Re: Well Read
Richard, Jacques Benvinste (sp?) argued that water has a memory, but I think the surface tension of water is what you are seeing as the water spirals inside the poly tube. Open the kitchen faucet just past where a drip forms and notice that the water thins down from about 3 mm diameter to a thin thread as gravity accelerates the tip of the stream causing tension and thinning until it breaks into droplets. Motor oil does that too, even when you don't want it to. Perhaps a high voltage applied between the faucet and the kitchen sink for making the stream arc? Fred - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 11/5/05 4:28:07 PM Subject: Re: Well Read Fred, Sometimes I wonder if my old age is showing, I mean't to state that we achieved a spiral flow inside the clear tubing. It does appear similar to a coil spring. The water clings to the inside wall of the tubing with a hollow center. The spirals are water and show they are flowing as they overflow at the top of the vortex which has a ring of magnets surrounding the vortex housing. The hollow center of the spiral rings may allow us to several experiments including laser light, microwave and special configured ultrasonic horn that can traverse the center. Fun stuff !! Can water retain a memory ? Richard
Re: ISS
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:02 +1100: Hi, [snip] >About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited >by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS >modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that >orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three >months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A Wouldn't this be going pretty fast as it passes the Earth, and would that make it hard to catch up with it? >second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to >drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. > >Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than >three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding >solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I >believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a >years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for >dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat >them. The best sail design is at: >http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html >2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also >you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they >accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the >manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar >wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my >reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. > >If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away >but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? Is there an online trip calculator? >Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 >g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. >Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) [snip] >Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because >there systems are optimized for zero g. >On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I should think that a space station orbiting Mars would be quite useful. It could function as a planetary observatory, and as a relay station for both information and supplies. A.o. it could provide regular weather updates for ground crews. The Mars mission, should not be seen as a "one shot", but rather as the beginning of an ongoing program. Viewed in that light, a space station in orbit makes a lot of sense. It could also function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] >>What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? You missed this one. [snip] >>How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any [snip] >There's at least three and one on the way but there are >incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Doesn't sound like a lot of forward thinking went into that little lot. >Mars >Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats >can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' >video. If you have a constant real time link, then you don't need store and forward capability, just a transfer capability. The storage capability can exist on the main orbital vessel. > Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. [snip] >>BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. >> >> >You think it was a misinformation program or some thing. No, but AFAIK the initial indications that it worked haven't been replicated. [snip] > The half life must >change as a consequence. I believe the idea was indeed to trigger the decays through x-ray stimulation. >A a two kg neutron gun fires into a cavity lined with isotopes normally >found in medium grade nuclear waste. They fission but they don't make >enough neutrons to chain react. It can be turned off quickly. I'll >check my source on that one the web page has moved on me. What's wrong with a simple reactor? [snip] >>Why not land the reactor portion of the main ship on Mars? Then >>you can use the power from the main reactor to create all the fuel >>you need in a short period of time. It would save the whole fuel >>plant trip. It could also make enough fuel for it's own launch for >>the return trip. The fuel plant could be taken along on the main >>ship. Might be better than landing only to discover that the >>previous fuel plant mission didn't quite work, and you now have no >>way of getting back. If the crew + fuel plant landing doesn't >>work, then the crew are probably dead, and not very interested in >>coming back anyway. >>[sni
Re: Well Read
