Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

[Michel Jullian]

- Original Message - 
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox


...
>>> This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem
>>> was in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago.  The
>>> traveling twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus,
>>> the symmetry is broken.
>> ...
>> 
>> To be more precise the traveling twin is the only one who accelerates
>> _wrt the initial common frame of reference_, that's what breaks the
>> symmetry (otherwise one could argue that they both accelerate wrt
>> each other)
> 
> No you could not.  Acceleration is absolute, not relative.
...

Not in the general sense Stephen. _Geometrically_, both twins accelerate wrt 
each other, agreed?

It's _acceleration wrt an inertial frame of reference_ which is absolute of 
course, hence my point. I wasn't contradicting you, just highlighting a point 
which may not be obvious to everyone.

Michel

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:08 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters


...
> My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
> vacuum.  So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
... 

Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you 
halve the pressure you must double the current, as per the thrust formula 
I*d/mu where ion mobility mu is doubled (inversely proportional to air 
density). In order to double the current you must indeed increase voltage, but 
not by a factor two, only root 2 as the I(V) law is quadratic for a corona 
discharge.

There is a brick wall limit to this scheme though: breakdown voltage goes down 
with pressure, so you can't increase voltage much, hardly at all in fact since 
a well designed lifter operates as close as possible to the breakdown voltage.

Michel

[Vo]: Konarka, another printed solar cell company

[Michel Jullian]

Contrary to Nanosolar, thos guys print their PV material on conductive plastic

http://www.konarka.com/technology/ 

Allowing flexible integration into products they say

http://www.konarka.com/products/

Solar perspectives look brighter and brighter!
--
Michel

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/15/07, Kyle R. Mcallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

All,

As far as the lifters go, I can say this: I have worked with these little
gizmos quite a bit in the past, particularly several years ago when
"Transdimensional" and all started the hype. I don't know what NASA has to
say about them, nor do I particularly care, given their (NASA's) rather
dubious track record.


Kyle,

Here's what NASA has to say about them in their patent.  I can find no
reference to ionic wind in it:

http://snipurl.com/1aef8

"United States Patent  6,317,310
Campbell  November 13, 2001


Apparatus and method for generating thrust using a two dimensional,
asymmetrical capacitor module


Abstract
A capacitor module system is provided for creating a thrust force. The
system includes a capacitor module provided with a first conductive
element having a cylindrical geometry. The first conductive element
can be a hollow cylinder or a solid cylinder. The capacitor module
also includes a second conductive element axially spaced from the
first conductive element and of smaller axial extent. The second
conductive element can be a flat disk, a dome, or a conductive tip at
the end of a dielectric rod. A dielectric element is disposed between
the first conductive element and the second conductive element. The
system also includes a high voltage source having first and second
terminals connected respectively to the first and second conductive
elements. The high voltage source applies a high voltage to the
conductive elements of sufficient value to create a thrust force on
the module inducing movement thereof.



Inventors:  Campbell; Jonathan W. (Harvest, AL)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Washington, DC)

Appl. No.:  09/520,817
Filed:  March 8, 2000



Current U.S. Class: 361/306.1 ; 361/811
Current International Class:  H02N 1/00 (20060101)
Field of Search:  361/306.1,15,16,17,715,821,311





References Cited [Referenced By]



U.S. Patent Documents

4392179  July 1983  Nelson et al.

Primary Examiner: Dinkins; Anthony
Attorney, Agent or Firm: McGroary; James J.



Government Interests




ORIGIN OF THE INVENTION

This invention was made by an employee of the United States Government
and may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for
Governmental purposes without the payment of royalties.


Claims




What is claimed is:

1. A capacitor module system for creating a thrust, said system comprising:

a capacitor module comprising a first conductive element having a
cylindrical geometry;

a second conductive element axially spaced from said first conductive
element and having a geometry of smaller axial extent than said first
conductive element; and a dielectric element disposed between said
first conductive element and said second conductive element so as to
form the capacitor module; and,

a high voltage source, having first and second terminals connected
respectively to said first and second conductive elements, for
applying a high voltage to said conductive elements of sufficient
value to create a thrust force on said module inducing movement
thereof. "

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Michel,

> ...
> > My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
> > vacuum.  So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
> ...
> 
> Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you
> halve the pressure you must double the current, as per the thrust formula
> I*d/mu where ion mobility mu is doubled (inversely proportional to air
> density). In order to double the current you must indeed increase voltage,
> but not by a factor two, only root 2 as the I(V) law is quadratic for a
> corona discharge.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this reasoning.  So the question stands for Kyle,
was the vacuum experiment properly conducted?

Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily
interpret as being ion wind?  Why can't the force term refer to the force
between the ions on the lifter and the electrostatic dipoles in the space
surrounding it?

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos

[Wesley Bruce]

Ok so far as I can see there is only one magnet clearly visible and all 
the motion is the product of fingers and the tweezers poking it. Are we 
sure they are legit images of the Steorn thing since there is no self 
motion visible in those pictures? The little arm on the right is a 
classic escapement that allows the magnet to push the disc its mounted 
on a few degrees. A spring then returns it to the start position. in 
effect we have a retarded cycle with two springs rocking a disc back and 
forth in the plane of the disc, in this case one of the springs is a 
magnet.  All that's nothing new?! If its legitimate then these images 
are intentionally lacking a key component. The bit that moves the 
escapement up and down with no external input of energy: i.e. fingers or 
tweezers. 1600th century clockwork.
If it is that simple the worlds scientific community will have a 
complete and total fit. With wood, brass and twine Leanado Davinchi 
could have built the thing.


Terry Blanton wrote:

Well, the Flickr photos are still there; so, how 'bout my original 
request?  :-)


Terry

On 2/11/07, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There's a lot of discussion on the Steorn forum about how this really 
should

not be made public. Maybe they killed it :-( .

-Original Message-
From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos


This is very odd.

I tried accessing MPG video at the relativity.ca web site again, and now
appears to be UserID & Password protected.

What's going on?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWokrs.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:26 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
>
>
> Try VLC . it's free :-) .
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:25 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
>
>
> Unfortunately, the downloaded MPG file doesn't play on my
> quicktime player.
> Any others?
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnoson
> www.OrionWorks.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:52 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
> >
> >
> > Woops, wrong one.  Try this:
> >
> > http://relativity.ca/kineticatoy.mpg
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:29 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
> >
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/show/
> >
> > Shows what appears to be test rig 1 and 3.  Maybe someone could 
stream

> > these photos together to see the motion of the devices.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

Nick Palmer wrote:


Robin from Oz  wrote:-
<>

Right, of course. A true solution would still be good value at $1 
billion dollars or maybe even  $1 trillion


It would take billions or perhaps trillions of dollars to implement a 
solution, but $25 million might be a great help to someone trying to 
scale up a potential solution, or convert it from a prototype to 
something practical. For example, suppose Branson awards this to a 
plug-in hybrid research company, or to a company that has 
demonstrated an array of 5 prototype solar-thermal stirling engine 
generators. Research in these two areas is still done on a small 
scale, and $25 million would still be a big contribution. Both have 
been demonstrated in practical devices, although not in mass-produced 
devices. They could both reduce fossil fuel consumption 
significantly. I think solar-electric is promising for places like 
Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia, and on a large scale it would greatly 
reduce coal consumption.


