Re: [Vo]: Deuterium analysis

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:07:07 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hi,
>
>Does anyone know of a SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium or a metal
>deuteride, where *only* the deuteride went in, but some Hydrogen came out?
[snip]
I meant "but some protium came out".
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

[Vo]: Deuterium analysis

[Robin van Spaandonk]

Hi,

Does anyone know of a SIMS analysis run on either pure deuterium or a metal
deuteride, where *only* the deuteride went in, but some Hydrogen came out?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

[Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)

[Michel Jullian]

Do you still not see it Ed?

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer


> I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the 
> two quotes.
> 
> Michel
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
> ...
>>> -> Ed
>>> The title of your paper:
>>> "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water 
>>> Electrolyte"
>>> comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms.
>>> At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract:
>>> "a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD"
>>> Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and 
>>> myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of 
>>> their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF 
>>> researchers we know, who would rather die :)
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't see what your problem is.
>> 
>> Ed
>> -
>>> Michel
> 
>

Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation

[R.C.Macaulay]

Zac Wrote..


Have you ever talked with any of the TExas A&M boy working on NASA's

vortex phase separator?

No I have not. Tell me something about it or the people involved.



thanks for the EDAV link, it's cute.


Kim's EDAV  has some ideas.. not to be discounted.. he has some people that 
he claims has a working Implosion device.. he's been working on it long 
enough but health has sidetracked him.


Richard 

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Harry Veeder]

Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
>> I interpret "heat after death" as evidence of a self-powered system,
>> i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
>> to maintain the production of excess heat.
> 
> I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do
> not think that power is ever required to maintain production of
> excess heat. The input power of electrolysis is required to form the
> materials, or the NAE. Once the NAE is in place, electrolysis is no
> longer required.
> 
> I think heat after death occurs when the deuterium in the palladium
> gradually evolves and reaches the surface where the NAE lives.
> 
> - Jed
> 

In hot fusion a critical temperature must be reached before
the fusion process becomes self-powering.

Cold fusion does not seem to require the temperatures and pressures of hot
fusion, but is an NAE enough? Is it so unreasonable to imagine that a given
NAE must be at a critical temperature before cold fusion process becomes
self powering?

Perhaps the critical temperature of a given NAE is more like temperature
range. When the NAE is below a certain temperature it is too cold for cold
fusion, and when it is above a certain temperature it is too hot for cold
fusion. 

Harry

Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation

[Zachary Jones]

Richard,

In case you missed it, the one paper dealt with aspects of O6 structure
and formation that seemed somewhat independent of environment.

Admittedly, the papers are tiny pieces of the bigger puzzle...


Have you ever talked with any of the TExas A&M boy working on NASA's
vortex phase separator?


thanks for the EDAV link, it's cute.
Zak



On 3/15/2007, "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>Zac wrote..
>
>>Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
>library:
>
>http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip
>
>>Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
>pull out something useful from them.  I only searched Elsevier briefly,
>there are more extensive chem databases
>
>
>Thanks Zac,
> This paper resulted from a research grant by the Air Force and a China
>University and relates to SO2 high altitude air quality particulates
>involving S6 and inversely to O6. Their work is centered on air pollution
>whereas our work is in disinfection of water using mixed oxidants including
>O3.
> Fortunately, Dime Box Texas lost out some years ago to College Station
>Texas ( Texas A&M) so seldom is heard a discouraging word  except for the
>occasional broken mirror in the saloon when some  drunk starts discussing
>politics.
>
>Richard
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Definition of

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry writes:

>> All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by
>> accident, have fallen at freefall speeds.
>
>
>Show me the report.

See any video or documentary from Controlled Demolition.


>> floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of
>> additional mass falling down.
>
>
>But falling from what height?

The height is not a factor. If the force is strong enough to break the floor, 
it happens in fraction of second. It is slowed down only slightly. If the force 
is not strong enough, the reaction stops instantly. Buildings never collapse in 
slow motion.


> Each new floor falls a total of one floor and
>it must break the walls in doing so before it has to help take out the next
>floor, overall each floor should slow the descent.

Yes, but only a tiny bit. This is clearly visible in the collapse of the Twin 
Towers, as I said. You can see material falling out the side in 100% freefall 
that hits the ground first.


>Free fall speeds means 0 resistance, and yet no one can deny the work done.