Well, if the vortex is in a magnetic field, perhaps you are ionizing the water. Then the charged particles forced into the tube can be influenced by the magnetic field as they exit out the top. My 2 cents. --- RC Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BlankFor those Vorts that may wonder if their posts > are read.. keep posting. Every bit of information, > conjecture, disagreement, analogy etc, raises the > level of interest and learning curve . For me, I > digest each post and examine the thought expressed. > Solomon penned that " business is conducted over a > multitude of words". Only an occasional thought > expressed in the posts can have a profound effect on > someone searching for a particular answer. > > Now if I could figure out how a small flow through a > clear poly tubing section can spiral in the shape of > a coil spring I can move to the next step. The water > actually forms a separate and distinct coil inside > the clear tubing and increases its rotational speed > just prior to exiting to atmosphere.i,e, this is > a part of an applied research project in water > vortex studies where we mechanically produce a > vortex inside a ring of magnets with the overflow > at the top of the vortex exiting via the clear poly > tubing. > > Richard > > Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Well Read
Fred, Sometimes I wonder if my old age is showing, I mean't to state that we achieved a spiral flow inside the clear tubing. It does appear similar to a coil spring. The water clings to the inside wall of the tubing with a hollow center. The spirals are water and show they are flowing as they overflow at the top of the vortex which has a ring of magnets surrounding the vortex housing. The hollow center of the spiral rings may allow us to several experiments including laser light, microwave and special configured ultrasonic horn that can traverse the center. Fun stuff !! Can water retain a memory ? Richard - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: RE: Well Read You might try cutting an ACME Thread in a poly rod and stretching a clear poly tube over it. Double Stub? OTOH, the screw from a garage door opener has an ACME thread,don't it? On that note a non-ferrous conducting inner rod with an ACME thread channel with insulation over the lands with a tight-fitting non-ferrous outer conductor sleeve in a solenoid/axial magnetic field should make a good Faraday-type MHD Generator when you run sea water (or mercury) through it. Hope this helps. But don't be mad if it don't. Facetious Fred :-) Richard wrote: Now if I could figure out how a small flow through a clear poly tubing section can spiral in the shape of a coil spring I can move to the next step. The water actually forms a separate and distinct coil inside the clear tubing and increases its rotational speed just prior to exiting to atmosphere. i,e, this is a part of an applied research project in water vortex studies where we mechanically produce a vortex inside a ring of magnets with the overflow at the top of the vortex exiting via the clear poly tubing. Richard
RE: Well Read
You might try cutting an ACME Thread in a poly rod and stretching a clear poly tube over it. Double Stub? OTOH, the screw from a garage door opener has an ACME thread,don't it? On that note a non-ferrous conducting inner rod with an ACME thread channel with insulation over the lands with a tight-fitting non-ferrous outer conductor sleeve in a solenoid/axial magnetic field should make a good Faraday-type MHD Generator when you run sea water (or mercury) through it. Hope this helps. But don't be mad if it don't. Facetious Fred :-) Richard wrote: Now if I could figure out how a small flow through a clear poly tubing section can spiral in the shape of a coil spring I can move to the next step. The water actually forms a separate and distinct coil inside the clear tubing and increases its rotational speed just prior to exiting to atmosphere. i,e, this is a part of an applied research project in water vortex studies where we mechanically produce a vortex inside a ring of magnets with the overflow at the top of the vortex exiting via the clear poly tubing. Richard
Re: The Geometry of OU
Living 7 miles downwind of the Fayette Electric coal fired 3 stack power plant, I can attest to the change taken place over it's 25 year plus operation. My metal roof is one example. The original unit was built with NO emission control, the later 2 stacks have E scrubbers. The coal comes from Wyoming and Montana. Richard - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:41 AM Subject: Re: The Geometry of OU Jones left out the good stuff in Fly Ash from the Combustion of Coal. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1143/html/text.html Beryllium ~ 0.99 PPM Lead ~ 4.8 PPM Mercury ~ 0.22 PPM (Twice as much as ~ 0.11 PPM Palladium) Thorium (&Radium- Radon?) ~ 3.99 PPM Uranium ~ 1.0 PPM Interesting Article. Fred
Well Read
For those Vorts that may wonder if their posts are read.. keep posting. Every bit of information, conjecture, disagreement, analogy etc, raises the level of interest and learning curve . For me, I digest each post and examine the thought expressed. Solomon penned that " business is conducted over a multitude of words". Only an occasional thought expressed in the posts can have a profound effect on someone searching for a particular answer. Now if I could figure out how a small flow through a clear poly tubing section can spiral in the shape of a coil spring I can move to the next step. The water actually forms a separate and distinct coil inside the clear tubing and increases its rotational speed just prior to exiting to atmosphere. i,e, this is a part of an applied research project in water vortex studies where we mechanically produce a vortex inside a ring of magnets with the overflow at the top of the vortex exiting via the clear poly tubing. Richard
Re: The Geometry of OU
Jones left out the good stuff in Fly Ash from the Combustion of Coal. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1143/html/text.html Beryllium ~ 0.99 PPM Lead ~ 4.8 PPM Mercury ~ 0.22 PPM (Twice as much as ~ 0.11 PPM Palladium) Thorium (&Radium- Radon?) ~ 3.99 PPM Uranium ~ 1.0 PPM Interesting Article. Fred
Re: The Geometry of OU