For cold fusion $25 million would be like manna from heaven, needless 
to say. But it ain't happening. Branson has never heard of cold 
fusion, and if he does hear of it, his scientific advisors will tell 
him that it is fraud, lunacy, all a mistake, etc., etc.


So, I say kudos to Branson. One kudo, anyway. Or as the Japanese say, 
kudoi! (Enough already!)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Michel Jullian wrote:

- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  Sent: Friday, February
16, 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox


...

This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the
problem was in fact resolved something on the order of a
century ago.  The traveling twin accelerates; the stay-at-home
twin does not; thus, the symmetry is broken.

...

To be more precise the traveling twin is the only one who
accelerates _wrt the initial common frame of reference_, that's
what breaks the symmetry (otherwise one could argue that they
both accelerate wrt each other)

No you could not.  Acceleration is absolute, not relative.

...

Not in the general sense Stephen. _Geometrically_, both twins
accelerate wrt each other, agreed?


You are talking about what we might call "coordinate acceleration", 
which, I would claim, is a somewhat nonstandard use of the term 
"acceleration".




It's _acceleration wrt an inertial frame of reference_ which is
absolute of course, hence my point. I wasn't contradicting you, just
highlighting a point which may not be obvious to everyone.


Acceleration, as I have generally seen the term used in casual 
conversation (and in discussions of the twins paradox), is that which is 
measured by an accelerometer.  An accelerometer is a purely "local" 
instrument (which, of course, can't tell the difference between gravity 
and acceleration).


(d/dt)(dq/dt) where "q" is an arbitrary general coordinate is not 
usually referred to simply as "acceleration".  And, when the word 
"acceleration" /is/ used that way, it often leads to interminable 
pointless arguments about the difference between a  "real force" and a 
"fictitious force", as well as lengthy discussion of the true meaning of 
"centrifugal force"  :-)





Michel

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Michel,

 

The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in
the ions to cause a lifter to lift.  What's more, you can reverse the
polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same.  If
electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in
the other case.  Since there are no positively charged electrons and any
protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different
results, the ion wind theory is bust.

 

Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number
can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon.

 

Dave

 


> Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily
> interpret as being ion wind?

...

> Dave

Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do
the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif
image makes it to the list)

 

Michel

Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/16/07, Wesley Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ok so far as I can see there is only one magnet clearly visible and all
the motion is the product of fingers and the tweezers poking it. Are we
sure they are legit images of the Steorn thing since there is no self
motion visible in those pictures?


Yes, Crank is an avid poster on the Steorn forum and is on the Steorn
party video.  As I recall, she was a mature redhead.  I believe Grimer
has confirmed the images are of the same device which he saw at the
Kinetica presentation in London.

BTW, Frank is one of the blessed 200 who will be a part of the
development committee which they have nicknamed SPUD.  I forget what
that means.

I don't think Grimer reads Vortex much lately.

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Wesley Bruce wrote:
Ok so far as I can see there is only one magnet clearly visible and all 
the motion is the product of fingers and the tweezers poking it. Are we 
sure they are legit images of the Steorn thing since there is no self 
motion visible in those pictures? 


Is that really a surprise?

I've looked at the information on the Steorn website and have never seen 
anything that actually /said/ they have anything which self-runs.  I 
know opinions here differed, and there are some ambiguous statements 
which one could interpret that way, but I saw nothing clear and explicit 
to that effect.  AFAICT, all they have is something which, when driven 
externally, apparently produces more power on the shaft out than is 
applied on the shaft in.  Of course, with such a device the torque 
varies significantly as the shaft rotates, so measuring the power in and 
power out can be a tad dicey.



The little arm on the right is a 
classic escapement that allows the magnet to push the disc its mounted 
on a few degrees. A spring then returns it to the start position. in 
effect we have a retarded cycle with two springs rocking a disc back and 
forth in the plane of the disc, in this case one of the springs is a 
magnet.  All that's nothing new?! If its legitimate then these images 
are intentionally lacking a key component. The bit that moves the 
escapement up and down with no external input of energy: i.e. fingers or 
tweezers. 1600th century clockwork.
If it is that simple the worlds scientific community will have a 
complete and total fit. With wood, brass and twine Leanado Davinchi 
could have built the thing.


Terry Blanton wrote:

Well, the Flickr photos are still there; so, how 'bout my original 
request?  :-)


Terry

On 2/11/07, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There's a lot of discussion on the Steorn forum about how this really 
should

not be made public. Maybe they killed it :-( .

-Original Message-
From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos


This is very odd.

I tried accessing MPG video at the relativity.ca web site again, and now
appears to be UserID & Password protected.

What's going on?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWokrs.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:26 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
>
>
> Try VLC . it's free :-) .
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:25 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
>
>
> Unfortunately, the downloaded MPG file doesn't play on my
> quicktime player.
> Any others?
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnoson
> www.OrionWorks.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:52 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
> >
> >
> > Woops, wrong one.  Try this:
> >
> > http://relativity.ca/kineticatoy.mpg
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:29 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
> >
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/show/
> >
> > Shows what appears to be test rig 1 and 3.  Maybe someone could 
stream

> > these photos together to see the motion of the devices.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Michel Jullian]

I say kudos too. But plug-in hybrids or CF wouldn't qualify I am afraid. Unless 
I misunderstood the rules, what Branson is after is a technology to pump the 
CO2 out of the atmosphere, not to reduce emissions.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize


> Nick Palmer wrote:
> 
>>Robin from Oz  wrote:-
>><>cheap advertising.>>
>>
>>Right, of course. A true solution would still be good value at $1 
>>billion dollars or maybe even  $1 trillion
> 
> It would take billions or perhaps trillions of dollars to implement a 
> solution, but $25 million might be a great help to someone trying to 
> scale up a potential solution, or convert it from a prototype to 
> something practical. For example, suppose Branson awards this to a 
> plug-in hybrid research company, or to a company that has 
> demonstrated an array of 5 prototype solar-thermal stirling engine 
> generators. Research in these two areas is still done on a small 
> scale, and $25 million would still be a big contribution. Both have 
> been demonstrated in practical devices, although not in mass-produced 
> devices. They could both reduce fossil fuel consumption 
> significantly. I think solar-electric is promising for places like 
> Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia, and on a large scale it would greatly 
> reduce coal consumption.
> 
> For cold fusion $25 million would be like manna from heaven, needless 
> to say. But it ain't happening. Branson has never heard of cold 
> fusion, and if he does hear of it, his scientific advisors will tell 
> him that it is fraud, lunacy, all a mistake, etc., etc.
> 
> So, I say kudos to Branson. One kudo, anyway. Or as the Japanese say, 
> kudoi! (Enough already!)
> 
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

