Proton-Boron Hydrino Fusion(Fission)? (was: Small scale ICF)
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:41:47AM -0800, Jones Beene wrote: The reaction p+11B -- 3 alphas has always seemed the ideal, in-a-perfect-world kind of nuclear reaction for ecological energy production. Would this reaction p + 11B - 3 alphas + 8.7 Mev be a candidate for hydrino fusion (resulting in fission), in an electrolytic or plasma-electrolytic cell? 80% of boron atoms are 11B, the rest are 10B. Boric acid (H3BO3) and borax (Na2B4O7) are highly soluble in hot water. Boric acid, H3BO3 -- solubility 27.6% at 100degC Borax (Disodium Tetraborate) pentahydrate, Na2B4O7 x 5 H20, water solubility: 160 g/l (60degC) Is the required proton energy for hot fusion of p+11B higher than for d+t or d+d? If so, does that mean that the proton has to get closer to the B nucleus to fuse, thus requiring an even tinier hydrino than for deuterino+deuterino fusion? __ Here's an analysis of neutron production in p + 11B hot fusion from secondary reactions (fixed -- it was written in all lower case, with no paragraph breaks). Maybe in water the alphas would be slowed down before they could react with boron and create a neutron? http://www.gerhard.de/gerold/owa/gerhard.browsen_soif?form_seq=979306form_timestamp=form_language=0 http://www.gerhard.de/gerold/owa/gerhard.browsen_soif?form_seq=979306 Radiation from Aneutronic Fusion Arthur Carlson Written: 1998 Jul 9, replacing the version first written 1998 Feb. Status: I'm starting to understand the issues, but the answers are by no means final. Disclaimer: the content of these pages is my responsibility and does not necessarily represent the position of my employer. Fusion based on exotic reactions like proton-boron11 is sometimes claimed to use and produce no radioactive substances, thus freeing fusion from the burden of radiation damage, biological shielding, remote handling, and safety issues. We will here investigate under what conditions and to what extent that is true, without regard to the perhaps insurmountable difficulties of producing net energy from the process. An aneutronic reaction is often defined as one where no more than 1% of the total fusion energy released is carried by neutrons. Detailed calculations [Heindler and Kernbichler, Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on emerging nuclear energy systems, 1989, pp. 177-82] show that at least 0.1% of the reactions in a thermal p-B11 plasma would produce neutrons. This is still an awful lot of neutrons, as can be seen by the following simple calculation. If we assume 0.1% of the energy is carried off by neutrons, even a kitchen-sized reactor with 30 KW of fusion power will produce 30 w of neutrons. If there is no significant shielding, a worker in the next room, 10 m away, might intercept (0.5 m^2)/(4 pi (10 m)^2) = 4e-4 of this power, i.e., 0.012 W. With 70 kg body mass and the definition 1 erg/.01 j/kg, we find a dose rate of 0.017 rad/sec. Using a quality factor of 20 for fast neutrons, this is equivalent to 0.34 rem/sec. The maximum yearly occupational dose of 5 rem will be reached in 15 sec, the fatal (LD-50) dose of 500 rem will be reached in half an hour. For an industrial size (100 MW) reactor under the same assumptions, the dose rate would be thousands of time higher, and anyone standing nearby would be dead in a fraction of a second. The neutrons would also activate the structure so that remote maintenance and radioactive waste disposal would be necessary. Of course, material damage and safety problems would be brought into an easily manageable range. If we look at where these neutrons come from, they are dominated by the reaction 11B + alpha - 14N + n + 157 kev. If we really want to eliminate neutrons, we see that we cannot tolerate fast alphas in the plasma. Usually, the product alphas are relied on to keep the fuel hot. If the alphas have to be extracted with their full energy, we will need very, very efficient processes to collect this power, transfer it, and drive whatever process maintains the plasma energy. The reaction itself produces only 157 kev, but the neutron will carry a large fraction of the alpha energy, which will be close to e_fusion/.9 mev. This should be large enough that the gammas produce some nuclear reactions, including (gamma,n) reactions, in the structure. Suppose we can do this, so that fast alpha reactions are suppressed by several orders of magnitude. We will always have the fuel ions, protons and borons. Of course, p+p doesn't do much, and boron-boron reactions can probably also be neglected due to the large coulomb barrier. The species can however react with one another in a number of ways to produce neutrons. These reactions are all endothermic. The smallest barrier is for the reaction 11B + p - 11C + n - 2.8 mev in a thermal plasma of a few
Re: The CoFu Bomb Game
Grimer posted; Why not develop a computer game in which you first have to kidnap various scientists such as Dr Bones and Professor Fleshman and then persuade them using various macabre instruments Don't forget the evil Dr. Park, attempting to protect the establishment at all costs. I'm sure it would have immense appeal amongst Bart Simpsonesque teenagers who want to needle their irritatingly PC bleeding heart liberal parents. Ah, if one could just figure out how to part the little darlings from their parent's money. For the younger children you could be politically correct and have Sonic the Hedgehog fighting Doctor Robotnik. Once Robotnik was a scientist This whole thing sounds like a pipe dream if ever I heard one. Banning would certainly bring the whole subject to public attention and probably make the writers a shedfull of money. Perhaps it might even get us an interview on NPR.
