have that sort of power you might as well stick your head in between your legs and kiss your a-- good bye.
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
thomas malloy wrote: BTW, what's the final story on the funnel. was there one above the area of gas emission or not? No, there was not. - Jed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Nuclear weapons essentially work on this principle, creating very little in the way of extra atoms compared to the size of the shock wave, which is essentially a result of thermal ionisation of the surrounding air. (The actual amount of material present is only a few kg, while the shock wave can have an extent of many km's). Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger volume. In addition, the energy density is huge. Furthermore, in the case at hand, the surrounding medium is water rather than air, so flash vaporization will also produce a shock wave (which the surrounding water will very effectively transmit to the walls of the container). Good point. The shock wave might originate in the water as you propose. It really all depends on just how much energy is liberated, and in what time frame. [snip] My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. This is actually only partly true. The reaction goes like this: O++ + H - O+++ + H* followed by O+++ + e- - O++ + UV where the e- comes from the plasma, or just about anything else in the neighbourhood that happens to have electrons attached to it. :) So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. The window of time during which oxygen has the correct charge would seem to be rather short. I guess it is a matter of intuition whether the time is too short for sufficient O++ to be present. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. In either case, there is sufficient energy present to ionise O+ to O++ (which requires about 35 eV). The UV from the reaction: O+++ +e- - O++ + 54.9 eV is also sufficient to convert O+ to O++, or there is also the reaction: O+++ + O+ - 2 O++ However as previously mentioned, most of the time this energy won't be spent in this way. That means either that the UV/hydrino needs to have more initial energy so that even after losing some energy to competing processes, enough remains upon encountering O+ to ionise it to O++, or supplementary O++ needs to be formed from fusion reactions. I should point out that by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, which with luck may even produce multiple O++ ions. Given an initial population of severely shrunken hydrinos, it should therefore be possible to reach a self sustaining (chain) reaction. (For n=1/120 - n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. OK, I understand. Presumably the reaction proceeds until all of the accumulated hydrinos are used up. It's just a matter of using hydrinos that are at such a level that O++ production rate exceeds consumption rate. (I don't know what that level is, but I hope to have shown that such a level may well exist). [snip] I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. There was no original concentration of O++. What was accumulating over time is hydrinos of ever high levels of shrinkage. Once the average shrinkage level reaches a certain point, an explosion becomes possible (in water). It then only requires a trigger to set it off. IOW the most important point in the Mizuno experiment is that fact that the cell had been in use for about 5 years. This gave plenty of time to cake the inside wall (and/or electrode(s)) with high level hydrinos. It also means that others using the same container (or electrode(s)) for extended periods should also be prepared
Cosmo-Icono-clash
"Iconoclastic" -
Adj. Characterized by attack on the established belief structureor
the institutions which uphold it.
How cana nearby spiral galaxy contain a quasar whose light spectrum
indicates that it is billions of light years away?
It cannot if the normal, and almost universally held, assumptions on which
our "mainstream cosmological paradigm" have based for the past 50 years
-are correct.
But it can and they are not.
One of many such stories:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/05015201.htm
Some few observers (outside the mainstream) might consider this finding to
make a 'prima facie case' that red-shift is NOT an accurate measure of distance,
andthat there is a very strong gravitational component to redshift, and by
inference that *everything*... well, if that is so great
anexaggerationlets say: __almost everything which science now
assumes about the age anddynamics of our universeis
incorrect__ that the universe may NOT be expanding at all, and
certainly not in an inflationary manner, and furthermore, that there is no
necessity for a "big bang" at all, from a re-evaluation of the
evidence.
A sequential succession of "little bangs" fits the evidence better (in
size, each would be the extent ofour "Virgo supercluster," for instance,
which was our particular "little bang").
Is the preceding analysis (of the "#1 neglected science news story of the
past decade") is the iconoclastic conclusionjust the raving hyperbole of a
professional iconoclast? ... perhaps, butif it were not so shocking...
especiallyto the career statusof so-called
experts,maybeit would be consideredan understatement, as much
more could be made of this finding (including a "cover-up"), because
We have actually known details about several of these red-shift "anomalies"
for at least 20 years, maybe longer, but they have been consistently pushed
aside by the professional mainstream of cosmology as something akin to
"measurement error" (sound familiar, vortexians?). This isbecause the
implications of them being accurate are not just "unsettling," they are
absolutely devastating to the majority viewpoint. Now that firm and undeniable
proof is beginning to accumulate, to the stage thatit can no longer be
censored andheld in abeyance, and it is starting toleak-out around
the seams when will the dam break?