[Michel Jullian]

> You are talking about what we might call "coordinate acceleration"

Yes indeed Stephen, we might call it thus, although just "acceleration" is 
better and simpler. Time derivative of velocity in an arbitrary frame, not just 
an inertial one. That's the most general definition of "acceleration", that's 
why I said "Not in the general sense":

ac·cel·er·a·tion
n. 
1. 
a. The act of accelerating.
b. The process of being accelerated.
2. Abbr. a Physics The rate of change of velocity with respect to time.

But enough bickering. Talking about "centrifugal force", you do know that by 
running around a bucket of water you incurve the water as if it was centrifuged 
don't you?  :)

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox


> 
> 
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>> - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  Sent: Friday, February
>> 16, 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox
>> 
>> 
>> ...
> This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the
> problem was in fact resolved something on the order of a
> century ago.  The traveling twin accelerates; the stay-at-home
> twin does not; thus, the symmetry is broken.
 ...
 
 To be more precise the traveling twin is the only one who
 accelerates _wrt the initial common frame of reference_, that's
 what breaks the symmetry (otherwise one could argue that they
 both accelerate wrt each other)
>>> No you could not.  Acceleration is absolute, not relative.
>> ...
>> 
>> Not in the general sense Stephen. _Geometrically_, both twins
>> accelerate wrt each other, agreed?
> 
> You are talking about what we might call "coordinate acceleration", 
> which, I would claim, is a somewhat nonstandard use of the term 
> "acceleration".
> 
>> 
>> It's _acceleration wrt an inertial frame of reference_ which is
>> absolute of course, hence my point. I wasn't contradicting you, just
>> highlighting a point which may not be obvious to everyone.
> 
> Acceleration, as I have generally seen the term used in casual 
> conversation (and in discussions of the twins paradox), is that which is 
> measured by an accelerometer.  An accelerometer is a purely "local" 
> instrument (which, of course, can't tell the difference between gravity 
> and acceleration).
> 
> (d/dt)(dq/dt) where "q" is an arbitrary general coordinate is not 
> usually referred to simply as "acceleration".  And, when the word 
> "acceleration" /is/ used that way, it often leads to interminable 
> pointless arguments about the difference between a  "real force" and a 
> "fictitious force", as well as lengthy discussion of the true meaning of 
> "centrifugal force"  :-)
> 
> 
>> 
>> Michel
>> 
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

Michel Jullian wrote:

I say kudos too. But plug-in hybrids or CF 
wouldn't qualify I am afraid. Unless I 
misunderstood the rules, what Branson is after 
is a technology to pump the CO2 out of the atmosphere, not to reduce emissions.


Huh. I am not surprised, but that's silly. The 
two are functionally equivalent. It is like 
making a distinction between filling a leaking 
bucket faster or plugging the hole -- or between 
giving a person a "tax break" or handing him a 
check from the government. If you reduce 
emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2 
out of the atmosphere soon enough.


The best method to "pump" CO2 out of the air is 
obvious, in any case. You reforest large areas of 
formerly verdant land. This solves many problems 
at the same time. Reforestation of desert areas 
has lately been making more progress than people predicted. See:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/africa/11niger.html

"In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert

GUIDAN BAKOYE, Niger ­ In this dust-choked 
region, long seen as an increasingly barren 
wasteland decaying into desert, millions of trees 
are flourishing, thanks in part to poor farmers 
whose simple methods cost little or nothing at all.


Better conservation and improved rainfall have 
led to at least 7.4 million newly tree-covered 
acres in Niger, researchers have found, achieved 
largely without relying on the large-scale 
planting of trees or other expensive methods 
often advocated by African politicians and aid 
groups for halting desertification, the process 
by which soil loses its fertility. . . ."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Michel Jullian]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
...

> If you reduce 
> emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2 
> out of the atmosphere soon enough.

They are talking about 1000 years at least for natural elimination :/

> 
> The best method to "pump" CO2 out of the air is 
> obvious, in any case. You reforest large areas of 
> formerly verdant land. This solves many problems 

I agree this should be done of course, but phytoplankton 
harvesting/processing/sequestering might be a more powerful way, considering we 
have more ocean surface available than land surface. In any case photosynthesis 
one way or another is most probably at least part of the solution.

Michel

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. As a 
matter of fact you do get air entraining ion flow, aka ion wind or electric 
wind, in both corona polarities: +ve ions when the wire is +ve wrt the skirt, 
-ve ions when you reverse polarity. Air ions of both signs have about the same 
mobility, hence the unchanged lift.

Of course as you correctly pointed out the wire cannot emit ions. It can only 
emit or receive electrons, and that's what it does actually at the end of the 
complex chemistry (about 40 reactions) occurring in the thin neutral plasma 
sheath (bright purple glow) around the wire. It's the plasma sheath that emits 
the monopolar (+ve or -ve but not both) ions in fact, not the wire. If you're 
interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics 
(thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time 
ago http://www.blazelabs.com/coronaradius.pdf

Michel

P.S. I wonder what's so hideous about EHD that so many apparently sensible 
people want to debunk it?

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters


> Hi Michel,
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in
> the ions to cause a lifter to lift.  What's more, you can reverse the
> polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same.  If
> electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in
> the other case.  Since there are no positively charged electrons and any
> protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different
> results, the ion wind theory is bust.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number
> can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily
>> interpret as being ion wind?
> 
> ...
> 
>> Dave
> 
> Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do
> the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif
> image makes it to the list)
> 
> 
> 
> Michel
> 
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

Michel Jullian wrote:


> If you reduce
> emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2
> out of the atmosphere soon enough.

They are talking about 1000 years at least for natural elimination :/


More like 300 to 600 years by my calculations. See chapters 8 and 9 in my book:

Suppose the goal is to reforest 3.9 million square kilometers, an 
area the size of U.S. farmland. This could be done with conventional 
techniques and CF- or fission-powered desalination. A temperate 
forest sequesters 1 to 10 of carbon per hectare, per year. After 30 
years, when the forest matures, that comes to about 150 tons per 
hectare. So the new forest would sequester 30 billion tons. Human 
activity adds 6.5 billion tons per year, so the forests would reverse 
the effects of 4 or 5 years of human activity.