I and others here have said repeatedly that it was a little slower than free 
fall. Anyone can see that at a glance.


>You are also ignoring the far better evidence, such as explosions heard and
>caught on tape, squibs clearly visible and undeniable, the glass broken on . . 
>.

This is all a bunch of crap, on par with the "evidence" that proves cold fusion 
does not exist.

Facts are facts, physics are physics, and the events surrounding the collapse 
of the towers are well understood. There is no doubt whatever about what 
happened, and no possible way it could have happened the way you imagine.

- Jed

[VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger

[R.C.Macaulay]

Blank

Howdy Eso and David,

More links on some of the implosion theme.

http://www.ultralightamerica.com/edav.htm
http://www.evert.de/indefte.htm 

Richard


Blank Bkgrd.gif
Description: GIF image

Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation

[R.C.Macaulay]

Zac wrote..


Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy

library:

http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip


Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to

pull out something useful from them.  I only searched Elsevier briefly,
there are more extensive chem databases


Thanks Zac,
This paper resulted from a research grant by the Air Force and a China 
University and relates to SO2 high altitude air quality particulates 
involving S6 and inversely to O6. Their work is centered on air pollution 
whereas our work is in disinfection of water using mixed oxidants including 
O3.
Fortunately, Dime Box Texas lost out some years ago to College Station 
Texas ( Texas A&M) so seldom is heard a discouraging word  except for the 
occasional broken mirror in the saloon when some  drunk starts discussing 
politics.


Richard

Re: [Vo]: Definition of "Appeal to Authority" fallacy

[John Berry]

On 3/15/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


John Berry wrote:

>Ahuh, and yet no details are ever availible.

That is incorrect. NIST has published thousands of pages of data.
Please do not dispute matters of fact.


>I'm not questioning if when a floor is pulled if further floors
>worth of destruction will occur, obviously it will.
>The question is in a building such as the twin towers or other tall
>conventional buildings if a floor near the top is pulled if the
>entire thing will collapse at near freefall speeds.

All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by
accident, have fallen at freefall speeds.



Show me the report.


I would expect in the case of the WTC that a lot of it would
>collapse, but I would think it might stop 2/3rds of the way down . . .

You have that backward. When the floor near the top has enough energy
to break the next one down, that adds one floor to the mass of
falling material, increasing the total mass that strikes the next
floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of
additional mass falling down.



But falling from what height? Each new floor falls a total of one floor and
it must break the walls in doing so before it has to help take out the next
floor, overall each floor should slow the descent.

Free fall speeds means 0 resistance, and yet no one can deny the work done.

You are also ignoring the far better evidence, such as explosions heard and
caught on tape, squibs clearly visible and undeniable, the glass broken on
the ground floor when the firemen arrived, and indeed seismographs recorded
events before the first plane hit which agrees with what those in the
buildings report of bombs in the basement.
People thrown about and burnt by explosions.
Tiny pieces of bone found on roofs of distant buildings, how can such tiny
pieces of bone be flung so far by a collapses under gravity?

You are ignoring building number 7 where squibs are plainly visible before
the building collapses, and the BBC talk about it's demise with it standing
in the background 22 minutes before hand, and this is only some of the
building related evidence of explosions.

This is not quite true, because some of

the material falls out the sides and straight down, but most of it
joins the total mass of falling material, and adds to the force of
the reaction.



It's not weight that is important, it is the KE and there is no way it can
fall at freefall speed as it needs to constantly do work to destroy the
floors below, new floors being added to the falling mass start out with no
KE.

Show me a video or at least a report of a tall building with the top 3rd
falling through the rest of the building at freefall speeds without the
building being otherwise weakened

Two-thirds down you have *far* greater force striking

each additional floor, and much greater damage. If anything, it
should go faster.


>, and at the very least to occur far more slowly than freefall
>speeds which means that the building offered 0 resistance which is
>at odds with the conservation of energy.

As Stephen A. Lawrence already pointed out on this forum, the
breaking reaction occurs at the speed of sound. A floor either breaks
or it does not break within a fraction of a second. The energy
absorbed by the breaking is absorbed in that fraction of a second and
the reaction continues nearly as quickly as it would in free fall.



Energy is absorbed, the  KE of the upper portion of the building is absorbed
as it impacts with the floors below as you stated, and yet it can't still
have the same KE it would have had if it had indeed been in freefall, and
yet somehow it does.

