Re: anomalies on Iapidus
At 2:16 PM 2/19/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:39:35 -0900: Hi, [snip] That is true. A three body interaction close to Iapidus could produce a lower energy collision. The third body might carry away much of the momentum, as viewed from Iapidus' inertial frame, or the momentum and energy of objects moving in opposed directions could be spent in a head-on collision close to Iapidus, spraying it with debris. [snip] Another possibility is that part of two approaching bodies is composed of water ice, which as they collide converts to steam that expands, providing a cushioning buffer between them, slowing their approach, and carrying away some of the kinetic energy of the collision, such that when the rocky bodies collide, the impact is insufficient to melt, or shatter them. Yes, that works too. In the case of a close to Iapetus collision of two other bodies, the two initially colliding bodies would have the full gravitational potential of the 3 body interaction converted to heat. Suppose, ignoring for a minute the mass of the evaporated ice, the two approaching bodies might have mass about 1/4 of Iapetus, or about 4.7x10^20 kg. The initial iapetus would have a mass of 9.4x10^20 kg, instead of the final mass of 1.88x10^21 kg. Assume the collision happens at an altitude roughly equal to Iapetus' final radius of 730 km. The collision velocity of the two initial impactors will be conservatively: V = (2 G M/(R))^0.5 V = (2 G (4.7x10^20 kg)/(730 km))^0.5 V = 293 m/s So the energy E converted to heat is: E = 2 * .5 m*V^2 = (4.7x10^20 kg)(293 m/s)^2 = 4x10^25 J Thus the heat per gram H is: H = E/m = (4x10^25 J)/(4.7x10^20 kg) = 8.6 J/g which is not a lot of heat to dissipate, so this could simply result in increased temperature, or as you noted, be dissipated by ice. Even 4 times that number will not produce much incremental temperature. Iapetus is so small one has to wonder how eneough energy is developed to smush two bodies together to make it one spherical body. Looks like the three body theory is not even necessary, unless I have a computation error. Iapetus is not very dense, or very big. See: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/solar/eng/iapetus Regards, Horace Heffner
There is new There isn't
Looks like NASA agrees with Horace: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16186 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Huge 'star-quake' rocks Milky Way
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4278005.stm Huge 'star-quake' rocks Milky Way Astronomers say they have been stunned by the amount of energy released in a star explosion on the far side of our galaxy, 50,000 light-years away. The flash of radiation on 27 December was so powerful that it bounced off the Moon and lit up the Earth's atmosphere. The blast occurred on the surface of an exotic kind of star - a super-magnetic neutron star called SGR 1806-20. If the explosion had been within just 10 light-years, Earth could have suffered a mass extinction, it is said. We figure that it's probably the biggest explosion observed by humans within our galaxy since Johannes Kepler saw his supernova in 1604, Dr Rob Fender, of Southampton University, UK, told the BBC News website. One calculation has the giant flare on SGR 1806-20 unleashing about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watts. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event. We have observed an object only 20km across, on the other side of our galaxy, releasing more energy in a 10th of a second than the Sun emits in 100,000 years, said Dr Fender. Fast turn The event overwhelmed detectors on space-borne telescopes, such as the recently launched Swift observatory. This facility was put above the Earth to detect and analyse gamma-ray bursts - very intense but fleeting flashes of radiation. The giant flare it and other instruments caught in December has left scientists scrabbling for superlatives. Twenty institutes from around the world have joined the investigation and two teams are to report their findings in a forthcoming issue of the journal Nature. The light detected from the giant flare was far brighter in gamma-rays than visible light or X-rays. Research teams say the event can be traced to the magnetar SGR 1806-20. This remarkable super-dense object is a neutron star - it is composed entirely of neutrons and is the remnant collapsed core of a once giant star. Now, though, this remnant is just 20km across and spins so fast it completes one revolution every 7.5 seconds. It has this super-strong magnetic field and this produces some kind of structure which has undergone a rearrangement - it's an event that is