Suppose the goal is to remove all CO2 added since the beginning of 
the industrial revolution (1800). Bear in mind that releases before 
1950 were much lower than now, and the whole of the 19th century was 
probably less than a decade now. Anyway, as trees mature and die off, 
you would cut the deadwood in both the new and old forests and bury 
the wood deep underground. This would not be disruptive even with 
today's technology, and it could be made far less disruptive. Assume 
you do this for area about 8 million square kilometers, you would 
have to repeat about 10 cycles to bury all of CO2. That would take 
about 300 years.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos

[peatbog]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> I've looked at the information on the Steorn website and have never seen
> anything that actually /said/ they have anything which self-runs.  

You're way off on that. the CEO has said several times that it is
self-running. I can't point you to the references, but I know I've
seen them. Ask on the forum if you want to pin it down.


Wesley Bruce wrote:
>> The bit that moves the escapement up and down with no
>> external input of energy: i.e. fingers or tweezers. 1600th century
>> clockwork.
>> If it is that simple the worlds scientific community will have a
>> complete and total fit. With wood, brass and twine Leanado Davinchi
>> could have built the thing.

>From what the ceo has said, it's simple, but I have the feeling it's
simple once you know how. The resin block holds a set of magnets in
a configuration that allows for the OU. Whatever the configuration
is, it's 3-dimensional. He's also said that nothing he has talked
about or shown, is anywhere near giving away what the magic
configuration is.

In case you're interested, the most interesting speculation I've
seen on the forum as to how the device works, is this thread:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=36611&page=1

It's neat the way he makes use of the 'lag' or 'viscosity' of
magnets in his speculation.

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Michel Jullian]

What's a few hundred years between friends? ;-)

How long would it take by harvesting algae on a large scale then?

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize


> Michel Jullian wrote:
> 
>> > If you reduce
>> > emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2
>> > out of the atmosphere soon enough.
>>
>>They are talking about 1000 years at least for natural elimination :/
> 
> More like 300 to 600 years by my calculations. See chapters 8 and 9 in my 
> book:
> 
> Suppose the goal is to reforest 3.9 million square kilometers, an 
> area the size of U.S. farmland. This could be done with conventional 
> techniques and CF- or fission-powered desalination. A temperate 
> forest sequesters 1 to 10 of carbon per hectare, per year. After 30 
> years, when the forest matures, that comes to about 150 tons per 
> hectare. So the new forest would sequester 30 billion tons. Human 
> activity adds 6.5 billion tons per year, so the forests would reverse 
> the effects of 4 or 5 years of human activity.
> 
> Suppose the goal is to remove all CO2 added since the beginning of 
> the industrial revolution (1800). Bear in mind that releases before 
> 1950 were much lower than now, and the whole of the 19th century was 
> probably less than a decade now. Anyway, as trees mature and die off, 
> you would cut the deadwood in both the new and old forests and bury 
> the wood deep underground. This would not be disruptive even with 
> today's technology, and it could be made far less disruptive. Assume 
> you do this for area about 8 million square kilometers, you would 
> have to repeat about 10 cycles to bury all of CO2. That would take 
> about 300 years.
> 
> - Jed
>

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Michel,

> Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges.

Was it necessary to make this dig?

> If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the 
> characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here 
> is one I wrote some time ago

I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away
from you and your condescending attitude as possible.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Nick Palmer]

Jed, I meant $1 billion dollars for the prize! Also the challenge is to come
up with a way of REMOVING millions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, not
just ways to put less of it in...

JR <>
This is true in the tropics but the further North or South one goes, the
less global cooling results because of the albedo effect.. Planting more 
forest in, say, Canada, can

actually be a source of global warming - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset and scroll down to "Climate
impacts"


Nick Palmer

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

Dave,

Honestly it was not a dig, a mere statement of a fact. The fact is not a 
disgrace either, no-one can be expected to know everything. The remark might 
have been legitimately interpreted as an insult if I had stopped at that maybe, 
but instead I endeavoured to explain what you had missed in your shrewd 
objection that wires can't possibly emit positive stuff. However if you still 
feel vindicated, please accept my apologies.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters


> Hi Michel,
> 
>> Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges.
> 
> Was it necessary to make this dig?
> 
>> If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the 
>> characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here 
>> is one I wrote some time ago
> 
> I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away
> from you and your condescending attitude as possible.
> 
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

Oops sorry my English, I meant insulted not vindicated.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters


> 
> Dave,
> 
> Honestly it was not a dig, a mere statement of a fact. The fact is not a 
> disgrace either, no-one can be expected to know everything. The remark might 
> have been legitimately interpreted as an insult if I had stopped at that 
> maybe, but instead I endeavoured to explain what you had missed in your 
> shrewd objection that wires can't possibly emit positive stuff. However if 
> you still feel vindicated, please accept my apologies.
> 
> Michel
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:47 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters
> 
> 
>> Hi Michel,
>> 
>>> Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges.
>> 
>> Was it necessary to make this dig?
>> 
>>> If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the 
>>> characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here 
>>> is one I wrote some time ago
>> 
>> I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away
>> from you and your condescending attitude as possible.
>> 
>> Dave
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

Nick Palmer wrote:


Planting more forest in, say, Canada, can
actually be a source of global warming - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset and scroll down to "Climate
impacts"


That assertion is a lot of crap. The whole article seems to be 
suffused with anti-environmentalist nonsense.


I am certain that returning Canada, the U.S. and other temperate 
areas to their original forestation would sequester gigantic amounts 
of CO2 and help reverse global warming.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Harry Veeder]

At the beginning of the derivation it says "ion mass is irrelevant here (no
inertia effects)".
If it is irrelevant than the derived force does not really correspond to a
thrust.

Harry


Michel Jullian wrote:

>> ...the thrust formula
>> I*d/mu where ion mobility mu...

> Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily
> interpret as being ion wind?
...
> Dave

Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do
the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif
image makes it to the list)
 
Michel
 

[Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, 
from Tom Valone:


www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv

- Jed

[Vo]: Antartic Data Does Not Support GW Models

[Terry Blanton]

http://physorg.com/news90782778.html

"Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions

A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows
that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had
been predicted by many global climate models. "

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion 
mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a 
helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a 
helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter.

BTW the momentum of the discharged+ejected ions is negligible compared to that 
of the neutrals they drag along, because their concentration is very small.

BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more 
rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters


> 
> At the beginning of the derivation it says "ion mass is irrelevant here (no
> inertia effects)".
> If it is irrelevant than the derived force does not really correspond to a
> thrust.
> 
> Harry
> 
> 
> Michel Jullian wrote:
> 
>>> ...the thrust formula
>>> I*d/mu where ion mobility mu...
> 
>> Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily
>> interpret as being ion wind?
> ...
>> Dave
> 
> Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do
> the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif
> image makes it to the list)
> 
> Michel
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:



Planting more forest in, say, Canada, can
actually be a source of global warming - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset and scroll down to "Climate
impacts"


That assertion is a lot of crap.


