[Vo]:
Well, since the French translation doesn't come... ;-) Heatless explosion, interesting, I had never heard of this although when you think about it there are well known chemical reactions where volume increases while heat is absorbed, namely evaporations, so if you combine any heat-releasing reaction, explosive or not, with an evaporation reaction absorbing exactly the same heat you get an explosion which doesn't release any heat. Elementary thermochemistry, doesn't violate any LoT I am afraid. Michel (a good soul not censored by Jones's system please hit reply and send) - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com; Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Loop closed Michel, BTW your challenge/riddle beats me, can the thing be made OU after all? If you mean in a circular way - are there specific demonstrable physical violations of the LoT, aside from LENR; and is any example amenable to being harnessed in a device which incorporates a heat pump? If that is the question - and aside from LENR effects, and the hydrino, and high-efficiency electrolysis, already mentioned - any or all of which can be used in conjunction with a heat pump situation, there are at least two more of these anomalous cross-category effects. One is IPE and the other is the entropic explosion, or the heatless bomb. By cross-category effect, I am referring to the lesser-known effects which are not merely thermodynamic, and which may involve new physics - either nuclear (as in induced photon emission = IPE) or supra-chemical reactions. Supra-chemical reactions are reactions in which atoms interact in ways which are not nuclear but involve more than valence electrons - for instance: the k-shell electrons, the Mossbauer effect and the Auger cascade - or in the case of the hydrino, a prolonged condition below ground state in which angular momentum, or some other form of energy may be withdrawn - which level of energy puts the reaction above (supra) the well-know chemical reactions, which do obey the LoT. Well, to cut to the chase, some time ago I mentioned the situation of entropic explosion. Since you probably missed a golden opportunity for further enlightenment at that time, as it was one of those posts where the subject line turned up missing, I will enclose an amended version below. I appreciate the fact that you do not enjoy long postings - and my apologies in advance for that. I would try to shorten it more, or translate it into French if I had the time, but for now, this will have to do. Jones Subject: Entropic Explosion (heatless bomb) First a definition: Specific impulse - A term used in rocketry or munitions, commonly abbreviated (Isp) which rates the efficiency of a propulsion system by the impulse (i.e. the change in momentum) per unit of propellant. The numerical dimension of specific impulse is either impulse per unit mass, or impulse per unit time; differing by a factor of g, the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth. For example, the Specific impulse of hydrogen peroxide as a monopropellant is about 160-175 (sec), which is most amazing since when burned as a bipropellant with gasoline, this figure only goes up to about 225, not even double. And this is only slightly less than hydrogen burned with liguid oxygen - yet - the net heat energy of the gasoline is 13 times greater per volume than the heat energy of the peroxide. Huge anomaly. COP =5 ??? read on The anomaly, if you need it to be spelled out, is that the heat energy of the propellant can be only moderately related to its specific impulse. Common sense scientific teaching indicates otherwise. There are only a couple of chemicals where this particular anomaly (of heat energy not correlating to thrust) occurs and they involve phase change. A particular terrorist explosive, the name of which need not be mentioned for present purposes, is quietly in the science news lately for a number of security-related reasons. But for alternative energy RD, the big news of interest is related to a surprising but little-known physical anomaly of the chemical, which is even absent from many (all) older University level textbooks. That explosive is peroxide based, but very different from conventional explosives in that it does NOT release heat during the explosion. Did the full implications of that feature hit you yet? If not, let me repeat: this chemical explosive does not release heat during the violent explosion! At least not very much. But it will definitely kill you and creates the normal amount of explosive damage. Irony-of ironies ! Would not it be some kind of poetic justice in the present socio-political climate if the fear-product of Islamic terrorism led directly to a major alternative-energy advance - which
[Vo]: Re: Low Temperature-High Pressure Hydroreforming of Cellulose
Getting from cellulose (biomass wastes) to petrofuels by thermchemical means is hampered by the propensity of low temperature formation of char due to promotion of high exotherm Carbon-Carbon bonds. Might a low temperature-high pressure hydroreforming process ( less than100 C ) using a dispersed metal catalyst effect the favorable water-cellulose reaction: C6H10-O5 + 7 H2O 6 CO2 + 12 H2 + heat Basics of Interaction and Auto-Dissociation of water on solid surfaces: http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_SSR_1987_T.pdf Water on Silver: http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_JVSTa_1987_B.pdf Fred