In the meantime, readers of vortex will probably be among the few on the
fringes of science who really appreciate the impact of this coming
"icononclash"... as a similar situation is also ongoing in the
alternativefields which they follow most intently. Note to mention past
high level cover-ups.
Jones
P.S. Wouldn't it be nice if both levels of"icononclashes" were to
transpire and resolve themselves simultaneously against the mainstream ...
i.e. the macro and the micro both overturning prior "laws"...
Whatcould begoing here in the "big picture" that so much
iconoclasm is in the offing in so many different areas,? ... ahem...
can you spell "quickening"... ("Aquarians" from the late 60s can, but they got
their timing off by two-score, apparently)
"quickening"noun:
1) the first motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother near the
middle of the period of gestation
2) the process of showing signs of life or vigor ;
3) the act of accelerating; increasing speed or opening of new
horizons.
NOTE to John Fields... is it time to upgrade (downgrade?) your "big bang"
simulator to focus on "little bangs" ... G
Re: A question for the electrochemists
But Robin, that's exactly the point. Unless you reduce the potassium ions to metal, at least temporarily, you will achieve no concentration of potassium ions at the cathode any higher than that of the whole of the electrolyte. Otherwise, as far as I can see, no manipulation of voltage, current density, electrolyte concentration, temperature, etc., will achieve your goal. You might try something like those experiments where they use a high enough voltage to cause arcing between the cathode and the electrolyte, but I suspect this isn't what you have in mind. Say, isn't Ed Storms an electrochemist? Maybe he could help out a bit here. How about it Ed? M. = --- On Sun 01/30, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Michael, [snip] It's pretty simple. The potassium metal created at the interface between the electrolyte and the Hg cathode is amalgamated and drops below the suface where it is protected from oxidation. Thanks, but the point isn't to create potassium metal. The point is to maximise the production *rate* of potassium atoms, irrespective of how long they last once they have been produced. [snip] ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment -was- Britz: ,,,
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29:47PM +1100, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. This change is from n = 0 to n = 1/2, and n = 1/2 to n = 1/3. So each incremental change in hydrino level -- i.e., change of n from 1/k to 1/(k+1) -- liberates 54 ev. I thought 27.2 ev is liberated for each hydrino level increase from n = 0 to n = 1/2, or n = 1/k to n = 1/(k+1), where k 1. But you're saying that the catalyst gets 27.2 ev per level increase and the hydrino, or a UV photon, also gets 27.2 ev. by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, ... (For n=1/120 - n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). You're saying that the drop from n = 1/10 to n = 1/12 produces 598 ev, or 299 ev per level increment, and n=1/120 to n=1/122 produces 3291 ev per level increment! I thought the energy released for each increase in hydrino level was the same, 27.2 ev -- at least this is the amount that the catalyst has to absorb -- for any change of n = 1/k to n = 1/(k+1). But if the energy released per level increment increases at greater levels, then the original catalysts would only work for the first few levels. What kind of catalyst would absorb 299 ev or 3291 ev? What is the formula for energy released for an incremental hydrino level increase, at a given level?