To put it another way, does anyone seriously assert that we should 
cut down all the trees in Canada to help prevent global warming?


Obviously, if we put the Earth back the way we found it a few hundred 
years ago, and stop putting CO2 into the air, global warming is 
likely to subside. As I said in the book, we may need to put a great 
deal of carbon back underground, where we found it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[Jones Beene]

Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the 
(unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who 
was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories

... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at 
some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share 
in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's 
Moss Landing team are the same in any event.


Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before 
getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron 
fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 
years - one must face several caveats.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27

Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of 
lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and 
CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may 
be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global 
change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - 
then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without 
harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient.


Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times 
more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia 
Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever 
thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big 
prize or not.




Jed Rothwell wrote:
Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from 
Tom Valone:


www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Michel,

> But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion
> mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a
> helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a
> helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter.

Several people have constructed lifters (and the related "thruster") to
block airflow, which clearly demonstrates that airflow has nothing to do
with the lift.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

Michel Jullian wrote:


What's a few hundred years between friends? ;-)

How long would it take by harvesting algae on a large scale then?


I do not know. However:

We have no simple method of harvesting ocean algae, whereas people 
have been harvesting trees for thousands of years. (It would be 
simple to harvest algae from ponds or tanks on land.)


Growing trees brings many other benefits, besides fixing the global 
warming problem. For example, it prevents erosion and helps to feed 
people and wildlife. I doubt there are many benefits to growing 
algae. Even if you can develop a method of harvesting it to use it as 
fuel the energy overhead would be large. I doubt many people or farm 
animals would want to eat the stuff.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Nick Palmer]

Jed wrote:-

<>

No-one is asserting this as far as I know. That would be bonkers. The Wiki 
article was talking about afforestation (planting forest on land that has 
never been a forest) or reforestation in far Northerly or Southerly 
latitudes where there is significant long lasting snow and ice on the 
ground. New forest is much darker and less reflective than snow and ice so 
absorbs more solar radiation hence more global warming potential. Obviously 
the growing forest absorbs carbon but boreal forest is pretty slow growing 
and so absorbs less per tree per year than tropical forest. The Polar areas 
seem to be the bits that are heating up fastest so extra heat there, whether 
through retention by global warming gases or by extra absorption by 
decreased albedo, is to be discouraged. Boreal forests are not the large 
transpirers of water vapour (hence generators of reflective cloud) that 
tropical forests are. This general reasoning is recognised by reputable 
carbon offset companies such as http://www.carbonneutral.com/ who 
concentrate on tropical  reforestation while allowing a few temperate ones 
to keep the customers happy.


Nick Palmer 

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Michel Jullian]

Your point about tropical forests being generators of reflective clouds makes 
me think that solving global warming by altering the albedo only (e.g. by 
making artificial clouds to reflect more of the incident sunlight, which may be 
possible on a large scale using ultrasonic nebulization) wouldn't qualify for 
the Branson prize either since it wouldn't decrease the CO2 :) On the contrary 
it would increase it since it would reduce photosynthesis!

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize


> Jed wrote:-
> 
> < cut down all the trees in Canada to help prevent global warming?>>
> 
> No-one is asserting this as far as I know. That would be bonkers. The Wiki 
> article was talking about afforestation (planting forest on land that has 
> never been a forest) or reforestation in far Northerly or Southerly 
> latitudes where there is significant long lasting snow and ice on the 
> ground. New forest is much darker and less reflective than snow and ice so 
> absorbs more solar radiation hence more global warming potential. Obviously 
> the growing forest absorbs carbon but boreal forest is pretty slow growing 
> and so absorbs less per tree per year than tropical forest. The Polar areas 
> seem to be the bits that are heating up fastest so extra heat there, whether 
> through retention by global warming gases or by extra absorption by 
> decreased albedo, is to be discouraged. Boreal forests are not the large 
> transpirers of water vapour (hence generators of reflective cloud) that 
> tropical forests are. This general reasoning is recognised by reputable 
> carbon offset companies such as http://www.carbonneutral.com/ who 
> concentrate on tropical  reforestation while allowing a few temperate ones 
> to keep the customers happy.
> 
> Nick Palmer 
>

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

The airflow blocking experiments I am aware of (e.g. at Blazelabs a continuous 
plate was used as the ion collector instead of a grid) demonstrated the 
opposite: no lift. Which is only to be expected: if you block the airflow by a 
plate attached to the lifter, the momentum given to the air is given back to 
the lifter when the air hits the plate, so the net thrust is zero. Would be the 
same if a helicoper carried a wide plate attached to its wheels, it wouldn't 
fly.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters


> Hi Michel,
> 
>> But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion
>> mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a
>> helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a
>> helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter.
> 
> Several people have constructed lifters (and the related "thruster") to
> block airflow, which clearly demonstrates that airflow has nothing to do
> with the lift.
> 
> Dave
>

[Vo]: Re: Re: Lifters

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

- Original Message - 
From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:06 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Re: Lifters


They work fine in a grounded metal cage in my experience. In the 
experiments you describe it may be more a question of the LDPE stopping 
the wind?


It depends on how far the cage is from the lifter electrodes. With no 
dielectric shield, you can sometimes still get a significant thrust, as the 
cage allows air to be blown nearly effortlessly out of the cage, moving the 
whole contraption. The cage was mainly put around the LDPE shield to 
eliminate (or at least strongly reduce) field interactions with nearby 
objects and air exterior to the dielectric shield.



7. It is not just ion wind,


Balderdash :) It's as much ion wind as helicopters are propeller generated 
wind.


Depends on what you call ion wind. If by ion wind, you mean electric wind, 
corona wind, etc., such as is emitted from a point or knife-edge electrode, 
then it is not just ion wind. If by ion wind you mean any wind generated by 
the presence of the charge itself, electric field and shape thereof, etc., 
then yes, I agree, just ion wind.


They can be made to work in oil, by sucking and pushing the oil past the 
electrodes. But again this is not reactionless/antigravity/what have you, 
its a simple toy that needs a dielectric medium to work in. In space, this 
thing is a real loser.


8. For posting these findings to several Yahoo groups, I have been 
banned.


So was I :) Maybe also because I said what I thought about Naudin's 
scientific skills one or two times :)


I never got quite that far, but I was flamed very heavily for what I said. 
As far as the scientific skills of the lifter crowdno comment


First ion wind devices are much older than that, cf Bondar's site, but 
admittedly they didn't fly (rotating nails this kind of stuff)


This is true, but the basic design of the lifter is so clearly Brown's 
electrokinetic apparatus, just folded into a triangle. In my view, given the 
experiments I have done, the lifter is nothing but a lightweight Ionic 
Breeze air-mover. Just holding a candle or lit cigar around an operating 
lifter is a very revealing thing.


