Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
MC: I'm reluctant to get involved in this area again, but some things need persepctive. I have seen the text of, but not studied, the new Correa patent. -- - Original Message - From: Christopher Arnold To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued Terry, Igor Alexeff invented the Plasma Discharge Tube that the Correas Borrowed and say they discovered it. please see this for yourself http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%%2FPTO%%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4291255 MC: I looked at the claims and description of the Alexeff device on the referenced link. There is no resemblance to the Correa PAGD, which is apparent if one studies the PAGD patentes, which I have done. Their thread of discovery as descrtibed to me by Paulo is utterly different from Alexeff. The Correas use of my Pulsed Plasma Drive to power their motor is the infringement. MC: The original PAGD patents and claims include driving a motor, which is also illustrated in a early video shown at a conference decades ago, The Pulsed Plasma Drive can never directly produce an abnormal glow discharge which is known of as a weak plasma, compared to the Dense Plasma Focus of my Pulsed Plasma Drive - which is an extremely powerful and energetic Plasma, capable of of D+D, D+T and even aneutronic fusion as I told Puthoff in 2000. MC: And Arnold is now making a clear distinction between his device and PAGD? The PAGD discharge releases much more energy than it takes to maintain the conditions for the effect to occur. If the Correa's PAGD Tube is so marvelous, why didn't it impress Eugene Mallove, considering Mallove flatly told me he did "not" believe my Spark Gap Drive (Pulsed Plasma Drive) would work at all. Jim from Sarasota attempted to get an interview with me published by Mallove, who still thought Dense Plasma Focus would never allow atomic Fusion - but it was all too much for Mallove to understand or believe. MC: Arnold is quite confused here. Mallove *was* impressed by PAGD, which as Arnold says is clearly different from his Dense Plasma Focus device. The Correa's new patent was applied after I first contacted them to explain how my device was different from the PADG tube, and did not even require containment or working gasses - which they did not believe. You can clearly see they believe me now. As for their work with Orgone boxes - please remember it is from the published works of Wilhelm Reich and the Correas only duplicated it, they did NOT discover anything new in that case, or in the case of my Plasma Drive. And yes - I believe that Reich's Orgone box works - but he had many other more obscure contraptions that worked just as well. Reich never mentioned using either AC or DC Electrical Pulses in his devices - and the Orgone device was not my machine, but a contraption that was based on Reich's Orgone theories (not electrical) - and quite strange looking when I first viewed it. MC: To my incomplete knowledge, the Correas are quite familiar with Reich's work. Their orgone box demonstrated a heat differential that was able to drive a simple Stirling engine. By the Correa's suggesting that Reich's works were connected in any way to using electrical driving power - they show themselves to have ZERO comprehension of Reich's true work or the energy involved. As I said, the Correa's are common folk. As for them using a Ouija board, dice or tarot cards for scientific insight - that is more likely than not. MC: This slam is utterly unjustified by volume of careful work represented in the Correa patents. I found the Correas quite sophisticated. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]: Re: Magnetic Vortices & Charged Water
On 8/2/06, Willis Jenkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Teflon pan may not be the best of containers to try your test in, I might suggest a liter beaker or some HDPE container. What I have observed is that a passive metal container is part of the circuit, if connected or not. Over the years many a SS container has suffered microscopic pin holes when being used in this way. Well, well, well. You were absolutely right. When I finished the experiment today and stored the water, I noticed some very small bubbles forming between the teflon and the aluminum. Doesn't look like it totally erupted, however; but, I think I'll seek out an HDPE container for stage two. Also, the adhesive gave out on one pair of plates. Further research indicates that 3M does not recommend it on SS. Go figure. I'm trying to decide whether to put a rubber band around it, tie a string around it, or just skip the 24 VDC test until I can rebuild the cell. Terry
Re: [Vo]: questions for Mark Goldes
On 8/6/06, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Which brings me around to my questions. How difficult is it to recondition the magnets? Niodymium Iron Boron magnets are usefull for about 125 years in a magnetic gradient magnetomotive force configuration. After which, the material is totally recyclable. You simply grind it down, recompress it, resinter it, and requench it. Voila! Good as new. However, the cost will be about the same as for a new magnet. Terry