Re: ZPE-Cryopumping Inversion Temperature
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2524493 The Inversion Temperature: " the 'normal' effect of cooling when a gas expands takes place below that temperature, above that temperature it heats under expansion." The Papp engine: Issue #51 of Infinite-Energy September/October 2003 http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html Gas Inversion Temp Deg K Helium 51 Hydrogen 205 Neon 242 Nitrogen 621 Argon723 Krypton 727 Xenon 1427 Oxygen 893 More Info: On the Casimir effect and the temperature inversion symmetry File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat PDF... zero eigenvalue will be dealt with by dimensional regularisation [7]. The regularised free energy will be shown to exhibit the inversion temperature symmetry ... www.iop.org/EJ/article/ 0305-4470/23/9/023/jav23i9p1627.pdf http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/0652/notes/pdf/jtnotes.pdf
Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff, I can understand one reason you never saw the OU effect. You ***must*** use the Correa circuit, including the batteries. The PAGD discharge conatains a lot of energy anda single discharge willcharge up any reasonable heap of capacitors to the pointthat the PAGD discharge is quenched. The Correas are no fools; every aspect of the device and circuit are empirically necessary. The Correa experiment does not use a plug-in power supply. It uses batteries for the source and batteries for the sink. It seems like a pain, butthe batteries are carefully chosen and carefully calibrated. The proof if the effect is either in oscillograms of individual discharges -- into the battery sink -- or careful measurement of accumulated charge in the output batteries over an extended run. It is so tempting to assume that a system like PAGD was put together without knowledge of 'real' engineering and should be easily "improved", so you do something that 'looks like' the Correa setup without actually understanding it. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: revtec To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I capturedforward pulses in up to six 5600 mfd 350v caps in parallel. I kept these from over charging with a load bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to limit maximum voltage. Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the circuit. I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of two or more. Reverse pulses are much rarer. You will need two 350v caps in series to capture them. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
RE: CF on NPR
John Steck wrote: You really expect a fair shake on NPR? Yes, I do -- for a good reason. The short segment they broadcast with Ira Flatow was quite fair and accurate. Flatow has often communicated with us that he knows what the story is. He was a little timid, but accurate. I am hoping the other reporters on NPR contact him and discuss the matter. Since he is their science reporter it is likely they will. IMO the Scientific American position is far more damaging to winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream scientific community. I agree. Also, with regard to your volley to Wikipedia... maybe read the Wired article you linked in your post. It explains how the system works and how the subject champions really control the info presented there. I did read it, and that is why I sent the message. I am hoping they will make me the subject champion of cold fusion. If the people in charge are reasonably fair they will let me fix the article and then lock it. If they do not give me that assurance I will not bother to change it. I have no time to play games with skeptics. - Jed
RE: Correa, etc.
I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
RE: CF on NPR
I wrote: I did read it, and that is why I sent the message. I am hoping they will make me the subject champion of cold fusion. If the people in charge are reasonably fair they will let me fix the article and then lock it. Mind you, I am not expecting a response. The people in charge probably do not see things my way. But I propose to do a few weeks of tedious work, and assemble 50 to 100 footnotes, and I'll be darned if I do that only to have some skeptic come in and erase the whole thing. The people in charge there do not seem to be hung up on formal qualifications, but if they challenge me I will tell them I have read hundreds of papers about cold fusion and the skeptics who wrote the present article apparently have read none. If the Encyclopedia were written for professionals, the best thing to do would be to replace the entire article with Storms' Student's Guide. However, I think the Guide is a little too technical for the general public, and we have to preserve the existing article with the comments by the skeptics, so I think this calls for a shorter article based on the Guide targeted to the general public. - Jed
Re: Proton-Boron Hydrino Fusion(Fission)? (was: Small scale ICF)