sometimes characterised as a 'star-quake', a neutron star equivalent of an earthquake, explained Dr Fender. It's the only possible way we can think of releasing so much energy. Continued glow SGR 1806-20 is sited in the southern constellation Sagittarius. Its distance puts it beyond the centre of the Milky Way and a safe distance from Earth. Had this happened within 10 light-years of us, it would have severely damaged our atmosphere and would possibly have triggered a mass extinction, said Dr Bryan Gaensler, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is the lead author on one of the forthcoming Nature papers. Fortunately there are no magnetars anywhere near us. The initial burst of high-energy radiation subsided quickly but there continues to be an afterglow at longer radio wavelengths. This radio emission persists as the shockwave from the explosion moves out through space, ploughing through nearby gas and exciting matter to extraordinary energies. We may go on observing this radio source for much of this year, Dr Fender said. This work is being done at several centres around the globe, including at the UK's Multi-Element Radio-Linked Interferometer Network (Merlin) and the Joint Institute for VLBI (Very Long Baseline for Interferometry) in Europe - both large networks of linked radio telescopes. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4278005.stm Published: 2005/02/18 19:10:27 GMT © BBC MMV
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
I think I have recognized three or four Bible believing Christians on Vortex who are regular contributors and CF advocates including myself. I'm surprised you missed it. The range in attitude toward the environment among Christians is probably little different than that of the general population. There is abig difference between Bible believing Christiansand church goers who are skeptical of most of the book of Genesis. I have heard it said that going to church does't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger. But, that's another issue. The truth is,most church goers don't know what they believe. Nonbelievers and evolutionists believe that humans are a product of the earth and that we owe the earth something as if it is "mother" earth and "mother" nature. Bible believing Christians OTOH believe that the earth was made for us, not the other way around, and thatitsresources were put here by God for our use. That does not imply that we can do anything we want with it. The Bible challenges us to be good stewards, which means to use those resources wisely and not be wasteful. I think that makes Bible believing Christians common sense environmentalists rather than rabid environmentalists, and thus they would be very reasonable people for you to address. Jeff - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I posted on this issue earlier. A useful link is:http://www.creationcare.org/Hey, Erik. Do you know how to talk to these people, by any chance? Do you speak their lingo? If so, please introduce this subject to them. Have them read my book. The last chapters may speak to some of their concerns.Seriously, these people's beliefs and thought processes are so different from mine, I have no clue how I might persuade them to look at cold fusion. There is a very nice fellow promoting my book with some of them. He happens to be a rabid creationist. I copied one of his letters to Ed Storms the other day, and we agree that he is mentally on a different planet. I would not want to get into an argument with him. I sincerely appreciate his concern for the environment and his efforts to promote cold fusion. I am always willing to compromise and find common ground with other people. But I do not know how to write a presentation that might convince someone with this belief system.Seriously, I would appreciate advice from any other readers here with connections or a religious bent. No offense meant.- Jed
RE: Trigger from Space
Horace writes: This is really amazing stuff. There is a pdf on he site that gives construction details. I found the details for the CdS detector, but not the M detector. BTW, the URL should be this. http://www.omirp.it/ The CdS detector looks familiar, but I just can't place it. The basic circuit is reminiscent of some of Kozyrevs experiments with resistance bridges. The M detector looks like a disk magnet mounted on a gram scale, is that the case? All I could find was the picture. The guy seems serious enough that he should have a confederate in another location run the same detector, and correlate the results ( at least for his M detector ). That would be far more meaningful than a single detector. Otherwise one is just chasing down artifacts. K.