Re: [VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Richard, You might remember that I once sought investors in hydrogen, fusion and nanodiamond from the highly intelligent members of this forum - except nobody believed anything I said. Nanodiamond is a Trillion Dollar business that I will not be seeking investors for anymore - as I will attempt to finish what I started myself. My posting of Stanford/Chevron simply proves that "they" are not as resistant to change as many of the self righteous members of this group would appear to be. Stanford/Chevron finally realized how tremendously valuable my discovery is, and invested - just not with the inventor and all that refused to assist me have lost a great opportunity. Please don't take that the wrong way, but it is as plain as the nose on your face and as simple as a fact can be. ChrisRC Macaulay wrote: Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non Detonation Nanodiamond powder? Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortune fostering the fable that good guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible? A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE". If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired. Richard Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Terry, Igor Alexeff invented the Plasma Discharge Tube that the Correas Borrowed and say they discovered it. please see this for yourself http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%%2FPTO%%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4291255 The Correas use of my Pulsed Plasma Drive to power their motor is the infringement. The Pulsed Plasma Drive can never directly produce an abnormal glow discharge which is known of as a weak plasma, compared to the Dense Plasma Focus of my Pulsed Plasma Drive - which is an extremely powerful and energetic Plasma, capable of of D+D, D+T and even aneutronic fusion as I told Puthoff in 2000. If the Correa's PAGD Tube is so marvelous, why didn't it impress Eugene Mallove, considering Mallove flatly told me he did "not" believe my Spark Gap Drive (Pulsed Plasma Drive) would work at all. Jim from Sarasota attempted to get an interview with me published by Mallove, who still thought Dense Plasma Focus would never allow atomic Fusion - but it was all too much for Mallove to understand or believe. The Correa's new patent was applied after I first contacted them to explain how my device was different from the PADG tube, and did not even require containment or working gasses - which they did not believe. You can clearly see they believe me now. As for their work with Orgone boxes - please remember it is from the published works of Wilhelm Reich and the Correas only duplicated it, they did NOT discover anything new in that case, or in the case of my Plasma Drive. And yes - I believe that Reich's Orgone box works - but he had many other more obscure contraptions that worked just as well. Reich never mentioned using either AC or DC Electrical Pulses in his devices - and the Orgone device was not my machine, but a contraption that was based on Reich's Orgone theories (not electrical) - and quite strange looking when I first viewed it. By the Correa's suggesting that Reich's works were connected in any way to using electrical driving power - they show themselves to have ZERO comprehension of Reich's true work or the energy involved. As I said, the Correa's are common folk. As for them using a Ouija board, dice or tarot cards for scientific insight - that is more likely than not. Christhomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christopher Arnold wrote:> Terry,> > My comments on this are at > http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1993&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 > however > I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no > imagination, foul, nasty personalities and they have sticky fingers as > well.I take it that you don't care for Paulo and Alexandra, eh, Chris?> > My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them -Your PAGD?> they decided to say they invented it!And now you are saying that you developed it? Can you prove that?> Running a motor with a Tesla Spark gap is something even Tesla did not > do, and it is already covered by my work. So much for it not working.>I've heard that the PAGD worked. Apparently it doesn't work all that well. I'm still looking for a FE device to heat my house, winter is coming!What do you think about the Correa's theory about extracting energy from Orgone Boxes?> --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non Detonation Nanodiamond powder? Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortune fostering the fable that good guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible? A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE". If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re: Field Induced Ionization & Ion Hydration of Water
The4 Grotthuss Mechanism: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/1999/news03_99.htm "Walking without moving: proton diffusion in water" "Nearly 200 years after its initial conception, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart and the New York University have unravelled the so-called "Grotthuss mechanism of structural diffusion" in microscopic detail, see Nature (volume 397, 18 February 1999). The insights gained will be of help in biology and chemistry, as discussed by J. T. Hynes in the accompanying "News and Views" article in the same issue. " - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 8/6/2006 5:35:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Field Induced Ionization & Ion Hydration of Water Recapping: 1, "Water tends to form small "NanoPolymers", x H2O -> (H2O)x" 2, " The attraction for the proton of a molecule by a neighboring oxygen atom in the (H2O)x nanopolymer causes some formation of OH- hydroxyl and hydronium H3O+ ions 2 H2O -> H3O+ + OH- ". 