[Vo]:
Well, since the French translation doesn't come... ;-) Heatless explosion, interesting, I had never heard of this although when you think about it there are well known chemical reactions where volume increases while heat is absorbed, namely evaporations, so if you combine any heat-releasing reaction, explosive or not, with an evaporation reaction absorbing exactly the same heat you get an explosion which doesn't release any heat. Elementary thermochemistry, doesn't violate any LoT I am afraid. Michel (a good soul not censored by Jones's system please hit reply and send) - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com; Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: Re: Loop closed Michel, BTW your challenge/riddle beats me, can the thing be made OU after all? If you mean in a circular way - are there specific demonstrable physical violations of the LoT, aside from LENR; and is any example amenable to being harnessed in a device which incorporates a heat pump? If that is the question - and aside from LENR effects, and the hydrino, and high-efficiency electrolysis, already mentioned - any or all of which can be used in conjunction with a heat pump situation, there are at least two more of these anomalous cross-category effects. One is IPE and the other is the entropic explosion, or the heatless bomb. By cross-category effect, I am referring to the lesser-known effects which are not merely thermodynamic, and which may involve new physics - either nuclear (as in induced photon emission = IPE) or supra-chemical reactions. Supra-chemical reactions are reactions in which atoms interact in ways which are not nuclear but involve more than valence electrons - for instance: the k-shell electrons, the Mossbauer effect and the Auger cascade - or in the case of the hydrino, a prolonged condition below ground state in which angular momentum, or some other form of energy may be withdrawn - which level of energy puts the reaction above (supra) the well-know chemical reactions, which do obey the LoT. Well, to cut to the chase, some time ago I mentioned the situation of entropic explosion. Since you probably missed a golden opportunity for further enlightenment at that time, as it was one of those posts where the subject line turned up missing, I will enclose an amended version below. I appreciate the fact that you do not enjoy long postings - and my apologies in advance for that. I would try to shorten it more, or translate it into French if I had the time, but for now, this will have to do. Jones Subject: Entropic Explosion (heatless bomb) First a definition: Specific impulse - A term used in rocketry or munitions, commonly abbreviated (Isp) which rates the efficiency of a propulsion system by the impulse (i.e. the change in momentum) per unit of propellant. The numerical dimension of specific impulse is either impulse per unit mass, or impulse per unit time; differing by a factor of g, the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth. For example, the Specific impulse of hydrogen peroxide as a monopropellant is about 160-175 (sec), which is most amazing since when burned as a bipropellant with gasoline, this figure only goes up to about 225, not even double. And this is only slightly less than hydrogen burned with liguid oxygen - yet - the net heat energy of the gasoline is 13 times greater per volume than the heat energy of the peroxide. Huge anomaly. COP =5 ??? read on The anomaly, if you need it to be spelled out, is that the heat energy of the propellant can be only moderately related to its specific impulse. Common sense scientific teaching indicates otherwise. There are only a couple of chemicals where this particular anomaly (of heat energy not correlating to thrust) occurs and they involve phase change. A particular terrorist explosive, the name of which need not be mentioned for present purposes, is quietly in the science news lately for a number of security-related reasons. But for alternative energy RD, the big news of interest is related to a surprising but little-known physical anomaly of the chemical, which is even absent from many (all) older University level textbooks. That explosive is peroxide based, but very different from conventional explosives in that it does NOT release heat during the explosion. Did the full implications of that feature hit you yet? If not, let me repeat: this chemical explosive does not release heat during the violent explosion! At least not very much. But it will definitely kill you and creates the normal amount of explosive damage. Irony-of ironies ! Would not it be some kind of poetic justice in the present socio-political climate if the fear-product of Islamic terrorism led directly to a major alternative-energy advance - which
[Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
If this gets through with the subject line intact, then the subject line disappearing problem is related to the body of the message, since I am replying to the same post as I replied in my previous post which did lose the subject line. If it doesn't... well I don't know :) Michel