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
Fairly nconsequential correction follows: The collision velocity of the two initial impactors will be conservatively: V = (2 G M/(R))^0.5 V = (2 G (4.7x10^20 kg)/(730 km))^0.5 V = 293 m/s So the energy E converted to heat is: E = 2 * .5 m*V^2 = (4.7x10^20 kg)(293 m/s)^2 = 4x10^25 J Thus the heat per gram H is: H = E/(2*m) = (4x10^25 J)/(4.7x10^20 kg) = 43 J/g note correction H = 10 cal/g which is not a lot of heat to dissipate, so this could simply result in increased temperature, or as you noted, be dissipated by ice. Even 4 times that number will not produce much incremental temperature. If it has the heat capacity of water that is only about 40 deg. C., not enough to boil water starting from 0 deg. C ice. Iapetus is so small one has to wonder how enough energy is developed to smush two bodies together to make it one spherical body. Looks like the three body theory is not even necessary, unless I have a computation error. Iapetus is not very dense, or very big. See: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/solar/eng/iapetus At 11:23 AM 2/19/5, revtec wrote: 293 m/s is 649 mph! The heat of collision would be intense and localized for planetary sized bodies. The 8.6 J/g, if correct, is not evenly distributed. In the area of contact, billions of tons of material would be heated to incandesence. Jeff Well, you shoot a bullet at that speed and it will not warm up itself or the target much due to the collision. It has lots of momentum and destructive power well focused, but not much heat. What you say about the heat being concetrated at the surface is certainly true, and that can account for the ridge, but the bulk of the masses should remain solid. Very strange. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
But with Christian charity, please forgive typos. I am on the fly at a library. Erik
Re: There is new There isn't
At 7:32 AM 2/19/5, Terry Blanton wrote: Looks like NASA agrees with Horace: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16186 The makings for even more conspiracy theories! 8^) They really need but maybe now especially don't want a lichen expert to get involved. High altitude arctic lichens, if not already survivable on Mars, can be bred here on earth to survive in Martian conditions. It would be (and has been) a very good science project for some teenager. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
In reply to revtec's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:23:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] 293 m/s is 649 mph! The heat of collision would be intense and localized for planetary sized bodies. The 8.6 J/g, if correct, is not evenly distributed. In the area of contact, billions of tons of material would be heated to incandesence. Jeff [snip] Any percentage of ice, from 0-100% is possible, along with a wide variety of other matter, which can vary from a loose agglomeration to a solid mass, which makes for a very large parameter space. Given Horace's figures, combined with your observation here above, it would seem that there is likely to be some combination which could result in the current configuration. BTW in the close up, the wall appears to split into 3 lines (or mountain ranges) deep in the shadow portion. This may be an indication that the bodies were rotating relative to one another (highly likely anyway) at the time of impact. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Trigger from Space
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:16:30 -0900: Hi, [snip] At 3:07 AM 2/19/5, Colin Quinney wrote: Funny you should mention *gravity wave* Jones... :-) http://web.tiscali.it/gravitationaldata/index.htm Latest new February 13 / 2005. Go to test16.htm This is *not* ULF- electromagnetic, but an M Sensor here recording (see graphs on page) during the Sumatra tsunami on Dec 25 / 04. More info on link. Quote from Part 1: Description and operating of the detector (P. Galletti and A. Aluigi) with a constant source of light emitted by a vacuum diode AFAIK vacuum diodes barely emit a feeble glow. I would hardly think this would be constant source of light. Also, I would expect any modulation of the current passing through the diode to produce a modulation in the light output, so the device may really only be recording electrical noise in the diode power circuit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Trigger from Space
At 10:54 AM 2/20/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:16:30 -0900: Hi, [snip] At 3:07 AM 2/19/5, Colin Quinney wrote: Funny you should mention *gravity wave* Jones... :-) http://web.tiscali.it/gravitationaldata/index.htm Latest new February 13 / 2005. Go to test16.htm This is *not* ULF- electromagnetic, but an M Sensor here recording (see graphs on page) during the Sumatra tsunami on Dec 25 / 04. More info on link. Quote from Part 1: Description and operating of the detector (P. Galletti and A. Aluigi) with a constant source of light emitted by a vacuum diode AFAIK vacuum diodes barely emit a feeble glow. I would hardly think this would be constant source of light. Also, I would expect any modulation of the current passing through the diode to produce a modulation in the light output, so the device may really only be recording electrical noise in the diode power circuit. From the pdf describing construction details it appears the anode plate is phosphorized, and both the cathode potential and filament current are highly regulated. Additonally the device is temperature controlled by heating elements and further encapsulated in a seconadary thermionically regulated shell. The precison of temperature regulation quoted, 0.0001 de.g C, does not look credible, however. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists revtec wrote: I'm all for sound science including CF research. I have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to coax some over unity performance out of a series of PAGD experiments, but only succeeded in finding some interesting anomalies. A little elaboration here: I havn't fired up the PAGD apparatus since last April, because I was running out of reasonable circuit variations to try. Even though I have an Aerospace degree, I in no way consider myself a scientist. Mike Carrell observed my early efforts in 1996 and referred to me as a tinkerer in a later post. That may be an accurate assessment of my capability. I remain strongly convinced that true religion and true science are never in conflict. Well Jeff, I agree. However I would phrase this a little differently. I would say that a true understanding of science is never in conflict with a true understanding of the spirit reality. The word Religion should not be used in this context because it is only an imperfect effort by man to understand the spirit reality, much like physics is an imperfect effort by man to understand the physical world. Both fields of study are fractured into warring factions because they are based on an imperfect understanding. I really don't like the word religion, but I use it because that is the word most people expect to see. Religions in general are man's attempts at reaching out to God. Christianity, however, is God reaching out to man. This raises an additional issue with respect to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Some people argue that the statements in the Bible are exactly true even though they were made by men writing in another language, who believed the earth was flat and was the center of the only universe, and who were talking to an entirely different culture. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times but have not encountered in my recollection a verse implying that the earth was flat. I could have missed it. Do you have a reference? There are cases in the Bible where the author accurately reports a statement which is untrue. As an example, the scriptures state in many places that there is life after death, but in the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon says there is not. That is what he thought at the time he wrote it, and that thought is accurately reported. But, it is fairly clear to me that he was nuts at the time he wrote it. If you had 500 wives, how sane would you be? Nevertheless, God is supposed to have given these men superhuman and universal knowledge, evidence for which is not obvious in the text. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Jeff What are scientists to make of statements given by religion based on such evidence? This is rather like assuming the works of Aristotle are literally true and should be the basis for science. How do Christian scientists deal with this problem?
Re: Horizons
In reply to RC Macaulay's message of Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:56:04 -0600: Hi, [snip] We continue to observe events in our applied research project in vortex reactors for seawater pretreatment to reduce mineral content prior to the filters ahead of the reverse osmosis membranes ( a major DeSal headache). [snip] Could you list a few of these events? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
The book of Ecclesiastes is my favorite Businessman's handbook. It was written by the one given the most wisdom ever. He was also the richest man ever. He was alsoan abjectfailure. The book should be required reading forevery MBA and leadership positionbecause it describes Solomon's explanation of how he got himself into such a mess when he had all the money and brains to be the CEO, succeed in leadership,and still blew it. A candid and articulate book indeed.! The book of Job is my favorite physics handbook.Technically correct in it composition. A most overlooked scientific textbook missing from the classroom. The remarkable insight given in its pagesis presented in debate form. It explains more science byNOT revealing than by revealing.It contains the ultimate joke on thereader in the question posed " Tell me how I did it"? " Were you there" ? God is a spirit and must be worshipped in the spirit. He has set it so that no man can physically prove or disprove Him, only spiritually. He can be proven spiritually. He asks you to prove Him. There are a thousand ways. One example: Most businesses have a bulletin board for employees notices, etc. Try placing a small "prayer request form " on your bulletin board requesting anyone that needs prayer or has someone that needs prayer to post a request or e-mail the request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . And wait. My old Chem prof used to say there is no disharmony between science and believing God. Think about it. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Horizons