3, "The Dipole Moments of the individual water molecules are additive in the Polymers ". 4, "Hydration of the ions forms nH2O.OH- and mH2O.H3O+ NanoClusters". My Conclusion: The "Activation" step applies a field (at voltages well below electrolysis levels) that aligns the nanopolymer dipoles and stimulates exothermic "Pseudo-Autoionization" and Hydration of the water. Hence the pH will remain at about 7.0* even when all of the water is "activated" into a "colloidal gel" of Nanoclusters. The Nanoclusters will "burn" explosively in a microwave oven or an ICE releasing about 750 kJ/mole of ions formed. * Dissolved CO2 , NOx, & SO2 will lower the pH to 5.7 or less. http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/applychem/waterchem.html http://web.chemistry.gatech.edu/~wilkinson/Class_notes/spring_2004_1311_page/slides/Solubility%20of%20ionic%20compounds%20and%20intermolecular%20forces%202%20up.pdf http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA60001131700730601&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Calculation of the absolute hydration enthalpy and free energy of H + and OH– "The hydration enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of proton and hydroxide are calculated by means of a combination of ab initio density functional theory and a polarizable continuum model within the self-consistent reaction field method. The ion–water cluster models here used include up to 13 water molecules solvating the ions. This allows the first and second solvation shells to be described explicitly from first principles. Vibrational contributions to the enthalpy and entropy have been taken into account. Our best model of the hydrated proton includes three molecules in the first hydration shell and nine molecules in the second shell. The calculated proton hydration enthalpy is –1150 kJ/mol, which is in rather good agreement with the most recent results from cluster–ion solvation data. The hydration free energy of the proton has a larger error of 50–80 kJ/mol as compared to recently reported values. The calculated hydroxide hydration enthalpy, –520 kJ/mol, and hydration ! ! free energy, –400 kJ/mol, are consistent with well-established values taken from experiment. Two different sources of error in our calculations, namely, the nature of the hydrated complex and the outlying charge correction, are discussed. Moreover, we compare the results from three slightly different methods for the calculation of hydration energies. ©2000 American Institute of Physics. " Fred
Re: [Vo]: Re: Field Induced Ionization & Ion Hydration of Water
Recapping: 1, "Water tends to form small "NanoPolymers", x H2O -> (H2O)x" 2, " The attraction for the proton of a molecule by a neighboring oxygen atom in the (H2O)x nanopolymer causes some formation of OH- hydroxyl and hydronium H3O+ ions 2 H2O -> H3O+ + OH- ". 3, "The Dipole Moments of the individual water molecules are additive in the Polymers ". 4, "Hydration of the ions forms nH2O.OH- and mH2O.H3O+ NanoClusters". My Conclusion: The "Activation" step applies a field (at voltages well below electrolysis levels) that aligns the nanopolymer dipoles and stimulates exothermic "Pseudo-Autoionization" and Hydration of the water. Hence the pH will remain at about 7.0* even when all of the water is "activated" into a "colloidal gel" of Nanoclusters. The Nanoclusters will "burn" explosively in a microwave oven or an ICE releasing about 750 kJ/mole of ions formed. * Dissolved CO2 , NOx, & SO2 will lower the pH to 5.7 or less. Starting out on the lighter side. (the cartoon on entropy) http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~chem241/lecture/unit4a.pdf http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/applychem/waterchem.html http://web.chemistry.gatech.edu/~wilkinson/Class_notes/spring_2004_1311_page/slides/Solubility%20of%20ionic%20compounds%20and%20intermolecular%20forces%202%20up.pdf http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA60001131700730601&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Calculation of the absolute hydration enthalpy and free energy of H + and OH– "The hydration enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of proton and hydroxide are calculated by means of a combination of ab initio density functional theory and a polarizable continuum model within the self-consistent reaction field method. The ion–water cluster models here used include up to 13 water molecules solvating the ions. This allows the first and second solvation shells to be described explicitly from first principles. Vibrational contributions to the enthalpy and entropy have been taken into account. Our best model of the hydrated proton includes three molecules in the first hydration shell and nine molecules in the second shell. The calculated proton hydration enthalpy is –1150 kJ/mol, which is in rather good agreement with the most recent results from cluster–ion solvation data. The hydration free energy of the proton has a larger error of 50–80 kJ/mol as compared to recently reported values. The calculated hydroxide hydration enthalpy, –520 kJ/mol, and hydration ! free energy, –400 kJ/mol, are consistent with well-established values taken from experiment. Two different sources of error in our calculations, namely, the nature of the hydrated complex and the outlying charge correction, are discussed. Moreover, we compare the results from three slightly different methods for the calculation of hydration energies. ©2000 American Institute of Physics. " Fred