RE: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
I'm not sure I follow you. If the Vort messaging system stripped the subject line from your original post how could your subsequent post suddenly have the subject line placed back in - if you are replying using a subsequent post where the subject line no longer exists. Or is that not what you're saying. When you state body of the message are you referring to text within the SUBJECT LINE, or within the text of your message? I sure would like to understand this anomaly because it has happened to me as well, just as it has happened to many other Vort posters! Regards, Steven vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) If this gets through with the subject line intact, then the subject line disappearing problem is related to the body of the message, since I am replying to the same post as I replied in my previous post which did lose the subject line. If it doesn't... well I don't know :) Michel
Re: [Vo]: Beardem
thomas malloy wrote: Michael Jullian wrote; \ Sorry if he is a friend of yours, but maybe his particular definition for COP can be guessed by reading this page... http://www.randi.org/jr/051702.html (in which Naudin is mistakenly taken for a scientist BTW, Randi even calls him Dr Naudin :) ...or any of the 1 others Google finds when you search: tom bearden fraud Ha, Dr. Tom Bearden and fraud, yes, I would expect at least 10,000 hits. OTOH, I'd love to see them take Randi's money. I don't think it's possible to get the money even if a person was legit. IMHO the probability of Randi being a fraud is higher than Tom Bearden. I've seen cases where a person challenged Randi. After I studied this person it seemed they were either extremely clever or legit. Anyhow, Randi's team canceled the whole thing based on a ridiculous excuse that Randi's life would be in danger, lol. I smell a rat and it's name is Randi. Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! Great, so $1360 a month, . Ends up about $800 for me a month, not including picking up my fiancee from her workplace. I suppose she could quit working at the grocery store and save that gasolinemaybe high-minded individuals like Jed don't need to eat? Do they derive energy from cold fusion instead of food? I imagine someone will suggest I use the train or the bus. Won't work. No mass transit on that scale here. Believe me, when times were really hard a few years back, I tried to find a way to take the bus to work. I would either get there a couple hours early, and home a couple hours late, ruining my day and that of my fiancee, making her have to walk a long way home from work in the cold and snow, or I would get to work an hour late, and leave an hour early. It doesn't work. Jed wants this idiotic tax on mileage. But he has no solution to the real problem. This is a typical reaction these days: working on real, hardball, nuts-and-bolts solutions is just too hard...so instead, lets just be lazy and put blanket solutions over the problems to try and feel good about having done something. I have heard it suggested that global warming deniers be punished as criminals. What about people who propose blanket solutions that do more harm than help? let's hope Jed doesn't get a job in government The Republicans would like it thoughit would make Bush's reign of terror look benign in comparison. But at the very least Jed's figures are 10 times too high at least, possible s much as 100 times too high. It is not just that it is that the proposed solution is absolute stupidity. But again, proposing stupidity is easy, finding real answers (or at least trying to) is bloody hard. It comes down to how motivated a person is. Or maybe I am just wasting my time looking for answers. I'll come clean a bit for a moment, and reveal a small part of my personal research, which is, trying to develop add-ons for internal combustion engines that dramatically improve efficiency and lower emissions, and in a way that is simple to repair, cheap enough for anyone, and can be adapted to existing engines. I have had failures, I have had successes. I pushed the mileage of my previous vehicle, a 1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo with a 5.0L V8 up to 28mpg on the highway. This was with simple modifications, like a custom made camshaft, improving the spark delivery, beefing up the ignition system and timing advance, and a lot of trial and error with the Edelbrock carburetor. 