One further thought on that "other" potential use of sonofusion... as it all ties into recent threads. ... that is, should sonofusion not be amenable to becoming a stand-alone net producer of energy as Ross Tessien and Russ George and others hope: http://www.d2fusion.com/education/sonofusion.html ...perhaps even, the Sierra Club notwithstanding, this suggestion below is the actually the "best" use - given that fusion - even sonofusion - in the long run is no "cleaner" than the kind of fission where one burns (neutralizes) all of the fission ash in situ. IN either case, after 50 years of use, one ends up with an "activated" reactor as the disposal issue. Easily handled, compared to the alternative choices. After 50 years of burning natural gas, by the way - in addition to the megatons of CO2 one has released, there are ton quantities of tritium gas, radium gas, and radioactive xenon gas: these release directly into the atmosphere where they do the most harm. These radioactive components are all part of natural gas in PPM or PPB levels - and in the case of tritium sometimes higher. That is Lovelock's main point about the ecological "desirability" of fission (properly done) over everything currently available except wind energy. He is absolutely correct on this. By now, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that ultrasound cavitation will produce some neutrons. Not many, but some. Consequently, there could easily be a hybrid arrangement, a small Uranium-fission-sonofusion arrangement, just waiting to be developed. It will reprocess and burn its own fission waste. ... But only a few extra neutrons from ultrasound is not going to help much, right? That is the initial reaction to this suggestion... but it could be short-sighted. What happens when you irradiate a specially-designed "independent" core with ultrasound (a deuterium-filled moderating core) in an operating reactor, where there is already a high flux of two other forms of irradiation - do you get synergy (or a waste of bandwidth)? IF there is a simultaneously large neutron flux in this core (10^13 per cc) PLUS a huge gamma-ray flux, all at the same time as the added ultrasound irradiation, will that not free significantly more neutrons, than without the ultrasound ? Common sense says "probably"... Just one more in the long list of "Important Experiments which Need to be Performed"... and soon... and, sadly, probably would have been - were it not for a costly and unnecessary war. And unlike the situation with "stripping" where the heavy water would need to be continually purified, as the newly formed proton (of H-O-D) will now be poised to re-absorb a free-neutron - for no net-gain, with sonofusion you have a gaseous ash - helium. However, we want to retain whatever degree of stripping is also involved, but... Here again we find "Ms Synergy" jiggling her lovely booty - in that the heavy-water purification step can be easily accomplished in situ, due to the favorable situation of an "independent" core (one not heated by the fuel itself). It is especially easy in a cool heavy water core, kept near 100 degree C, to continually rid it preferentially of the helium and light-water components, as those will boil-off first. The 6% mass difference assures us of that. Secondary processing will be needed, but the major first-step of differential evaporation rates assures us that reactor grade heavy water is always present, no matter how many free neutrons are being added..Jones
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
Wes and Fred, Force field reaction may be closer to describing the event. Richard - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 6:30 AM Subject: Re: Podkletnov's Disks Wesley Bruce wrote: > > No drive can be truly reactionless! > We are really talking of drives that > that that interact electrostatically with > waves or photons. > These become invisible or substantial reaction mass. > Agreed Wes. I think Dr. (ms?) Li left NASA and went back to China to pursue Podkletnov's work. This isn't an antigravity effect per se, but, rather a "force field" interaction between the subatomic quarks of matter. Each of the three quarks in the protons of the 5.98e24 kilogram mass of the earth actually have a current of a megampere relativistically time-dilated by about 3.0e18 orders of magnitude, resulting in a picoampere current for each. Sum up the total number of quarks ( mass ~ = 1.66e-27/3 Kg) in the earth's mass, neglecting the free electron mass (one per proton excluding the electron bound up in the neutron) and you can arrive at a +/- force proportional to the field strength developed by the disks divided by the square of the 6.38e6 meter radius of the earth or the square of the distance from a mass such as an asteroid, comet, bullet, or the sun. IOW, all inertial mass (air atoms/molecules or spacecraft) can be made to interact with the "strange field" that Podkletnov discovered while spinning a superconducting disk. If I recall correctly things got quiet after Podkletnov announced strong interaction with a "target" at a few miles distance. Note the silence of the antigravity buffs/researchers on vortex since Podkletnov- Dr. Li announced their experimental and theoretical findings. :-) Fred
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
Wesley Bruce wrote: > > No drive can be truly reactionless! > We are really talking of drives that > that that interact electrostatically with > waves or photons. > These become invisible or substantial reaction mass. > Agreed Wes. I think Dr. (ms?) Li left NASA and went back to China to pursue Podkletnov's work. This isn't an antigravity effect per se, but, rather a "force field" interaction between the subatomic quarks of matter. Each of the three quarks in the protons of the 5.98e24 kilogram mass of the earth actually have a current of a megampere relativistically time-dilated by about 3.0e18 orders of magnitude, resulting in a picoampere current for each. Sum up the total number of quarks ( mass ~ = 1.66e-27/3 Kg) in the earth's mass, neglecting the free electron mass (one per proton excluding the electron bound up in the neutron) and you can arrive at a +/- force proportional to the field strength developed by the disks divided by the square of the 6.38e6 meter radius of the earth or the square of the distance from a mass such as an asteroid, comet, bullet, or the sun. IOW, all inertial mass (air atoms/molecules or spacecraft) can be made to interact with the "strange field" that Podkletnov discovered while spinning a superconducting disk. If I recall correctly things got quiet after Podkletnov announced strong interaction with a "target" at a few miles distance. Note the silence of the antigravity buffs/researchers on vortex since Podkletnov- Dr. Li announced their experimental and theoretical findings. :-) Fred