- Original Message - From: Mark S Bilk Would this reaction p + 11B - 3 alphas + 8.7 Mev be a candidate for hydrino fusion (resulting in fission), in an electrolytic or plasma-electrolytic cell? 80% of boron atoms are 11B, the rest are 10B. Boric acid (H3BO3) and borax (Na2B4O7) are highly soluble in hot water. Of course it would be the ideal candidate, if boron is a catalyst for hydrinos, or if hydrinos generated elsewhere can use solid boron as a target. That is the implication of the deGeus patent, in which - unlike Mills, he considers boron to be active for creating hydrinos, and says that he has the proof, but again - forget the plasma. Boron will never work with protons in a plasma. It will have to be either used with hydrinos or as a solid ICF target. Is the required proton energy for hot fusion of p+11B higher than for d+t or d+d? MUCH higher. Orders of magnitude higher. That is why only hydrinos would work in a non ICF configuration. If so, does that mean that the proton has to get closer to the B nucleus to fuse, thus requiring an even tinier hydrino than for deuterino+deuterino fusion? Maybe Robin can answer that one as to the normal hydrino, but if the 1/137 hydrino is real and an expected end-product, then it will be almost neutral, like a neutron but with a larger negative near-field, then it seems to me that there should be no problem that I can see. Here's an analysis of neutron production in p + 11B hot fusion from secondary reactions (fixed -- it was written in all lower case, with no paragraph breaks). Again forget hot plasma fusion. It is a non-starter. Maybe in water the alphas would be slowed down before they could react with boron and create a neutron? Only if the water was heavy water, and then the cross-section is very low. However the CANDU reactor has demonstrated that heavy water under irradiation produces extra neutrons which are not accounted for in normal physics. Thus the surprising efficiency of the CANDU, many of which have operated at well over 100% for tens of years at a stretch. An aneutronic reaction is often defined as one where no more than 1% of the total fusion energy released is carried by neutrons. Detailed calculations [Heindler and Kernbichler, Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on emerging nuclear energy systems, 1989, pp. 177-82] show that at least 0.1% of the reactions in a thermal p-B11 plasma would produce neutrons. This is still an awful lot of neutrons, as can be seen by the following simple calculation. This whole piece is totally meaningless, antiquated information. Again forget hot plasma fusion. It is a non-starter. Since this was written, everyone who has looked into it has agreed that boron CANNOT be used in a plasma situation with protons, so it does no one any good to waste time on a process that cannot work. Concentrate on hydrinos or solid-state ICF, where a tiny amount of frozen borane is the target for laser irradiation, ion irradiation, or a small energetic chemical reaction. This could even take the form of a small manufactured sphere, about the size of a large marble. You would have a high tensile skin of filament wound carbon, and underneath that a few mm of your chemical reactants, which would likely be in two parts (layers) separated by a heat sensitive membrane or skin, and inside of that would be a hollow sphere of cryo-grey-tin, and then a milligram core of frozen borane. There is a pronounced reverse economy-of-scale here, so there is no terrorist potential. Chill and serve... (by dropping the marble) into a tank of molten salt to start the chemcal reaction; and the resultant two-part bootstrapped compression; and then capture the heat of the reaction, then use the molten salt to produce electricity. Clear as mud, huh? You can even augment it with solar heated molten salt during the day time. This requires an adjoining factory to make the targets, of course, and is so complicated that one hope that the 1/137 hydrino is real. Jones
RE: CF on NPR
Grimer wrote: There must be some neurotic tree-hugging Vortexian who could be relied on to play his part convincingly. Wheel him on to explain the horrors which will ensue if the terrorists get there before the US is ready with adequate counter measures. If I do say so myself, I think I did a pretty good job of that in chapters 11 and 12 of the book. Seriously, even a small difference in military capabilities can translate into an enormous advantage. If the biplane fighter airplanes of the early 1930s have been available in 1916, I think WWI would have been over by the end of the year. In 1940 if the British had had two or three surface-to-air missile batteries with circa 1955 Nike technology, the Battle of Britain would have been over before it started, with zero casualties on the British side. People as neurotic as him have an almost mesmeric ability to inspire fear. I remember he once came round to my house and seeing my new fridge with an internal light (an innovation at the time), he said, Are you sure that it turns off when you shut the door. Even though I knew perfectly well that it did. and the switch plunger was in plain view, I'm ashamed to say that when he'd gone I opened the fridge door just a crack to make certain. That's hysterical! But why would anyone *fear* that the light remains on? - Jed
Re: The CoFu Bomb Game
wow. grimer. can we not see political bias just oozing from every pore? please, keep that off of here. On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 02:56:06 -0600, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Grimer posted; Why not develop a computer game in which you first have to kidnap various scientists such as Dr Bones and Professor Fleshman and then persuade them using various macabre instruments Don't forget the evil Dr. Park, attempting to protect the establishment at all costs. I'm sure it would have immense appeal amongst Bart Simpsonesque teenagers who want to needle their irritatingly PC bleeding heart liberal parents. Ah, if one could just figure out how to part the little darlings from their parent's money. For the younger children you could be politically correct and have Sonic the Hedgehog fighting Doctor Robotnik. Once Robotnik was a scientist This whole thing sounds like a pipe dream if ever I heard one. Banning would certainly bring the whole subject to public attention and probably make the writers a shedfull of money. Perhaps it might even get us an interview on NPR. -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Re: Correa, etc.