--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters



What was the highest potential used in the vacuum experiments?


Around 20kV.


As I see it, there is a balance between the charges of the lifter and the
dipole structure of the surrounding medium.  It is my belief that if you 
are
going to increase the vacuum, then you also need to increase the 
potential.

This is not because of ion wind, but because the air molecules become
dipoles with much mass, which provide a more viscous dipole medium for the
charges on the lifter to operate against.


Either way, in an interstellar vacuum of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter, 
this thing will not give you any thrust. The hardcore lifter believer crowd 
thinks this thing is really antigravity or reactionless propulsion that is 
going to get us to Mars and beyond. It isn't, never was, barking up the 
wrong tree, etc.



My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
vacuum.  So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.


But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have 
100MV across the thing, it won't fly around.


As I understand it, the hard vacuum experiments did not include an 
increase
in potential.  So naturally, if the medium is less dense the lifter has 
less

to pull against and needs more potential.


I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a reaction 
"fan" that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the 
opinion that it is reactionless?


--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

- Original Message - 
From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters



Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale?
The weight should not change if it is ion wind.


I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant. 
Also did it set up as a torsion arm. Some tests have been done with digital 
scales that give odd readings. Things like this must never be tested with 
digital scales...they are easily spoofed by nearby fields, especially when 
people are using high frequency supplies, like old computer monitors, to 
drive the lifters.


--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[Michel Jullian]

Mmm, growing the algae without harvesting them _could_ be sufficient (pending 
calculations), but only for a one off operation: present excess CO2 sequestered 
into the living algae biomass increase, period. Could win the prize though. 

What surprises me most with this scheme is that one should need to bring 
fertilizers into the oceans, which already contain all the minerals you can 
dream of in amply sufficient concentrations. The increased growth action of the 
dust, if confirmed, might not be one of fertilization, maybe it increases 
photosynthesis by reflecting/diffusing the sunlight rather.

Anyway, back to the harvesting hypothesis, whether or not we can stimulate 
growth one way or another.

I have an idea for that, it's a bit... well here it is anyway. Highly efficient 
phytoplankton harvesters + phytoplankton -to-oil converters already exist 
actually, they are called whales :))) I guess you see what I am coming to: 
instead of harvesting the algae ourselves we would heavily repopulate the 
oceans with herds of whales (porn movies -or audio clips rather- featuring 
actors of the right species like they successfully use to repopulate pandas in 
China??), the whales would harvest the algae and process them into whale oil, 
and then we would harvest the whales and sequester the oil, plus use some of it 
as fuel.

Sounds awful and cruel I realize (reminds me of that whale briefly brought into 
existence together with the petunia pot in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the 
Galaxy, was that in the film Fred?), but... if our own survival is at stake, 
well... your thoughts welcome :)

Michel


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC


> Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has "borrowed" the 
> (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who 
> was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories
> 
> ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at 
> some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share 
> in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's 
> Moss Landing team are the same in any event.
> 
> Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before 
> getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron 
> fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 
> years - one must face several caveats.
> http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27
> 
> Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of 
> lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and 
> CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may 
> be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global 
> change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - 
> then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without 
> harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient.
> 
> Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times 
> more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia 
> Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever 
> thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big 
> prize or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from 
>> Tom Valone:
>> 
>> www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv
>> 
>> - Jed
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[John Berry]

Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's not burnt
why not make use of what you can rather than just burying.

And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see:
http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm

So location is key, as is choosing a very fast growing tree.

Also Corella and other micro seaweeds are incredibly good as a natural
supplement.

So a bit of both, also the micro seaweed can be used to fertilize the land
as discussed.

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Kyle,

> > My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
> > vacuum.  So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
> 
> But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have
> 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around.

Space-time is a medium.  Haven't you ever heard of General Relativity
theory?  Matter exerts a force on space-time.

> I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a
> reaction
> "fan" that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the
> opinion that it is reactionless?

Nothing is reactionless.  I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a
quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles.  Matter can directly
interact with space-time.

However, lifters are not very efficient.  I'm working on a different method,
which creates space-time bubbles around a vehicle.  The vehicle can then
move free from gravity.  It is much like a soap bubble, which separates a
region of air from another region of air and yet moves within it.  

With the space-time bubble there is no path for the gravitational field of
the Earth to interact with the mass of the encapsulated vehicle.  This
allows the vehicle to merely float in space, whether on the surface of the
planet or in the vacuum of empty space.

The power system for this method is based upon Tesla's Wardencliffe
technology.  I already have the miniature Wardencliffe system built and the
special coils for creating the bubble and driving the vehicle are half
constructed.  With any luck, I'll get the wireless power transmission system
operational tomorrow, but the weather isn't looking so good.  It might have
to wait until Monday.

Dave

RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[David Thomson]

I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air.  We spent
150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the
biosphere.

Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during
the time of the dinosaurs?  Our planet went for hundreds of millions of
years with no ice ages and there was 1000 times more biomatter in the
biosystem than there is today with 1000s more species.  

If people want to take the carbon back out, all they need to do is send
another comet into Earth's atmosphere.  If I had my way, we would double
carbon production in hopes of putting a permanent end to the present Ice
Age.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Michel Jullian]

Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :)

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "David Thomson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:48 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Lifters


> Hi Kyle,
> 
>> > My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
>> > vacuum.  So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
>> 
>> But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have
>> 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around.
> 
> Space-time is a medium.  Haven't you ever heard of General Relativity
> theory?  Matter exerts a force on space-time.
> 
>> I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a
>> reaction
>> "fan" that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the
>> opinion that it is reactionless?
> 
> Nothing is reactionless.  I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a
> quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles.  Matter can directly
> interact with space-time.
> 
> However, lifters are not very efficient.  I'm working on a different method,
> which creates space-time bubbles around a vehicle.  The vehicle can then
> move free from gravity.  It is much like a soap bubble, which separates a
> region of air from another region of air and yet moves within it.  
> 
> With the space-time bubble there is no path for the gravitational field of
> the Earth to interact with the mass of the encapsulated vehicle.  This
> allows the vehicle to merely float in space, whether on the surface of the
> planet or in the vacuum of empty space.
> 
> The power system for this method is based upon Tesla's Wardencliffe
> technology.  I already have the miniature Wardencliffe system built and the
> special coils for creating the bubble and driving the vehicle are half
> constructed.  With any luck, I'll get the wireless power transmission system
> operational tomorrow, but the weather isn't looking so good.  It might have
> to wait until Monday.
> 
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry wrote:

Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's 
not burnt why not make use of what you can rather than just burying.