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry
Cosmic oddity casts doubt on theory of universe
The Globe and Mail Cosmic oddity casts doubt on theory of universe By DAN FALK UPDATED AT 2:50 PM EST Saturday, Jan 29, 2005 A new analysis of the echo of the Big Bang has left cosmologists scratching their heads and could throw a monkey wrench into efforts to understand how the universe began. U.S. and European scientists analyzed the distribution of hot and cold regions -- areas that are putting out greater or less amounts of energy than the average -- of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the so-called echo). What they found was unexpected: an apparent correlation between those hot and cold spots and the orientation and motion of our solar system. All of this is mysterious, says Glenn Starkman, a Canadian physicist based at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and one of the authors of a recent paper in Physical Review Letters that outlined the finding. And the strange thing is, the more you delve into it, the more mysteries you find. The study, by Case Western scientists and the European Centre for Nuclear Research in Geneva, is based on data from the WMAP satellite, the NASA spacecraft that began mapping the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in fine detail in 2001. The observed correlation is troubling on several fronts. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the finding reflects any physical connection between our local astronomical neighbourhood and the universe at large. As Dr. Starkman puts it: None of us believe that the universe knows about the solar system, or that the solar system knows about the universe. Far more plausible, he says, is that something within our solar system is producing or absorbing microwaves. That means that anyone doing cosmology would have to take into account such local contamination. (The correlation involves the largest-scale fluctuations of the CMB radiation. If some of those fluctuations are a local rather than a cosmological phenomenon, it would mean that the truly cosmological large-scale fluctuations are even less intense than previously thought.) There is, however, another possibility: The patterns seen by Dr. Starkman and his colleagues might simply be a fluke -- an accidental alignment between the solar system and patterns in the CMB radiation. If the correlation is real, however, it could cast doubt on the popular inflation model of the early universe. That model, which builds on the well-established Big Bang theory, says the universe underwent a period of incredibly rapid, exponential growth in the first split-second of its existence. One of its predictions is that the universe should be nearly perfectly smooth, that the CMB fluctuations should be equally intense at all scales. An analogy with a musical instrument can be helpful: If you hit a drum, you hear many tones at the same time -- a primary tone as well as many overtones, or harmonics. The inflation model predicts that all the overtones in the CMB should be equally intense, but instead we're missing the bass, Dr. Starkman says. And what bass there is seems to be not generated by the universe, but by something local. Other physicists are responding with caution to the finding. There is no way to judge the real significance of such a result, says Charles Bennett of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., the leader of the WMAP team. It all depends on how we perceive chance, and how we evaluate probabilities, Dr. Bennett says. The alignments seen in the CMB may seem unlikely, he says, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they require new physics to explain them. He points out that improbable things happen frequently because there are lots of opportunities for them to occur. In other words, he says, the newly discovered CMB correlations are most likely the product of chance. Dan Falk is a science journalist based in Toronto. © 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Message for Peter Gluck
Peter, I have been receiving your messages. I have sent several to you in the last week. Mike
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Harry, are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Many. You mention the fringes of one theory, which is just now emerging, in your second post. To the contrary of what they state in that piece, there is adequate if not convincing reason to believe that the findings (which are not new, but from the 2001/2002 WMAP survey) reflect a definite physical connection between our local astronomical neighborhood (Virgo supercluster) and the universe at large by way of interstellar protons. Halton Arp, who Frank refers to, has suggested several other explanations. Many of these intertwine at some level. All are incomplete, but so is the connection to a big bang. The fit there is fairly poor, actually, if you look at the actual numbers. My favorite part of the expanded explanation, which Frank will like, is that CMB radiation is a relic of current and ongoing, not past, beta-aether interaction with interstellar hydrogen. It is NOT an ancient relic of anything, but instead it is a pointer of where to look for ZPE, not only in local cosmology (if our supercluster can be considered local) but in the very-local environment of earth (since ZPE is also dependent on of an aether and probably is active at the same frequencies here as out there). Where is that you ask? As I have suggested several times in the past, a 21 cm wavelength and 1420 Mhz would be a good place to start, if CMB is indeed somehow related to a particulate of aether in the vicinity of our solar system. If you are into Fourier transforms and power laws, then this frequency may point to another more active frequency locally. Jones