In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re:
Re: The CoFu Bomb Game
Why not develop a computer game in which you first have to kidnap various scientists such as Dr Bones and Professor Fleshman and then persuade them using various macabre instruments Don't forget the evil Dr. Park, attempting to protect the establishment at all costs. Keep with the theme, that would be the evil Dr. Pork, I believe. s
RE: CF on NPR
Jed wrote: Yes, I do -- for a good reason. The short segment they broadcast with Ira Flatow was quite fair and accurate. Flatow has often communicated with us that he knows what the story is. He was a little timid, but accurate. I am hoping the other reporters on NPR contact him and discuss the matter. Since he is their science reporter it is likely they will. Jed - If mainstream news media did their job, there would be no need for Infinite Energy or New Energy Times. If mainstream science publishing did their job, there would be no need for LENR-CANR.org. But these entities cater to the dominant, safe public view. They lack either/both the courage or the foresight to explore the unknown. Another viewpoint: Henry Bauer touches on the very heart of why mainstream science journalism has been largely unwilling/unable to bridge the communication gap between the cold fusion community and the broader science community. A constant dilemma for reporters, Bauer says, is that they need access to sources, and if they publish material that casts doubt on the official view, they risk losing access to official sources. Source: Journal of Scientific Exploration, Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels, by Henry H. Bauer (Vol. 18 #4 pp. 643--660, Winter 2004) http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004BauerH-21stCenturyScience.pdf Courtesy of http://www.scientificexploration.org/index.html s
The work of Chris Arnold
Vorts, Have any in this group kept tabs on the work being performed by the inventor, Chris Arnold, specifically his Pulsed Plasma technology? Check out: http://hometown.aol.com/hypercom59/ A little history (as I understand it): I recall there had been some scathing criticism of Mr. Arnold's work at the hydrino discussion group a few years ago - by the usual skeptics. As usual, nothing ever came of the discussion. Personally, I'm not sure Mr. Arnold is a quack. He appears to be slowly accumulating evidence from labs (perhaps some of them might even be considered reputable labs!) that appear to back up his claims. Chris claims to be producing hybrid doped Hydrogenated Diamond Like Carbon (HDLC) particles rather than the well known HDLC films. He claims to have produced Synthetic Diamond nono-particles. Lawrence Livermore tested Chris's Bucky Diamonds and discovered them to be a semiconductor whereby enforcing his original deduction that his material should be a Diamond Semiconductor. Chris claims the only known method of Bucky Diamond manufacture is with TNT and detonation technology. His patented device produces what is looking like Bucky Diamond by purely electronic means in a process known as Dense Plasma Focus. Of particular interest to Vorts: In the past Chris hinted that his pulsed plasma technology indicated the possibility of OU at work. However, such OU claims seem to have been removed. Perhaps Chris is focusing on the commercialization of his Bucky Diamond process which may turn out to be significantly cheaper than current means. It would make sense to me that a present he might not care to draw additional controversy. Such claims might turn out to be more of a distraction than a benefit to his current business plans. I must confess. Much of what Chris claims to be doing is beyond my educational grasp to pass judgment one way or other. How'bout comments from the peanut gallery? Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: Correa, etc.
Chris writes: A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. We have discussed Correas' work before on Vo. You can look in the archive for the details. Paulo follows the list very closely, but only posts under pseudonyms if at all. I was very interested in the work when I first came across the patents, but subsequent discussions with his alternate persona's made me question his ability to objectively judge the experiments he conducts. I have been told that this is a strategy to discourage competitors; you can make of that what you will. While I can agree with Mike on the value of an accurate reproduction of the tech disclosed in the patents, practically speaking that cannot happen unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. So we have independent workers like Jeff, who I think can contribute to the general understanding even if they fail to reproduce the effects claimed. For that reason I posted some of Jeffs' pictures to my corporate site a year ago or so. I just completely updated the site and the links are now no doubt dead. Jeff has his own website, and is quite capable of posting them there. Why he does not do that you must ask of him directly. K.