You can see from the 9/11 photos -- and from the photos of other

buildings deliberately destroyed by this method -- that the speed is
a little slower than free fall. Material thrown out the side hits the
ground a little sooner than the falling bulk of the building.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[Paul Lowrance]

David Thomson wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobel&qt_s=Search
>
> Just keep showing us the stuff you are made of Paul.


I make a real effort to back up as many statements as possible, as in my above 
example I provided the link.  Take your above statement.  You simply make a 
claim, as usual.  Just keeping it real Dave.





> You do a greater job
> of it than I could.  Once you do enough reading about the person who wrote
> that, you'll find his name is Lee and he's either from Japan or The
> Philippines.  He's one of several intelligent, open-minded seekers of the
> truth out there who have taken the time to read and understand the Aether
> Physics Model.  You seem surprised that there are people who have read,
> understood, and support the Aether Physics Model.  How else do you think I
> got invited to Imperial College in London to give a talk at the 2006 PIRT
> conference last fall?


Lee from Japan or Philippines huh?  That's funny since his email is 
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"  So Lee from Caltech who lives in Japan or 
Philippines decided to write a long email to the physics usenet community 
because he thought David Thomson needed a Nobel Prize?








>>> You may not have noticed all those graphics in
>>> the papers.  But those are computer generated
>>> images, based upon the Aether Physics Model.
>
>> Then the obvious question is were the images created using a graphics
>> program or by writing custom software?  I am referring to writing software
>
>> written in a computer language such as C++, not a person using a graphics
>> program.
>
> How about a real science program, like MathCAD 11?


That's fine as far as creating a static image, but you cannot compare MathCAD to 
C++. You are aware MathCAD was written in a lower level language, quite possibly 
C++?  Most software engineers do *not* write simulation software in MathCAD 
because -->


1. You are limited in what you can do in MathCAD relative to low level languages 
such as C++.
2. Even if you could create a simple simulation program in MathCAD, the C++ 
program has far higher potential of being magnitudes faster.





>> The difference between writing software and using a program is like
>> comparing QM to basket weaving.
>
> Hmmm, okay.  And I have just read the rest of your tirade.  I have no
> comment and only hope others on the list have not stopped reading this
> thread.  I think it is quite revealing.
>


I have to once again ask for you to elaborate and show some proof.  While you're 
at it, why don't you show your proof when you wrote, "I deleted the psychotic 
ramblings."  Care to be a little coherent and back up your statement in quoting 
what you believe to be "psychotic ramblings?"



This is indeed wasting too much time.  I have research to conduct, and you have 
books to sell.  Enjoy capitalizing on the theoretical physics community. 
Seriously, shame on you!




Regards,
Paul

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[David Thomson]

Hi Paul,

> I for example offer all my research, free of charge.

I'm sure there is a good reason for it and it isn't because of your
magnanimous personality.

> And it seems obvious all those usenet posts begging 
> scientists to give "David Thomson" a Nobel Prize was merely you 
> masquerading under a yahoo addresses.  Who in their right mind would plea 
> with the physicist community to give Dave Thomson a Nobel Prize?!?!  
> People don't even post such ridiculous pleas for Ed Witten.  IMHO, if
> true, and we all know it is, then that discloses a very sick side to your 
> personality.

> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobel&qt_s=Search

Just keep showing us the stuff you are made of Paul.  You do a greater job
of it than I could.  Once you do enough reading about the person who wrote
that, you'll find his name is Lee and he's either from Japan or The
Philippines.  He's one of several intelligent, open-minded seekers of the
truth out there who have taken the time to read and understand the Aether
Physics Model.  You seem surprised that there are people who have read,
understood, and support the Aether Physics Model.  How else do you think I
got invited to Imperial College in London to give a talk at the 2006 PIRT
conference last fall?

>> You may not have noticed all those graphics in
>> the papers.  But those are computer generated
>> images, based upon the Aether Physics Model.

> Then the obvious question is were the images created using a graphics 
> program or by writing custom software?  I am referring to writing software

> written in a computer language such as C++, not a person using a graphics 
> program.  

How about a real science program, like MathCAD 11?

> The difference between writing software and using a program is like 
> comparing QM to basket weaving.