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System shows it as a necessary consequence, as well as gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/index.htm http://www.rstheory.com/ No big bang. No black holes. No gravity waves. No magnetic monopoles. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona Harry Veeder wrote: I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry
Re: Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I think I've found answers to some of my questions, but not others, and I've got some new ones, too. Choosing a Mills paper at random -- Formation of a Hydrogen Plasma from an Incandescently Heated Hydrogen-Catalyst Gas Mixture with an Anomalous Afterglow Duration - H_Plasma1.pdf -- he writes first of all that n = 1 for the ground state, not 0, so I was wrong about that, and also: hydrino atom binding energy = 13.6 ev / n^2 where n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... 1/p Thus binding energy = 13.6 ev * p^2 So the difference in binding energy between n = 1/p and n = 1/(p+1) would be: 13.6 ev * ((p + 1)^2 - p^2) = 13.6 (2p + 1) Mills writes that the transition from n = 1 to n = 1/2 gives 40.8 ev. This would be p = 1 in the formula, 13.6 * 3, which does equal 40.8 . The change from n = 1/10 to 1/11 plus 1/11 to 1/12 would give: 13.6 * (2 * 10 + 1 + 2 * 11 + 1) = 598.4 ev and from 1/120 to 1/122: 13.6 * (2 * 120 + 1 + 2 * 121 + 1) = 6582.4 ev exactly as Robin wrote. I guess this also explains Jones Beene's recent remark: 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. since various hydrino level increases require catalysts that absorb different amounts of energy. This still leaves the questions of: 1. How are deeper hydrino level transitions catalyzed, since chemical catalysts can't absorb hundreds or thousands of ev, and many-body collisions are too improbable? If it's hydrinos catalyzing other hydrinos, does this release any net energy? 2. What determines the partition of the liberated energy between the catalyst and the hydrino or UV photon? This would be very important, because if the catalyst only absorbs part of the released energy, the fraction it absorbs determines the size of the electron-energy transition that it has to possess, and thus which elements or molecules are eligible as catalysts. Or does the catalyst absorb all of the energy and then give some back to the hydrino and/or UV photon? 3. And on another subject, the HSG FAQ says: Being extremely light, [hydrinos] rapidly float up into the atmosphere and diffuse into space. But since a hydrino is much smaller than a normal H atom, and still weighs 1 amu, wouldn't it be very dense and (since it is so tiny) tend to fall toward the center of the Earth? 4. Also, are hydrinos toxic? Deuterium is (mildly). If we can create a practical hydrino power generator, will it be necessary to trap and store the hydrinos to keep them from contaminating the ground water? 5. If so, will the hydrino storage tanks blow up some day from cross-hydrino reactions, or even turn into fusion bombs if the hydrinos get small enough to approach the nuclei of other atoms or each other within reach of the strong nuclear force? Which is my favorite theory of cold fusion and transmutation, because it's simple enough that I can understand it! 8^) Mark On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:35:59AM -0800, Mark S Bilk wrote: In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29:47PM +1100, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. This change is from n = 0 to n = 1/2, and n = 1/2 to n = 1/3. So each incremental change in hydrino level -- i.e., change of n from 1/k to 1/(k+1) -- liberates 54 ev. I thought 27.2 ev is liberated for each hydrino level increase from n = 0 to n = 1/2, or n = 1/k to n = 1/(k+1), where k 1. But you're saying that the catalyst gets 27.2 ev per level increase and the hydrino, or a UV photon, also gets 27.2 ev. by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, ... (For n=1/120 - n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). You're saying that the drop from n = 1/10 to n = 1/12 produces 598 ev, or 299 ev per level increment, and n=1/120 to n=1/122 produces 3291 ev per level increment! I thought the energy released for each increase in hydrino level was the same, 27.2 ev -- at least this is the amount that the catalyst has to absorb -- for any change of n = 1/k to n = 1/(k+1). But if the energy released per level increment increases at greater levels, then the original catalysts would only work for the first few levels. What kind of catalyst would absorb 299 ev or 3291 ev? What is the formula for energy released for an incremental hydrino level increase, at a given level?