28mpg is better than most passenger cars get (when tested in real life, not on the dyno), even by today's standards (excepting the hybrids, which are by no means the poor-worker's car). The exhaust had almost no smell to it, disturbingly little. This was with no catalytic converters, no AIR system, no evaporative emissions system, no EGR valve, no crap of that nature that serves only to net the dealer a lot of money when it invariably fails. I had not progressed yet to putting an exhaust heat driven system on it to further increase the efficiency (to my knowledge, that part is somewhat novel, so I won't get into it here) nor did I get a chance to spray atomized water into the intake, allowing me to further lean the mixture and advance timing without spark knock. It was before I got to do this, that the ultra-left high-minded people decided that my car was not acceptable to drive, for lack of emissions systems and having a swapped motor. When I tried to explain what I was doing, they said no. I tried to register it custom, they said no. I begged them to do a 4 gas analysis to prove that it was clean, they refused to look at it. Isn't it ironic that the high-minders who want to save us all from supposed global warming are the ones who actively seek out and destroy research? Isn't it ironic that if Jed got his way, all the money I make would be diverted to paying his stupid tax, and there would be none left for me to use to look for real world solutions, instead of his easy chair proposals? Much less for me to provide for my family? Hell, I'm not even married to Natalia yet and I am already taking care of her family! Her father in law apparently has ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), so I have to help with that as well. Am I required to? No. Am I obligated to by my beliefs? YES. I spend nothing on myself besides my research, which ultimately is for the service of mankind. I spend on others to help. You want to tax all of my income away, Jed, so I can do no help for others? You are a worse enemy to the people than any poor bastard driving a junker car. The hurt and wake of destruction you would bring, should you ever ascend to a position of power is staggering. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! Turn up the heater, do go for a drive in the summer and find less depressing music and maybe environment. Unfortunately, I can't turn off my thoughts. My mind is always racing, I don't get times when I have complete relaxation of the mind. But hey, a drive sounds nice. I reckon I will take the long way to the bank this morning, and the long way home. Of course there is an answer to all of this, but it won't be found in your current mindset... You are right. When I am depressed, I am not nearly so productive as when I am in a more positive mindset. Be proactive and productive, change things don't just reduce how fast you are taking a part in destroying the world, be a force for good not a smaller force for bad. I'm trying to. Believe me. Its just hard, sometimes so hard it hurts. Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) [MIBs]
Michel Jullian wrote: If this gets through with the subject line intact, then the subject line disappearing problem is related to the body of the message, since I am replying to the same post as I replied in my previous post which did lose the subject line. If it doesn't... well I don't know :) Michel The subject line made it. :) A lot of my Vo emails were never delivered last year. Then I began complaining and the problem suddenly vanished ... knock on wood! Regards, Paul
[Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis)
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:32 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) I'm not sure I follow you. If the Vort messaging system stripped the subject line from your original post how could your subsequent post suddenly have the subject line placed back in - if you are replying using a subsequent post where the subject line no longer exists. Or is that not what you're saying. No, what I mean is that I made two posts P1 and P2 replying to one same post P0, so the subject lines of P1 and P2 were strictly identical, automatically derived from P0's subject line by my email software. P1 had its subject line stripped, whereas P2 had its subject line intact. Conclusion: the problem doesn't lie in the original subject line itself. The bodies (contents, excluding the subject line) were different, so maybe the problem lies in the body, or in the length of the body (P2 was shorter). It's the first time I experienced the problem, this may be because I usually write shorter posts. Michel When you state body of the message are you referring to text within the SUBJECT LINE, or within the text of your message? I sure would like to understand this anomaly because it has happened to me as well, just as it has happened to many other Vort posters! Regards, Steven vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Re: Loop closed? (was Re: High efficiency electrolysis) If this gets through with the subject line intact, then the subject line disappearing problem is related to the body of the message, since I am replying to the same post as I replied in my previous post which did lose the subject line. If it doesn't... well I don't know :) Michel
[Vo]: looking for long wavelength LED's
Hi, Does anyone have access to a long wavelength LED = 1300 nm? If so then I would ***very much*** appreciate it if you could perform a simple voltage measurement experiment, or better yet I would be more than happy to purchase your mid-IR LED. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Re: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I think you're correct Michel. Hopefully researchers will *never* lose patience or hope!!! All good things usually take time. Perhaps this is a poor example, but it took ~21 years for Einsteins paper on the Photoelectric effect to result in the official name Photon. Or ~87 years to birth QM. I'm sure you have better examples to match your POV's. Regards, Paul Lowrance Michel Jullian wrote: I think it may be real, but not indisputably so yet. Indisputability is very difficult to get, which IMHO is a shame after 18 years since the first CF experiment. Hence my suggestion of a COP cop lab, which would have other uses than CF of course. Michel (*) In any system, even cold, the fusion rate is never absolute zero. - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:42 PM Subject: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