Re: The CoFu Bomb Game
At 09:19 am 04-03-05 -0800, Steven Krivit wrote: Why not develop a computer game in which you first have to kidnap various scientists such as Dr Bones and Professor Fleshman and then persuade them using various macabre instruments... Don't forget the evil Dr. Park, attempting to protect the establishment at all costs. Keep with the theme, that would be the evil Dr. Pork, I believe. He's got it. By jove, I think he's got it. [ROTFL] Professsor Higgins
RE: CF on NPR
At 11:00 am 04-03-05 -0500, you wrote: Grimer wrote: There must be some neurotic tree-hugging Vortexian who could be relied on to play his part convincingly. Wheel him on to explain the horrors which will ensue if the terrorists get there before the US is ready with adequate counter measures. If I do say so myself, I think I did a pretty good job of that in chapters 11 and 12 of the book. Seriously, even a small difference in military capabilities can translate into an enormous advantage. If the biplane fighter airplanes of the early 1930s have been available in 1916, I think WWI would have been over by the end of the year. In 1940 if the British had had two or three surface-to-air missile batteries with circa 1955 Nike technology, the Battle of Britain would have been over before it started, with zero casualties on the British side. People as neurotic as him have an almost mesmeric ability to inspire fear. I remember he once came round to my house and seeing my new fridge with an internal light (an innovation at the time), he said, Are you sure that it turns off when you shut the door. Even though I knew perfectly well that it did. and the switch plunger was in plain view, I'm ashamed to say that when he'd gone I opened the fridge door just a crack to make certain. That's hysterical! But why would anyone *fear* that the light remains on? - Jed I think he thought it would heat the fridge up, Jed. Medical people aren't very good with numbers (pace Mills). Calculus gives them nightmares, at least it did my brother which is why he switched to biology in the 6th form. Frank
Way off topic Fw: CAB RIDE
CAB RIDE Twenty years ago, I drove a cab for a living. When I arrived at 2:30 a.m., the building was dark except for a single light in a ground floor window. Under these circumstances, many drivers would just honk once or twice, wait a minute, then drive away. But, I had seen too many impoverished people who depended on taxis as their only means of transportation. Unless a situation smelled of danger, I always went to the door. This passenger might be someone who needs my assistance, I reasoned to myself. So I walked to the door and knocked. Just a minute, answered a frail, elderly voice. I could hear something being dragged across the floor. After a long pause, the door opened. A small woman in her 80's stood before me. She was wearing a print dress and a pillbox hat with a veil pinned on it, like somebody out of a 1940s movie. By her side was a small nylon suitcase. The apartment looked as if no one had lived in it for years. All the furniture was covered with sheets. There were no clocks on the walls, no knickknacks or utensils on the counters. In the corner was a cardboard box filled with photos and glassware. Would you carry my bag out to the car? she said. I took the suitcase to the cab, then returned to assist the woman. She took my arm and we walked slowly toward the curb. She kept thanking me for my kindness. It's nothing, I told her. I just try to treat my passengers the way I would want my mother treated. Oh, you're such a good boy, she said. When we got in the cab, she gave me an address, then asked, Could you drive through downtown? It's not the shortest way, I answered quickly. Oh, I don't mind, she said. I'm in no hurry. I'm on my way to a hospice. I looked in the rear-view mirror. Her eyes were glistening. I don't have any family left, she continued. The doctor says I don't have very long. I quietly reached over and shut off the meter. What route would you like me to take? I asked. For the next two hours, we drove through the city. She showed me the building where she had once worked as an elevator operator. We drove through the neighborhood where she and her husband had lived when they were newlyweds. She had me pull up in front of a furniture warehouse that had once been a ballroom where she had gone dancing as a girl. Sometimes she'd ask me to slow in front of a particular building or corner and would sit staring into the darkness, saying nothing. As the first hint of sun was creasing the horizon, she suddenly said, I'm tired. Let's go now. We drove in silence to the address she had given me. It was a low building, like a small convalescent home, with a driveway that passed under a portico. Two orderlies came out to the cab as soon as we pulled up. They were solicitous and intent, watching her every move. They must have been expecting her. I opened the trunk and took the small suitcase to the door. The woman was already seated in a wheelchair. How much do I owe you? she asked, reaching into her purse. Nothing, I said. You have to make a living, she answered. There are other passengers, I responded. Almost without thinking, I bent and gave her a hug. She held onto me tightly. You gave an old woman a little moment of joy, she said. Thank you. I squeezed her hand, then walked into the dim morning light. Behind me, a door shut. It was the sound of the closing of a life. I didn't pick up any more passengers that shift. I drove aimlessly lost in thought. For the rest of that day, I could hardly talk. What if that woman had gotten an angry driver, or one who was impatient to end his shift? What if I had refused to take the run, or had honked once, then driven away? On a quick review, I don't think that I have done anything more important in my life. We're conditioned to think that our lives revolve around great moments. But great moments often catch us unaware - beautifully wrapped in what others may consider a small one. PEOPLE MAY NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID, OR WHAT YOU SAID, ~BUT ~ THEY WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HOW YOU MADE THEM FEEL. Ten things God won't ask: 1...God won't ask what kind of car you drove; He'll ask how many people you drove who didn't have transportation. 2...God won't ask the square footage of your house, He'll ask how many people you welcomed into your home. 3...God won't ask about the clothes you had in your closet, He'll ask how many you helped to clothe. 4...God won't ask what your highest salary was, He'll ask if you compromised your character to obtain it. 5...God won't ask what your job title was, He'll ask if you performed your job to the best of your ability. 6...God won't ask how many friends you had, He'll ask how many