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Harry Veeder wrote: I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry Actually, the prediction of the the big bang theory was a 25K background, but what's a 20-odd K discrepancy between friends? I have long believed that the big bang theory is utter B.S. In a recent post I pointed out that the observation of galaxies at between 8 and 11 billion light years away revealed that these galaxies looked to be the same age as those much closer. To me, this was just the final nail in the coffin of this nonsense theory, an attempt by drama-inclined scientists as an alternative creation myth. In other words, it's just a religion substitute. How about this for a probably not-too-original alternate hypothesis? As light travels through the recently discovered dark matter/energy, it loses energy, therefore red shifting its wavelength. The energy is given up to said dark matter/energy which is then re-radiated as microwaves. This also explains a little-discussed problem with the the big bang theory, that of a slight doppler broadening of the red-shifted spectral lines. Of course, scientists are hardly ever dissuaded of their pet theories by inconvenient facts. They just usually die first. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:05:41 -0700: Hi, [snip] Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger volume. In addition, the energy density is huge. [snip] Precisely. So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. The window of time during which oxygen has the correct charge would seem to be rather short. I guess it is a matter of intuition whether the time is too short for sufficient O++ to be present. I think it's more a matter of what else is present that it can collide with before it comes into contact with H, and what the result of that collision will be. In a stoichiometric mix of H and O, there will be twice as many H as O atoms, so a lone O++ is twice as likely to come in contact with H as it is with an O atom. Of course there is also the competing reaction: H + O++ - H+ + O+ and it's anybody's guess what the ratio of the two reaction rates is. Of course pre-existing hydrinos in the plasma will shift the balance in favour of a shrinkage reaction, because the O percentage is decreased, and also because when O++ reacts with a hydrino rather than with H, there is no competing reaction. Shrinkage is the only game in town. This means that once shrinkage has started, there is practically speaking no real way back. [snip] What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. OK, I understand. Presumably the reaction proceeds until all of the accumulated hydrinos are used up. Yes, or the cell blows itself apart, and puts and end to the process. In which case, there should still be a supply of severely shrunken hydrinos bound to the walls/electrodes, which is why I suggested that it might be possible to replicate using the remains of the shattered cell/electrodes. [snip] I don't understand how the hydrinos can accumulate in the glass. Hydrinos can bind an extra electron to become hydrinohydride (H*-). This is essentially a very small negative ion. The second electron can be very tightly bound to the hydrino (up to 70 eV binding energy according to Mills). Because this ion is very small, it can snuggle up very close to a positive ion, which in turn implies a high binding energy between the two. To give an idea of what this means, O-- ions bind very tightly to metal ions because they are relatively small, which is why oxides generally have high melting points. The H*- ion if much smaller than O--, and hence should sit closer to a metal ion than even O--, implying a much stronger bond. These substances could have melting points of tens to hundreds of thousands of degrees. Consequently H*- could easily be bound to Si or Na+ in the glass, displacing O--. This bond would be so strong that no amount of scrubbing and no solvent would remove it. Essentially it would be stronger than the glass itself. This same reasoning applies equally to the electrodes. [snip] Even if they were in the glass, why and how would they suddenly come out into the solution? The extraction process requires a threshold energy. Below the threshold, nothing happens, which is why cleaning has no effect. Because of the strength of the bond, it takes a very energetic process to free them, however hydrino shrinkage provides just such energies. IOW shrinkage reactions taking place in the plasma can supply the energy required to free the H*- from its bound position in the lattice. Once free, O+++ will remove the electron from H*-, provided that the binding energy of the second electron doesn't exceed 54 eV. The H* thus provided, is then free to undergo further shrinkage. [snip] material attached to the glass would not be expected. Your model needs a significant source of hydrinos that have accumulated over a period of time, which can quickly enter the water at a particular time and react. How does this occur and why the sudden release? Please see above. However the plasma required has to start somewhere. The initial trigger may be a cosmic ray or a random fusion event occurring in the lattice, between an embedded H*- and the metal atom to which it is bound. Because of the mass and size of H*-, it's even possible that these particles actually orbit the nucleus of the metal atoms inside the K shell, effectively displacing a K shell electron during the binding process. This is a closer analogy to the muonic molecule. From such an orbit, it is only a matter of time before a fusion reaction occurs. Naturally such reactions would have a characteristic half life, depending on the metal atom in question, and the shrinkage level of the H*-. The fusion reaction probably