It's a chicken and egg problem, money can only come with demonstrable success, and success once every 6 months is hard to demonstrate obviously. What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: It's a chicken and egg problem, money can only come with demonstrable success, Many eggs have been laid. The chickens are now growing. Success has now been demonstrated over 200 times and people who study the effect every day have a much better success rate than mine. How much success is required? and success once every 6 months is hard to demonstrate obviously. What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
BlankHowdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ? Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
[Vo]: DOE invests $168 million in solar technology
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21596hed=U.S.+Funds+Shine+%24168M+on+Solarsector=Industriessubsector=Energy - The U.S. Department of Energy on Thursday announced it will invest $168 million in 13 solar technology projects in the next three years as a move to bring down the cost of solar energy. Solar technology can play a crucial role in moving toward affordable net zero energy homes and businesses, which combine energy efficiency and renewable energy produced on-site, DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said in a statement. The investment gives support to lower-cost solar panels innovations that promise to bring cheaper panels to market, ushering in cheaper access to solar electricity. The U.S. government's goal is to increase the photovoltaic solar power capacity from 240 megawatts to 2,850 megawatts by 2010. DOE estimates that such capacity would reduce the cost of solar electricity to $0.05 to $0.10 per kilowatt-hour. The current level is $0.18 to $0.23--a price that is not competitive with conventional electricity, which usually falls below $0.10 per kilowatt-hour. Companies chosen for funding included Konarka, Solar Power, BP Solar, Miasole, Nanosolar, United Solar Ovonic, Practical Instruments, Amonix, Boeing, Dow Chemical, General Electric, Greenray, Powerlight, and SunPower. DOE's biggest fundings are directed to companies developing thin-film technologies. Thin-film manufacturers BP Solar, Miasole, Nanosolar, and United Solar Ovonic received funding of about $20 millions each. The reason for this was the worldwide shortage of silicon that photovoltaic solar panels are made of. Thin-film companies try to make more panels with less silicon. - -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
The criteria of Indisputability is excessive. If this what the physics community demands, then it has become a kind of Church in possesion of indisputable truths. I think it is enough to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Harry - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:50 am Subject: [Vo]: Re: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I think it may be real, but not indisputably so yet. Indisputability is very difficult to get, which IMHO is a shame after 18 years since the first CF experiment. Hence my suggestion of a COP cop lab, which would have other uses than CF of course. Michel (*) In any system, even cold, the fusion rate is never absolute zero. - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:42 PM Subject: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l36272x3106h58p5/ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991SvJPP..17.1159S On 3/11/2007, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BlankHowdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ?
Re: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Using the 'find similar' feature on the Harvard Site, this one comes up: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999SPIE.3571..229Bamp;db_key=PHYamp;data_type=HTMLamp;format=amp;high=45f369a03b24421 Interesting that there are dozens of these papers, coming out of Russia and former allies... and few from elsewhere. Not that they have anything to do with weather modification, or anything like that... ... not sure exactly what angle, exactly, our former enemies were going for, unless they know something that is not obvious. Creating ozone in the upper atmosphere is generally seen as a good thing, so perhaps one should not be cynical about their ultimate motives. ... or in the spy-vs-spy tradition, maybe the ozone is some kind of countermeasure against out noble intentions... HAARP and all ;-) Zachary Jones wrote: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l36272x3106h58p5/ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991SvJPP..17.1159S On 3/11/2007, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ?