RE: CF on NPR
Grimer wrote: I think he thought it would heat the fridge up, Jed. Medical people aren't very good with numbers (pace Mills). . . . Hmm . . . Well, it would heat it up, naturally. But the fact that the fridge was cold when you opened the door showed that the compressor was keeping up, and removing more heat than the bulb generated. The only problem, then, was the cost of running the 20 W bulb and removing the heat. That would be ~100 W continuous, 2.4 KWH per day, about $0.20 per day worst case. If it was a novelty, I guess I would have checked to be sure the switch was working, too. No point in throwing away money. - Jed
Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff Fink wrote: In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. In the Correa circuit, the energy generated in the cell is full wave rectified and dumped into a capacitor shunted by a battery pack. A PAGD pulse may contain 100 joules at several hundred volts. What *must not happen* is that the terminal voltage of the cell rise during the PAGD pulse, for that will quench it. Nor can you trigger it. It is not that a capacitor bank won't work, it just has to be ***very large***. Much larger than Jeff tried. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. That's 0.0056 farad. Q = CV, 1 joule will charge it to 178 volts and 100 joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. For very good reason. Jeff has known better and not duplicated what the Correas used. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. You have not duplicated what the Correas did on several important points. The circuit looks 'odd' but that is what they say works. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff, common sense can be misleading when dealing with something new. When I approached the Correas to write about PAGD, I did so as a student, without preconceptions as to what is or is not common sense. I assumed they had discovered a truly new phenomenon that did not necessarily obey any ordinary rules, and that they had empirically worked out how to evoke it and control it. After all, here is a simple tube in which 100 joule flashes of energy appear spontaneously when the proper conditions are provided. Where in all of conventional science and common sense is there precedence for this? Mike Carrell
RE: CF on NPR
Steven Krivit wrote: Henry Bauer touches on the very heart of why mainstream science journalism has been largely unwilling/unable to bridge the communication gap between the cold fusion community and the broader science community. A constant dilemma for reporters, Bauer says, is that they need access to sources, and if they publish material that casts doubt on the official view, they risk losing access to official sources. That is true. And yet Flatow's report was accurate and positive, albeit timid. Some people in the media get away with reporting facts about cold fusion, and they are not punished by losing access. I suspect the others would also escape unscathed, but perhaps they are cowards and do not want to risk it. Most, I think, simply buy the establishment's line without question. I have contacted many people in the media and elsewhere. Only a few have responded, and most of those have parroted the Scientific American or some other official source. Often they cite phantom sources. They claim the DoE ERAB report said this or that, when it said nothing of the kind. In other words, laziness causes more harm than fear. - Jed
RE: CF on NPR
That is true. And yet Flatow's report was accurate and positive, albeit timid. Some people in the media get away with reporting facts about cold fusion, and they are not punished by losing access. I suspect the others would also escape unscathed, but perhaps they are cowards and do not want to risk it. Most, I think, simply buy the establishment's line without question. I have contacted many people in the media and elsewhere. Only a few have responded, and most of those have parroted the Scientific American or some other official source. Often they cite phantom sources. They claim the DoE ERAB report said this or that, when it said nothing of the kind. In other words, laziness causes more harm than fear. - Jed Jed, I forgot to mention. Yes, I agree with you about Flatow. I have listened to his question and dialogue in cf reports he has done and it is crystal clear to me that he knows much more than he tells. But he knows how to keep his producers happy, and keep his job, too. And that is his choice. s
Re: Correa, etc.
Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. - Jed
RE: Correa, etc.
Mike writes: You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. I agree with Mike in this. Electrode capacity and geometry are important parameters for this effect; add additional capacity and you change discharge regimes from AGD to simple arc discharge. BTW, a substantial amount of industrial research has gone into AGD, do a literature and patent search and you will see. The main industrial use is for things like nitriding metal surfaces. A question for Mike: does Paulo have a current collection of refs on his website relevant to this work? K.