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Michael Foster at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry Actually, the prediction of the the big bang theory was a 25K background, but what's a 20-odd K discrepancy between friends? I have long believed that the big bang theory is utter B.S. In a recent post I pointed out that the observation of galaxies at between 8 and 11 billion light years away revealed that these galaxies looked to be the same age as those much closer. To me, this was just the final nail in the coffin of this nonsense theory, an attempt by drama-inclined scientists as an alternative creation myth. In other words, it's just a religion substitute. How about this for a probably not-too-original alternate hypothesis? As light travels through the recently discovered dark matter/energy, it loses energy, therefore red shifting its wavelength. The energy is given up to said dark matter/energy which is then re-radiated as microwaves. This also explains a little-discussed problem with the the big bang theory, that of a slight doppler broadening of the red-shifted spectral lines. Of course, scientists are hardly ever dissuaded of their pet theories by inconvenient facts. They just usually die first. M. Sounds plausible. You could call it the the Big Warming. ;-) Harry
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Thanks for the link. I had not heard of Dewey Larson. Harry Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System shows it as a necessary consequence, as well as gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays: http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/index.htm http://www.rstheory.com/ No big bang. No black holes. No gravity waves. No magnetic monopoles. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona Harry Veeder wrote: I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry
RE: Vortex Web Site
This guy must be a blast at parties... if you can look past all the blathering, there are some rather interesting/valuable links. Always nice to see Schauberger's work represented http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/vsimplosion.htm -john -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 11:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Vortex Web Site If this dude isn't a subscriber here, he should be: http://www.vortexpluswater.com/free_thinking_and_free_energy.htm __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 28-Jan-05
Re: Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment
In reply to Mark S Bilk's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:15:53 -0800: Hi, [snip] This still leaves the questions of: 1. How are deeper hydrino level transitions catalyzed, since chemical catalysts can't absorb hundreds or thousands of ev, and many-body collisions are too improbable? The same catalysts are used for the deeper levels, but if I'm not mistaken they may not work as well at those levels as they do at the higher levels. (This has to do with resonance as harmonics and sub-harmonics iso at the fundamental frequency). If it's hydrinos catalyzing other hydrinos, does this release any net energy? Yes. See disproportionation in Mills' book. The reason is that higher levels release more energy per step than lower levels. 2. What determines the partition of the liberated energy between the catalyst and the hydrino or UV photon? This is determined by the amount that the catalyst can absorb. Whatever is left is either radiated as a UV photon, or ends up as kinetic energy of the hydrino (or possibly some of each?). [snip] Or does the catalyst absorb all of the energy and then give some back to the hydrino and/or UV photon? No, the catalyst only gives back as a UV photon what it absorbed. 3. And on another subject, the HSG FAQ says: Being extremely light, [hydrinos] rapidly float up into the atmosphere and diffuse into space. This statement from Mills is from the early days, before he came up with the hydrinohydride concept. IMO hydrinohydride ions ensure that this is irrelevant. The original statement referred to the fact that hydrinos would form a mon-atomic gas (like helium), but comprising lighter atoms, hence it would be the lightest gas known. But since a hydrino is much smaller than a normal H atom, and still weighs 1 amu, wouldn't it be very dense and (since it is so tiny) tend to fall toward the center of the Earth? No, you are forgetting about the space between the atoms. 4. Also, are hydrinos toxic? Deuterium is (mildly). Probably. As the shrinkage level increases, the affinity for electrons also increases. To give an idea of what this means, Fluorine gas doesn't have anywhere near the electron affinity of heavily shrunken hydrinos, yet is extremely toxic. Heavily shrunken hydrinos would be chemically similar to the halogens. However to put this in context, by the time they are that dangerous, they have probably already stolen an electron from some other atom in their neighbourhood, forming hydrinohydride, which is then likely bound to a positive ion, rendering them essentially harmless. If we can create a practical hydrino power generator, will it be necessary to trap and store the hydrinos to keep them from contaminating the ground water? Probably not, see above, as they tend to be self trapping. OTOH one would probably want to keep them anyway, because they are valuable, both for the new materials that may be made from them, and also for the energy that they can still produce. IMO any commercial device based on hydrinos will probably shrink them so far that they undergo fusion reactions, finally realising humanity's dream of cheap fusion power. 5. If so, will the hydrino storage tanks blow up some day from cross-hydrino reactions, or even turn into fusion bombs if the hydrinos get small enough to approach the nuclei of other atoms or each other within reach of the strong nuclear force? Which is my favorite theory of cold fusion and transmutation, because it's simple enough that I can understand it! 8^) Mine too, same reason! :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Cosmic oddity casts doubt on theory of universe