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
I confess that I pulled the toll of $1 per mile out of a hat. The correct figure should be ~$0.25 per mile. This is based on the average fuel efficiency of U.S. cars (20 mpg) and the cost and damage caused by burning a gallon of gas ($5). The cost including buiding roads, and damage includes environmental destruction, war and other costs not covered by drivers. The cost of accidents is covered by drivers, with insurance. With present day gasoline technology all we have to is charge $5 per gallon tax, which is what they charge in Europe and Japan. It doesn't hurt them and it will not hurt us. Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Ends up about $800 for me a month, not including picking up my fiancee from her workplace. I suppose she could quit working at the grocery store and save that gasolinemaybe high-minded individuals like Jed don't need to eat? Do they derive energy from cold fusion instead of food? I imagine someone will suggest I use the train or the bus. Won't work. No mass transit on that scale here. You are saying that the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle. I don't mind contributing to a depressed area of the country for a decade or so, but I think that if you cannot maintain your way of life over long periods without massive help from other people, you should move. In this case, you want me to pay for your transportation either directly in cash, or indirectly by suffering from more pollution, global warming and wars for oil. You way of life is not sustainable and it cannot be made economical with today's technology, so you must abandon it. Of course the rest of us should pitch in to help you make the transition, but not to permanently support you. The same goes for the small, independent farmer who is forever demanding huge infusions of tax money. I do not think farmers deserve decades of help any more than programmer, hairdressers, or taxi drivers do. Just because farming is an ancient way of life and programming is new, I see no reason why farmers are privileged or why the rest of us should pay them to maintain their lifestyle. In the end, this is a capitalist, free-market country, and we all have to play by capitalist rules. That is as it should be. It is not pure dog-eat-dog capitalism, and we should help people in distress, but help should not last for 10 or 20 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! I confess that I pulled the toll of $1 per mile out of a hat. The correct figure should be ~$0.25 per mile. This is based on the average fuel efficiency of U.S. cars (20 mpg) and the cost and damage caused by burning a gallon of gas ($5). The cost including buiding roads, and damage includes environmental destruction, war and other costs not covered by drivers. The cost of accidents is covered by drivers, with insurance. Then give me my Monte Carlo back and tax me less, with 28mpg average, and even less if and when I drive the efficiency up higher. What do you pay for the roads with then? With present day gasoline technology all we have to is charge $5 per gallon tax, which is what they charge in Europe and Japan. It doesn't hurt them and it will not hurt us. Beg to differ here. And in case you didn't notice, this is not Europe nor Japan. This is our country (apparently not yours, you don't seem to like it much), if you like the way things are done overseas so much, please, go there. You are saying that the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle. The hell I am. I work for a living and pay my taxes, quite a bit of which will pay for the lazy who choose not to work. Can you read? We are all in this together, one way or another. If there are no mechanics, you will not drive, because you will have no one to fix your plastic Prius. Or if you take the bus, what if the bus breaks down? Does it fix itself? If there are no little-guy machinists and contractors, you won't get any services from them. Ditto for all the hundreds of other things you personally need every day to maintain your lifestyle. Strangle us out of existence, and you will begin to feel the heat overnight, personally. I don't mind contributing to a depressed area of the country for a decade or so, but I think that if you cannot maintain your way of life over long periods without massive help from other people, you should move. To where? Most of us cannot afford to leave...transitioning means time with no income, and the cost to move. If I move X miles, under your system, I also have to pay X mileage tax. And as I said, I have maintained my life so far with NO help from others. In fact, I have helped THEM where possible, with what little I have. Again CAN YOU READ? In this case, you want me to pay for your transportation either directly in cash, or indirectly by suffering from more pollution, global warming and wars for oil. You way of life is not sustainable and it cannot be made economical with today's technology, so you must abandon it. Of course the rest of us should pitch in to help you make the transition, but not to permanently support you. I pay for my car, my fuel, upkeep and repairs on my own, you don't. As far as global warming, I don't want to hear it. It is still being debated, and should be. As far as pollution, some of us are actively trying to find ways to reduce it or get rid of it by experimentation. Do you do experiments, or just rock back and forth in your chair and shout orders to us dirty, polluting little people? What are YOU doing to make a difference? Can't be made economical with today's technologyyet it worked 50 years ago. Wow, that logic would really impress Mr. Spock. And as far as pitching in to help, why don't you try and actually make a difference, get your hands dirty working on something, and stop trying to micromanage other people's lives. I don't want your money. I don't want permanent support, nor am I receiving it. If you are implying that I am getting help from how little I pay to drive, then everyone who drives is getting help, including the extremely wealthy. How about Pelosi and her jet she has been demanding? Bet that jet doesn't get good mileage. Tsk Tsk on the emissions too. Or Al Gore and his incredible waste of electricity in his giant mansion. *I* am supposed to change my life, when people like these high-minded jerkoffs are contributing FAR more to polluting this earth than my entire family? What the hell is wrong with you people?! The same goes for the small, independent farmer who is forever demanding huge infusions of tax money. I do not think farmers deserve decades of help any more than programmer, hairdressers, or taxi drivers do. Just because farming is an ancient way of life and programming is new, I see no reason why farmers are privileged or why the rest of us should pay them to maintain their lifestyle. In the end, this is a capitalist, free-market country, and we all have to play by capitalist rules. That is as it should be. It is not pure dog-eat-dog capitalism, and we should help people in distress, but help should not last for 10 or 20 years. Why are you preaching to me about help lasting for 20 years? I was the