Hiya Robin, I should havestated.. "tantalizing" events. For example: One test resulted in oxidizingminerals fromdomestic city water that had a residual chlorine content. A white residue that settled perhaps 2-3 mm thick on the bottom of a 8ft dia. tank 8ft tall. Another test using extremely hard well water( no chlorine)ozidized minerals leaving a residue of2-3mm+ thick in a tank bottom of 3ft dia. 3ft tall. Tantalizing because they are random and not repetitive over a range of rotational speeds, water temperatures and diverging cone angles. We were able to put the prettiest headof foam on a pond of fresh seawater , only to have the facility manager ask us to leave since he only wanted foam on his beer ( grin). Next tests include a 3 stage cyclone separation staged reactor that can spill each stage into their respective clarifiers. Sounds likechildsplay, costs out of the kazoo, but so tantalizing. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
revtec wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists revtec wrote: I'm all for sound science including CF research. I have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to coax some over unity performance out of a series of PAGD experiments, but only succeeded in finding some interesting anomalies. A little elaboration here: I havn't fired up the PAGD apparatus since last April, because I was running out of reasonable circuit variations to try. Even though I have an Aerospace degree, I in no way consider myself a scientist. Mike Carrell observed my early efforts in 1996 and referred to me as a tinkerer in a later post. That may be an accurate assessment of my capability. I remain strongly convinced that true religion and true science are never in conflict. Well Jeff, I agree. However I would phrase this a little differently. I would say that a true understanding of science is never in conflict with a true understanding of the spirit reality. The word Religion should not be used in this context because it is only an imperfect effort by man to understand the spirit reality, much like physics is an imperfect effort by man to understand the physical world. Both fields of study are fractured into warring factions because they are based on an imperfect understanding. I really don't like the word religion, but I use it because that is the word most people expect to see. Religions in general are man's attempts at reaching out to God. Christianity, however, is God reaching out to man. I though prayer was the act of reaching out to God, while religion was the codified understanding of God's wishes and laws as believed by a particular group. I think that all religions believe that their particular interpretation of God is also God reaching out to them with a message. The problem comes when different messages are received because each religion believes they have received the only true message. This raises an additional issue with respect to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Some people argue that the statements in the Bible are exactly true even though they were made by men writing in another language, who believed the earth was flat and was the center of the only universe, and who were talking to an entirely different culture. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times but have not encountered in my recollection a verse implying that the earth was flat. I could have missed it. Do you have a reference? I agree, the Bible does not comment on the shape of the earth. However, as best as we now can determine, a flat earth was the conventional belief at the time. If God wanted to give authenticity to what was written, he/she could have had the writers note that the earth was round and that the heavens were populated by many suns. However, these ideas, even if God were so inclined, would probably have been deleted by the authorities of that time. There are cases in the Bible where the author accurately reports a statement which is untrue. As an example, the scriptures state in many places that there is life after death, but in the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon says there is not. That is what he thought at the time he wrote it, and that thought is accurately reported. But, it is fairly clear to me that he was nuts at the time he wrote it. If you had 500 wives, how sane would you be? Nevertheless, God is supposed to have given these men superhuman and universal knowledge, evidence for which is not obvious in the text. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Jeff If the Bible is literal truth of the physical reality, then the writers at that time would have had to be given knowledge about how the world was created and what would happen in the future that no normal man could have at that time. Instead, the Bible contains conflicting statements, allegorical descriptions of creation, and predictions of the future that can be related to events only after the fact. Consequently, no evidence exists within the text that the knowledge base of the writers was beyond what was known or imagined at the time. As a result, the Bible as the literal word of God has to be taken on faith. The conflict with science occurs because science attempts to take nothing on faith. This is why science and religion can never agree. Regards, Ed What are scientists to make of statements given by religion based on such evidence? This is rather like assuming the works of Aristotle are literally true and should be the basis for science. How do Christian scientists deal with this problem?