Of course. I meant we should bury the wood after we make use of it. 
For example, with paper pulp that can not longer be recycled, or with 
wood from torn-down buildings.




And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see:
http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm


Yes. I tried to find an average value for different species. I 
believe the amount of carbon does not vary as much because the 
fast-growing species, such as pine, tend to have light wood.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Lifters

[David Thomson]

Hi Michel,

> Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :)

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Mike Carrell]

Jed wrote,

I am certain that returning Canada, the U.S. and other temperate areas to 
their original forestation would sequester gigantic amounts of CO2 and 
help reverse global warming.


Originally, I believe, the US area was one deciduous forest all the way to 
the Missouri river and perhaps beyond, with feet of rich topsoil below. 
Slash and burn agriculture worked to clear the land and create one of the 
greatest agricultural areas in the world, in the future responsible for 
feeding lots and lots of people. Reforestation of that particular land would 
reduce the food supply. Of course, that precious topsoil is being lost by 
current agriculatural practices which will eventually need reform.


Mike Carrell 

[Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 16, 2007

[Akira Kawasaki]

-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki
>From: What's New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 16, 2007 1:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 16, 2007

WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 16 Feb 07   Washington, DC  

1. UNCONSCIOUS: PRINCETON ENGINEERING ANOMALIES RESEARCH (PEAR). 
The closing of the PEAR laboratory at Princeton, after 28 years
of non-accomplishment, may be a sign of declining interest in the
paranormal, or it may just be an anomaly.  Either way, Princeton
University endured the embarrassment without compromising on the
principle of tenure, which protects the right to hold minority
views.  Science is conditional.  If someone comes up with better
measurements or a better analysis, the textbooks are rewritten. 
The problem is that in the paranormal world, nothing ever gets
better.  In recent years, PEAR became the focus of the Global
Consciousness Project, involving a hundred or so researchers at
dozens of sites around the world, looking at the output of random
number generators (RNGs).  Exciting huh?  They report "deviations
from randomness" before major disasters, such as 9/11 and the
"Christmas tsunami" in the Indian Ocean.  They believe this is
evidence of global consciousness.  Or maybe RNGs are causing
disasters http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn021805.html ?

2. INCONSISTENT: HOW TO GET THE BRONTOSAURUS ONBOARD NOAH'S ARK.  
"Scientist of faith" is an oxymoron.  The University of Rhode
Island recently accepted the dissertation of a doctoral candidate
in paleontology, Marcus Ross, who just happens to also be a
young-Earth creationist.  His thesis is on mosasaurs, that lived
65 million years before Ross believes Earth was created.  How
does Ross deal with this?  He says he uses different paradigms. 
Most scientists who regard themselves as religious, and there are
many, interpret the scriptures metaphorically.  Even so, they
often partition their lives, treating faith as a virtue on one
side of the partition, and a scientific sin on the other.  Dr.
Ross, meanwhile, now teaches earth science at Jerry Falwell's
Liberty University.  He can't do much harm there.  Wonder what
paradigm he uses?  As the song goes, "Brother can you paradigm?"

3. REPLACED: NEW KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD SETS NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS. 
Tuesday, the Kansas board of education scrapped creationist-
inspired science education standards that represented Darwinian
evolution as scientifically controversial.   Only adopted in
November 2005 http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn05.html
the anti-evolution standards had not yet had any effect. 
Instead, the voters replaced the school board, and the new board
replaced the science education standards.  We can only imagine
what new strategy creationists will come up.  

4. UNCLEARED: LIKE THAT OTHER FUSION, BUBBLE FUSION DRAGS ON.  
A year ago Purdue announced a full review of the "bubble fusion"
claims of Rusi Taleyarkhan, but four months later a story in
Nature raised serious questions about the pace and secrecy of the
review.  This week, the university seemed to clear him, but
supplied little detail.  Taleyarkhan says he feels vindicated. 
Others are not so sure.  It doesn't seem quite over.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org
What's New is moving to a different listserver and our
subscription process has changed. To change your subscription
status please visit this link:
http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnew&A=1

Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[Nick Palmer]

David Thomson wrote:-

>


E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that 
"paradise" involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably 
violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of 
species would be wiped out. Prove that it will be a gentle transition and 
people may listen. Sheer cold logic says that you cannot prove this so 
please stop muddying the waters. Your position, like that dangerous lunatic 
Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt 
lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum...



Nick Palmer 

RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[David Thomson]

Hi Nick,

> E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that
> "paradise" involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably
> violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of
> species would be wiped out. 

There is no two ways about it, you are absolutely correct.  That is why our
efforts should be spent on survival, not slowing down the process.  

> Prove that it will be a gentle transition and people may listen. 

No chance!  There is not going to be a gentle transition.  Our options right
now are to go through a complete climate reversal (ice advance), or a
complete terraforming of the Earth.  Our sights should be set on future
generations.  It is very selfish of us to think only of our own unfortunate
situation and not help prevent future generations from sliding back into a
primitive state.

> Sheer cold logic says that you cannot prove this so
> please stop muddying the waters. Your position, like that dangerous
> lunatic
> Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt
> lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum...

No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate.
Instead of looking only at the present time, I'm looking ahead at multiple
generations of humans.  If we don't start focusing heavily on survival,
future generations simply will not survive.  Climate change is inevitable,
and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the
biosphere, or not.

I have researched climate change for the past decade and started a web site
on my observations at www.terracycles.com.  My climate research came to a
halt when I discovered a completely new physics paradigm, which could
greatly advance the human species and our level of technology.  

I know Michel thought I was kidding her about building a wireless power
transmission system.  She probably also did not recognize the vehicle in the
space-time bubble as the "flying triangle" vehicle reported by so many
people and seen by myself from only 100 feet away.  I have spent my whole
life doing independent research in many areas of knowledge.

Trust me, the best way to deal with climate change is to go through it head
first and return the Earth back to its stable condition.  Yes, it will be
very painful, but it is inevitable.  

We tend to look back on civilization 5000 years ago and say, "what primitive
people they were, glad I'm living in modern technology."  And these same
people say, "Wow, those primitive slaves really had it in them to carry huge
stone blocks with ropes and logs to build those pyramids."  Even though it
is obvious from the weathering on the Sphinx that it existed previous to the
last global climate change event, we are still in denial that humanity was
once advanced to our present level, if not more advanced.  It is likely that
civilization has advanced several times in the past 100,000 years, and has
been wiped out each time.  My desire is to see an end to this cycle so that
humans can have a chance to evolve into a truly intelligent species.