Hmmm, okay.  And I have just read the rest of your tirade.  I have no
comment and only hope others on the list have not stopped reading this
thread.  I think it is quite revealing.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[Paul Lowrance]

In yet another attempt to close this discussion I'll try and keep my comments to 
a minimum.



David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>>> Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?
>
>> Yes, electronically.  There are countless sites that freely and gladly
> allow people place their research.  I use Peswiki.com.
>
> Err, funny you would say that...
> http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Aether_Physics_Model


I wish you would stop playing games with people.  That 1 & half wiki page is 
nothing.  I for example offer all my research, free of charge.





>> IMHO here's a significant difference between you and I -->
>
>> From the beginning of my research I have placed the following statement at
> the top of my research web page:
> "Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind.
>
> No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and
> research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue
> this project and research."
>
>> You push your Aether theory, but when the poor scientist goes to your
> website they discover you are selling a book.
>
> Heaven's to mergatroids!  Imagine such a diabolical scheme!  I have been
> caught, go ahead and report this heinous crime to the authorities Oh Mighty
> Crusader of free books.
> Here is another difference between us, I'm smart enough to write a book and
> register it with the Library of Congress in order to protect my ideas
> without having to wait for Nature or Science to accept a theory about the
> Aether for peer review.
> Here is another difference; I was requested by a large number of scientists
> to write a book on the Aether Physics Model, which is why I have already
> sold well over 300 copies.


Indeed, you and I are very different.  I would freely give all the research 
away.  I seriously doubt "large number" of scientists requested you charge them 
money for a book.  And it seems obvious all those usenet posts begging 
scientists to give "David Thomson" a Nobel Prize was merely you masquerading 
under a yahoo addresses.  Who in their right mind would plea with the physicist 
community to give Dave Thomson a Nobel Prize?!?!  People don't even post such 
ridiculous pleas for Ed Witten.  IMHO, if true, and we all know it is, then that 
discloses a very sick side to your personality.


http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobel&qt_s=Search





 May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?
>  >
>>> Apparently you can.  The real question, based upon your professed dislike
>>> for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer?  I have spoken
>>> several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM
>>> predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting
>>> the 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed
>>> and reciprocal natures of charges.  And this is just a short list.
>
>> After asking you far too many times, and you avoiding the question, one
> has to presume you are not qualified at quantum physics.
>
> Let the record show, he asked the question again and ignored the answer
> again.


Please do not lie to Vo.  Where did you tell us you are or are not qualified in 
the field at Quantum physics.






>> I tried by asking you if your theory predicts what QM has successfully
> predicted.  I'll even take another step forward by asking what a scientist
> could do with your model? Could one use your APM in a computer software
> simulation?
>
> Absolutely, that is what the Aether Physics Model was designed for.  The APM
> is a discrete model of physics, which can provide not only a geometrically
> based computer simulation, but also a dimensionally based simulation.  This
> is one of our goals for development once the theory gets off the ground with
> the right crowd and sufficient funding comes in.
>
>> That may not interest the physics community as a whole, but it could catch
> my interest since I write software simulations.
>
> How ironic.  You ignore the Aether, which is the very basis of the structure
> you need in order to discretely model quantum physics.


According to who?  You?




> You may not have noticed all those graphics in
> the papers.  But those are computer generated
> images, based upon the Aether Physics Model.


Then the obvious question is were the images created using a graphics program or 
by writing custom software?  I am referring to writing software written in a 
computer language such as C++, not a person using a graphics program.  The 
difference between writing software and using a program is like comparing QM to 
basket weaving.






> Those images represent a two-dimensional surface in a five-dimensional
> spatial-temporal coordinate system.  The reason modern physics cannot
> properly model quantum structures is because they are stuck in the
> four-dimensional space-time coordinate systems.


Could you please explain the d

RE: [Vo]:

[David Thomson]

Hi Esa,

 

> the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report
is the report of "negative friction" - i.e. that the pipes, through which
the water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the
flow of water, and to negate friction. 

 

Yes, that is interesting.

 

> *…
> The spiralling copper pipe
produced an undulating friction curve as the flow was increased. At some
flows a negative 
friction was observed, as if water seemed to lose contact with the walls and
fall freely
through the pipe. How to interpret this remains to be seen.