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Repeated success is based on having a chance success that the researcher was able to duplicate by holding the conditions constant. Naturally, because many variables are involved, not all of them can be held constant. Consequently, success is frequently marred by many failures, even for the more successful researchers. Only gradually, have some of the variables been identified. This has happened only because a few people kept trying and failing. Initially, the effect was thought to occur in bulk palladium. Consequently, great effort was devoted to obtaining palladium that could load to high D/Pd ratios. Now we know that this approach is not important. A variety of materials work and these can be applied as thin layers to inert materials. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. l would also like to point out that a strict duplication is not replication. It is possible for both studies to make the same mistakes. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Regards, Ed - Jed
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. A patent is supposed to disclose how to practice a new discovery to those skilled in the art. The Correa patents are the most densly technical I have seen, they are virtual theses. There is lots and lots of information tucked into the text and references. I even went to the NY public library to check up on an earl;y reference given in one of the Correa patents. As with CF there are lots of things to go wrong. Alexandra Correa is a technical glassblower who made many of the cells that were tested. The one that appears in videos and some illustrations is rather straightforward, apparently, but there are stipulations on the materials to be used by alloy number. Nothing I saw in there was trivial and I read and re-read and dug and asked questions. If Keith's practically speaking means the Correas instructing one in all the necessary arts --perhaps like how to clean electrode surfaces -- then the casual 'replicator' is asking too much unless a license fee is paid. Even with all that, there are certain conditions of voltage and pressure that have to exist, which are indicated in the patents, which the experimenter has to discover for himself once he has done the rest of the work. Just producing the effect does not carry one into product development. There is lots of work to be done, once one realizes that this is new physics, that PAGD is an aether energy transducer. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Note that Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles are accomplished experimental scientists who did not need much more than knowledge of what FP found to do likewise. Many did not realize the importance of the Pd cathode metallurgy, or adequate calorimetry, etc. and etc. Similarly, to do PAGD one has be knowledgeable about glow discharge phenomena and related matters that may not converge in the head of someone without adequate study. The notion that PAGD is obscure is primarily a matter of not taking it seriously enough to devote adequate study, or dismissing the notion that it is an aether energy transducer and must be really something else. Same deal with CF, as we all painfully know. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. This is very well stated by Jed, a guy who has been in the trenches for years. Scott Little at Earth Tech has made attempts to verify various OU claims through the years. I've seen his shop, talked to him, he's an honest man. When some effect is defined well enough that he can produce it, it is perhaps ready for prime time, but with his facilities he could not make a transistor from scratch. Mike Carrell
Re: Correa
Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: Correa, etc.
Edmund Storms wrote: and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Naturally, I agree that this kind of luck also played an important role. >From Mike's description such luck cannot happen with the PAGD. Making a PAGD is more like cloning a sheep -- you have to be an expert at every stage. Luck does not enter into it. Still, there is a great deal of skill to doing CF, much of it perhaps unconscious. This skill helped set the stage for success by people like Bockris. They knew how to avoid many dumb mistakes that tripped up non-electrochemists before the chance creation of the nuclear active environment could even get underway. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Unfortunately, it appears that is not the case, and the PAGD effect is more like cloning a sheep -- there are very narrow set of procedures, and they must all be done correctly. The cloning success rate, by the way, still runs from 0.1% to 3%, even today after tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on cloning research.. (See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/). If cloning had provoked the same visceral opposition from scientists that cold fusion did, there is no chance it would have been replicated. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Perhaps that is not the fault of the PAGD effect, but rather a technical limitation. Perhaps there is only one reliable way to do it. If the effect is real and the technology is developed, additional methods are likely to be discovered. I believe there was only one proven method of making transistors in 1952 -- germanium junction devices, I think they were. It took weeks of intense hands-on training to teach that method to experts. Groups of engineers from outside companies who paid the patent fee attended classes at Bell Labs. By the mid-50s there were half a dozen other commercialized methods, some of them quite different from the original one. Perhaps the PAGD demands the same kind of development path the transistor did, with a relatively tight set of technical specifications and a long list of dos and don'ts (which were published in a famous book known as Mother Bell's Cookbook). If so, that is most unfortunate, because Correa is the last person on earth who is qualified or likely to carry out the kind of program needed to ensure the success of this technology. His personality utterly precludes it. He has said he has no intention, in any case, because humanity does not deserve his invention -- or his genius. He seems to have put the PAGD aside now, and he is working on other projects that are based on what I would say are very peculiar notions about physics. If the PAGD as difficult to replicate as Mike indicates, we might as well write the whole thing off now. If I were religious, and also inclined to believe claims such as the PAGD, I might wonder why God keeps putting such wonderful discoveries into the hands of such incorrigible people. - Jed
Re: Correa
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:25:55PM -0600, Zell, Chris wrote: Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. If this is about a choice between a battery and a capacitor, better results might be obtained by using a capacitor (chosen for low internal series inductance) _and_ a battery, connected in parallel. (The combination should be connected with short, straight wires to whatever is producing the pulses, to reduce inductance). The capacitor will begin absorbing the incoming charge immediately, and by the time its voltage begins to rise the battery will (hopefully) begin taking the rest of the charge, preventing any substantial voltage rise across the parallel combination, and thus across whatever it's connected to (PAGD tube, presumably). While the capacitance can be increased by adding multiple capacitors of the same type to the parallel combination, one may also parallel different _types_ of capacitors -- one (or more) with large capacitance but unavoidable internal series inductance, and one (or more) with smaller capacitance but designed to have much less internal series inductance (these are called bypass capacitors). The small, low-inductance bypass capacitor will absorb the very beginning of the incoming charge, while the rest of the initial charge makes its way through the series inductance of the larger capacitor. After that, the remainder of the charge will go into the battery (which may be even slower to respond). Connecting two different capacitors in parallel in this way is frequently done in electronic circuits. For example, a computer plug-in card (e.g., a video card) will likely have a slow electrolytic capacitor and a fast ceramic bypass capacitor connected in parallel between its ground and +5 volt power input. The electrolytic reduces low-frequency AC across the +5 power line to the chips in the card, while the bypass cap will reduce high-frequency AC.