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:52:57 -0500: Hi, [snip] U.S. and European scientists analyzed the distribution of hot and cold regions -- areas that are putting out greater or less amounts of energy than the average -- of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the so-called echo). What they found was unexpected: an apparent correlation between those hot and cold spots and the orientation and motion of our solar system. [snip] Would you believe that the proper motion of the solar system affects the perceived red shift? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: A question for the electrochemists
In reply to Michael Foster's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:02:54 -0500: Hi Michael, [snip] But Robin, that's exactly the point. Unless you reduce the potassium ions to metal, at least temporarily, you will achieve no concentration of potassium ions at the cathode any higher than that of the whole of the electrolyte. That's fine by me. I'm not trying to increase the concentration of K+ ions anyway, just the rate at which they are processed. Perhaps the solution is to use a higher current and temperature? Otherwise, as far as I can see, no manipulation of voltage, current density, electrolyte concentration, temperature, etc., will achieve your goal. That may be the answer I was looking for. You might try something like those experiments where they use a high enough voltage to cause arcing between the cathode and the electrolyte, but I suspect this isn't what you have in mind. Actually I was thinking along the lines of measures that are taken to enhance electroplating, primarily because I know almost nothing about the topic. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:59:07 -0800: Hi, [snip] Iconoclastic - Adj. Characterized by attack on the established belief structure or the institutions which uphold it. How can a nearby spiral galaxy contain a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away? It cannot if the normal, and almost universally held, assumptions on which our mainstream cosmological paradigm have based for the past 50 years - are correct. But it can and they are not. One of many such stories: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/05015201.htm E. Margaret Burbidge is a sympathizer of Halton Arp, if I haven't misread Seeing Red. :) Personally, I also tend to largely agree, though I'm not sure I back his theory of slowly increasing mass of matter as the primary cause of red shift. (Though it may be). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
In reply to Grimer's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:15:50 +: Hi, [snip] Some few observers (outside the mainstream) might consider this finding to make a 'prima facie case' that red-shift is NOT an accurate measure of distance, and that there is a very strong gravitational component to redshift, and by inference that *everything*... well, if that is so great an exaggeration lets say: __almost everything which science now assumes about the age and dynamics of our universe is incorrect__ that the universe may NOT be expanding at all, and certainly not in an inflationary manner, and furthermore, that there is no necessity for a big bang at all, from a re-evaluation of the evidence. [snip] Another thing apparently never taken into account when using red shift is Compton effect scattering of photons off charged particles in the cold plasma surrounding stars. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:44:27 -0500: Hi, [snip] I am not committed to big bang cosmology, but are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Harry IMO the 2.7 K is simply degraded starlight. After all, what happens to the thermal energy radiated by the planets, and interstellar dust and gas clouds? It is simply the temperature of the universe. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment
- Original Message - From: Mark S Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Question Re Energy Released Per Hydrino Level Increment In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. . . snip If it's hydrinos catalyzing other hydrinos, does this release any net energy? . . . .snip Mark Dr. Mills does write about that here on page 9 of the document: http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GUT/TOE%2002.10.03/Chapters/Chapter%20040%200105.pdf Vince Cockeram
Re: Cosmo-Icono-clash
Do these other theories imply the size of the observable universe is different as well? Harry Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry, are there any non-big bang theories which predict the observed 2.7K cosmic background radiation? Many. You mention the fringes of one theory, which is just now emerging, in your second post. To the contrary of what they state in that piece, there is adequate if not convincing reason to believe that the findings (which are not new, but from the 2001/2002 WMAP survey) reflect a definite physical connection between our local astronomical neighborhood (Virgo supercluster) and the universe at large by way of interstellar protons. Halton Arp, who Frank refers to, has suggested several other explanations. Many of these intertwine at some level. All are incomplete, but so is the connection to a big bang. The fit there is fairly poor, actually, if you look at the actual numbers. My favorite part of the expanded explanation, which Frank will like, is that CMB radiation is a relic of current and ongoing, not past, beta-aether interaction with interstellar hydrogen. It is NOT an ancient relic of anything, but instead it is a pointer of where to look for ZPE, not only in local cosmology (if our supercluster can be considered local) but in the very-local environment of earth (since ZPE is also dependent on of an aether and probably is active at the same frequencies here as out there). Where is that you ask? As I have suggested several times in the past, a 21 cm wavelength and 1420 Mhz would be a good place to start, if CMB is indeed somehow related to a particulate of aether in the vicinity of our solar system. If you are into Fourier transforms and power laws, then this frequency may point to another more active frequency locally. Jones