Far from muddying the waters, I'm trying to clear them up so we can see what
is really going on.  I'm also looking ahead and acting on behalf of all
those unborn survivors who will only hear stories about the great
civilization that fell due to climate change.  Some may wonder why our
forbearers did not think as much about our own safety, but here we are with
the potential to help future generations.  Whining about the coming
disasters and shutting down our economy out of fear is not going to help our
children.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[John Berry]

On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Your position, like that dangerous
> lunatic
> Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus "Dirty Harry" who "felt
> lucky" and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum...

No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate.
Instead of looking only at the present time



I beg to differ.

You don't know for a fact that it will lead to what you envision, nor do you
know if the consequences will be worth it to human, animal or vegetable.
(mineral should be fine ;)

What species won't survive the violent changes? Which ones won't survive
their new environment?

And you are proposing to help the earth by massive pollution!

Also there is the very real possibility that in all those millions of years
something has changed and the earth can't be reset.

There is a fringe theory that says that there used to be a canopy or rings
of water/ice that caused the floods (on coming down) which are universally
present in pretty much all peoples history. (Atlantis, Genesis as well as
most/all native legends and even some assorted scientific oddities)

So all things considered I don't think you can really be assured it even
could work if it is desirable which it is most likely not.


, I'm looking ahead at multiple

generations of humans.  If we don't start focusing heavily on survival,
future generations simply will not survive.  Climate change is inevitable



That's a theory not a fact.

,

and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the
biosphere, or not.



Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish.
Granted if it was naturally going to happen it might take some significant
intervention, but it is possible to reverse it not that we know that it's
going to happen anyway.

RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[David Thomson]

Hi John,

> Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish.

Obviously it cannot be stopped.  It has already happened a dozen times in
the past 120,000 years.  What makes you think we are special and climate
change was not going to happen to us?

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC

[John Berry]

Human achievements are significant.
Ultimately almost anything is possible, some things man has envisioned doing
in the future:

Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit.
Make nano machines

Both of those may even be near future.

For the somewhat more distant future there are thoughts such a traveling to
distant stars and beyond.
Dyson spheres.
Tippler time travel by rotating a stack of neutron stars and other stellar
engineering.

And of course terraforming other planets.

So obviously it IS  possible, it is within man's grasp to either correct the
current greenhouse gas problem and or stop any adverse global weather
condition.

How easy or difficult depends on how such a goal is achieved, how subtle and
sophisticated or ingenious the techniques used are, for instance I  believe
in cloud busting and other such environmental engineering by the subtle
energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say
it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but
either way it plainly IS possible.



On 2/17/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi John,

> Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish.

Obviously it cannot be stopped.  It has already happened a dozen times in
the past 120,000 years.  What makes you think we are special and climate
change was not going to happen to us?

Dave

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Harry Veeder]

Michel Jullian wrote:

> But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion
> mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a
> helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a
> helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter.

Ok. I presumed the phrase "ion mass is irrelevant" meant "ion mass
is physically irrelevant".

> BTW the momentum of the discharged+ejected ions is negligible compared to that
> of the neutrals they drag along, because their concentration is very small.
> 
> BTW2 the derivation is elegant but admittedly it could be a little more
> rigorous wrt distinguishing between scalars and vectors.
> 
> Michel

Harry

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Harry Veeder]

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Lifters
> 
> 
>> Did they place the box (with lifter inside) on a scale?
>> The weight should not change if it is ion wind.
> 
> I did it with a balance beam and a pointer, and saw nothing significant.
> Also did it set up as a torsion arm.

How did you calibrate your scale?


> Some tests have been done with digital
> scales that give odd readings. Things like this must never be tested with
> digital scales...they are easily spoofed by nearby fields, especially when
> people are using high frequency supplies, like old computer monitors, to
> drive the lifters.
> 
> --Kyle 
> 

Harry

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[Harry Veeder]

Michel Jullian wrote:

> The airflow blocking experiments I am aware of (e.g. at Blazelabs a continuous
> plate was used as the ion collector instead of a grid) demonstrated the
> opposite: no lift. Which is only to be expected: if you block the airflow by a
> plate attached to the lifter, the momentum given to the air is given back to
> the lifter when the air hits the plate, so the net thrust is zero.

You when you say no lift, do you mean no movement upwards was detected or no
weight change was detected ...or?

Harry

Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize

[Steven Krivit]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain Mr. Branson.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/SR/CashIn/CashonClimateChange.html

Re: [Vo]: Lifters

[thomas malloy]

David Thomson wrote:


Hi Kyle,



to push against? Or are you of the
opinion that it is reactionless?



Nothing is reactionless.  I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a
quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles.  Matter can directly
interact with space-time.


On the contrary. I have mentioned Robert Cook's inertial drive on 
Vortex, and last year someone posted on the emdrive.com .


IMHO, a working inertial drive, ID, is head spinningly weird, there's 
just no reason for it to work. I'm reminded of Howard, who used to teach 
Chemical Engineering at the U of MN. He said that a working inertial 
drive would upset his paradign of reality. I always wanted to go visit 
the old boy with a working ID, especially one mounded in a pickup truck, 
one with no tires.



--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---

Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Lifters

[Harry Veeder]

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:06 PM
> Subject: [Vo]: Re: Lifters
> 
> 
>> They work fine in a grounded metal cage in my experience. In the
>> experiments you describe it may be more a question of the LDPE stopping
>> the wind?
> 
> It depends on how far the cage is from the lifter electrodes. With no
> dielectric shield, you can sometimes still get a significant thrust, as the
> cage allows air to be blown nearly effortlessly out of the cage, moving the
> whole contraption. The cage was mainly put around the LDPE shield to
> eliminate (or at least strongly reduce) field interactions with nearby
> objects and air exterior to the dielectric shield.
> 
>>> 7. It is not just ion wind,
>> 
>> Balderdash :) It's as much ion wind as helicopters are propeller generated
>> wind.
> 
> Depends on what you call ion wind. If by ion wind, you mean electric wind,
> corona wind, etc., such as is emitted from a point or knife-edge electrode,
> then it is not just ion wind. If by ion wind you mean any wind generated by
> the presence of the charge itself, electric field and shape thereof, etc.,
> then yes, I agree, just ion wind.
> 
> They can be made to work in oil, by sucking and pushing the oil past the
> electrodes. But again this is not reactionless/antigravity/what have you,
> its a simple toy that needs a dielectric medium to work in. In space, this
> thing is a real loser.


I notice you said "they can be MADE TO WORK by sucking and pushing"
Evidently they only work in the oil medium if another force exists
to suck and push the oil force.

Now if such extra force is required when the apparatus is in an oil medium,
does it not stand to reason that an extra force (albeit much
smaller in magnitude) is needed for the apparatus to work in air?

Harry