Re: Correa
I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: More military might-have-beens . . .
At 05:48 pm 04-03-05 -0500, Jed wrote: I wrote: (The CIA says that 95% of men under 40 in Saudi Arabia approve of Al Qaeda and consider Bin Laden a national hero, so I am sure they have unlimited funds at their disposal.) Correction: the government of Saudi Arabia says that, based on public opinion polls. Source: Imperial Hubris (Brassey's, Inc., 2004). The point is, not only does Al Qaeda have money, they have a huge reservoir of technical skill. There are probably hundreds of thousands of qualified but unemployed engineers and other university trained people, such as the 9/11 hijackers. It is a myth that modern terrorists are disenfranchised poor people, or that they are technically ignorant. The Japanese Aum sect attracted some of the most talented biochemists and engineers in Japan. They built a state-of-the-art sarin production facility. This was built right out in the open in Japan -- a country where government surveillance is intense, and the authorities have enormous leeway and detailed information on everyone. (In Japan, you have to register all members of your household and all domestic pets with the local police. If you forget to vaccinate your pooch a friendly policeman will come around to remind you. You also have to register all television sets and radios, and pay a tax on them. Students used to be adept at hiding television antennas.) It takes no great stretch of imagination to envision a 5-year secret project involving thousands of highly qualified people in Saudi Arabia (or some other state), in which experts make important advances in cold fusion and then fabricate 50,000 crude small motors for handheld devices. It would be *far* easier than hiding a conventional nuclear weapons program. Grimer, my man! Is that scary enough? ABSOLUTELY! That's fantastic stuff Jed. Not only blood curdling but very interesting with it. If you can write like that and get it syndicated you can forget about the CoFu Bomb game. If I were from the bible belt and I read that in my morning paper under the headline, WAKE UP AMERICA I would be reaching for my M16 with one hand and with the other I'd be writing a letter to my congressman demanding that he did something about the COLD FUSION GAP if he wanted to get re-elected. And if I were from Montana (my son, Greg, once stayed there with a family. He said they were armed to the back teeth) I would send down a detachment of my militia to make sure you had sufficient protection from any Skull and Bones backlash. What you have to remember is, it doesn't really matter a damn what the atoms say. It's all about bits - all about perceptual bits. To quote from the book I was reading when I checked my mail just now. -- And they were not just cold. Hedgies struck me as incredibly detached as well. Apart from the real world. On another planet, almost. Actually, a lot of people on Wall Street are this way. They reside in a different layer from the rest of the world. I suppose it is how the financial system is set up; they can buy and sell companies all day without really caring what they actually do. -- Of course they can. They aren't buying companies qua atoms. The are buying companies qua bits, i.e. perceptions. It is not for nothing that often the most valuable asset of a company is not its physical assets such as buildings, machines, etc., but intangibles, like trade marks, good will, etc. That's what my intellectually challenged directors at Building Research failed to recognise. Their value was the reputation, the honesty, the competence of the work. That was what they should have been selling. Selling, that is until the last honest researcher had drifted away at last, and turned out the lights. That's why when CoCo Cola sold home counties tap water without having watched all episodes of *Only Fools and Horses*... - http://www.trotters-independent-traders.co.uk/episodes/mother_natures_son.htm Del Boy's latest scheme is to bottle tap water and sell it as 'Peckham Spring' water. It's a great success thanks to Rodney's mate Myles. -- it was a complete public relations disaster. The US firm very sensibly strangled the whole thing at birth before it impacted on their other lucrative sales of sugar water. There's of lot of our countrymen who moan about the loss of manufacturing industry. With your extensive historical knowledge I'm sure you recognise that exactly the same moaning went on in England in relation to agriculture as the industrial revolution took hold. The west's future is in 'bits' and the sooner modern Luddites wake up to that reality the better. And if you're not a lawyer, and your skill is in atoms, not