 

This is a particularly important observation for me.  I have also noted an
undulating resonance when winding helical and flat spiral secondary coils
for high voltage experiments.  To be safe, I would always wind the coil with
a longer piece of wire than needed.  Then I would measure the resonance of
the coil to see where it was with regard to my target.  I found that by
cutting off a specific length of wire did not necessarily result in a
corresponding increase in frequency.  Sometimes the frequency of the coil
would actually increase as wire was cut off.  The increase and decrease of
frequency would undulate even though the wire length was shortened linearly.

 

It would not surprise me at all if there were a similar effect occurring in
water flow.

 

> hope this helped

 

Yes, I have found all your information helpful.  Thank you.

 

Dave

[Vo]: Coming: the Green-SUV ?

[Jones Beene]

http://dhglobalentllc.com/projects/pmrm/

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[David Thomson]

Hi Paul,

> > Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?

> Yes, electronically.  There are countless sites that freely and gladly
allow people place their research.  I use Peswiki.com.  

Err, funny you would say that...
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Aether_Physics_Model

> IMHO here's a significant difference between you and I -->

> From the beginning of my research I have placed the following statement at
the top of my research web page:
"Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind.

No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and 
research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue
this project and research."

> You push your Aether theory, but when the poor scientist goes to your
website they discover you are selling a book.

Heaven's to mergatroids!  Imagine such a diabolical scheme!  I have been
caught, go ahead and report this heinous crime to the authorities Oh Mighty
Crusader of free books.

Here is another difference between us, I'm smart enough to write a book and
register it with the Library of Congress in order to protect my ideas
without having to wait for Nature or Science to accept a theory about the
Aether for peer review.  

Here is another difference; I was requested by a large number of scientists
to write a book on the Aether Physics Model, which is why I have already
sold well over 300 copies.  

And here is one more difference between us.  My background includes several
years as finance manager for 14 different corporations.  I happen to know a
thing or two about how to make an original $1000 investment perpetuate the
production of the books so that I don't have to spend $40 of my own pocket
money to send each copy of the hand printed book to whoever is interested.
I would have lost what little I own by now if I had followed your advice.

>>> May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?
 >
>> Apparently you can.  The real question, based upon your professed dislike
>> for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer?  I have spoken
>> several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM
>> predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting
>> the 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed 
>> and reciprocal natures of charges.  And this is just a short list.  

> After asking you far too many times, and you avoiding the question, one
has to presume you are not qualified at quantum physics.

Let the record show, he asked the question again and ignored the answer
again.
 
> I tried by asking you if your theory predicts what QM has successfully 
predicted.  I'll even take another step forward by asking what a scientist
could do with your model? Could one use your APM in a computer software
simulation?

Absolutely, that is what the Aether Physics Model was designed for.  The APM
is a discrete model of physics, which can provide not only a geometrically
based computer simulation, but also a dimensionally based simulation.  This
is one of our goals for development once the theory gets off the ground with
the right crowd and sufficient funding comes in.

> That may not interest the physics community as a whole, but it could catch
my interest since I write software simulations.

How ironic.  You ignore the Aether, which is the very basis of the structure
you need in order to discretely model quantum physics.  You may not have
noticed all those graphics in the papers.  But those are computer generated
images, based upon the Aether Physics Model.  

Those images represent a two-dimensional surface in a five-dimensional
spatial-temporal coordinate system.  The reason modern physics cannot
properly model quantum structures is because they are stuck in the
four-dimensional space-time coordinate systems.  The wrong assumption is
made that quantum existence must exist in the same apparent coordinates as
macro existence.  Yet if anybody had given it much thought, the reason why
subatomic particles have half spin is because subatomic particles act as
time diodes, cutting off part of our experience of reality.

By "time diodes" I mean subatomic particles due to quantum frequency the
same thing that electrical diodes do to AC current.  Electrical diodes cause
AC current to appear as pulsed DC.  Subatomic particles have the same
effect, but since we are made of subatomic particles (as is all our test
equipment), we perceive the illusion of continuous linear time.

As I have pointed out many times, the APM has started off only as a theory
of quantum structure.  Only recently have I made progress into quantum
mechanics using a completely new approach, and which allows for the
prediction of all the 1s orbital electron binding energies.  With a little
more research, this equation should easily predict all the electron binding
energies.  We have also made progress on a nuclear binding energy equation
and h

Re: [Vo]:

[Esa Ruoho]

On 14/03/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Hi Esa,



Thanks for the excellent links.  You seem to have spent a lot of time
investigating Schauberger's work.



Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger
family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature.  The seemingly static
vortex coils, for example, are described as "energizing," "living," and
"resonating."  In the classical scientific sense of these terms, such claims
are hogwash.



the first thing to realize about  what PKS have available in their shop is
that these are not items that viktor schauberger or walter schauberger
developed.  as far as i can see, there is not a single
viktor-schauberger-created original item for sale, or a re-production
thereof. none of his suggestions on air-conditioning, water-purification
(mountain-spring-quality-water) devices, or others for energy production are
being manufactured right now - they are hardly even understood, or even
replicated to a simple degree. there are a few people such as Klaus Rauber (
http://www.implosion-ev.de ) and Fritz Watzl, who have, somewhat created a
type of a repulsine, but not at all the device that was prototyped in the
1940s. what PKS have for sale is a good over-view of all the books available
on Schauberger, both in english and the german languages. also a few DVDs,
but by no means all the documentaries available on
Schauberger/Vortices/Implosion. when it comes to documentaries and books,
they are mostly beginner introductions, i.e., this is what he did, this is
when he did it, and now its up to you you and you to do
research&development  in order to actually have a device, or anything close
to what he was suggesting.

the three items on http://www.pks.or.at/drinkingwater.html , from what i can
see, are developed by a swiss company (first one), Klaus Rauber (the
hyperbolic copper cone for water-oxygenation/energization), and Klaus Rauber
& Emil Schreiber (the swirly pipes) . the swirly pipes are the closest to
what Viktor Schauberger did, as witnessed by the Pöpel Report that was
conducted in the University of Stuttgart in 1952, by Prof. Franz Pöpel. this
seems to be the most interesting for, erm, people coming at this from a
university/math/physics angle.

the Pöpel Report has been released as an appendix to a book called Energy
Evolution, by Callum Coats. here are some aspects of the Pöpel Report:

"Concerning the Preliminary Investigation of Helicoid pipes with Various
Shapes of Pipes wall

The Multiple In-winding, Convoluting Flow Processes

Influence of the Form & Material of Pipes on Development of In-winding Flow
Processes

Structural Change in Water as Consequence of Multiple In-winding Flowing
Motion

The Prevention of Encrustation"

the Institute of Ecological Technology ( www.iet-community.org ) have
however done their own experiments and testing as regards to the Pöpel
Report, and have published some of their results in  the iet-community
report#1. ive, below, pasted some of the material in the report - in case
there is interest.

the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report is
the report of "negative friction" - i.e. that the pipes, through which the
water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the flow
of water, and to negate friction. i suppose anyone really interested, and
into their german language, could easily find the Pöpel Report via
University of Stuttgart - and see what they think of it.


It may turn out that Schauberger's work is far more related to the Aether
Physics Model than I had originally believed.  If there are any English
speaking persons directly affiliated with PKS who would like to communicate
with me on this, I would gladly work with them.


Jörg Schauberger can be contacted via <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, if that is of
any help. since lately ive been coming across people from universities etc
who seem to be interested in the math aspect of all this, it would be great
to get the Radlberger book on Walter Schauberger's hyperbolic cone
geometry/math translated into the english language - if it contains the
mathematical key  to what Viktor was (somewhat) achieving with the limited
understanding the engineers had back then..

also, Brian Desborough does mention in his book "Blueprint for a Better
World" his firm opinion that whatever Schauberger, Keely and Tesla were
working on, meshes in with his and Lord Kelvin's "Atomic Vortex Theory". it
seemed to hint at a dynamic ether, so maybe you'll find something of
interest there. as regards the dynamic ether, i trust you have seen "Energy
from the Vacuum part1" released by Cheniere Media? Bearden does his best to
try and explain this vacuum or the void, from which energy can be jacked out
of.

Dave


http://www.implosionresearch.com/water.html

http://sulis-health.co.uk/sulis/water.shtml#jug


Sulis health is run by Alick Bartholomew who wrote a nice little beginners
guide booklet (The Schauberger Keys), and a book

[Vo]: Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation

[Jones Beene]

Zachary Jones wrote:

The original version of this mail got lost a few days ago. (I tried to
attach the PDFs)  Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
library:

http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip

Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
pull out something useful from them.  



Well, sadly, I have never had the pleasure of visiting Dime Box, but 
there are useful implications for alternative energy.


As the authors of the above ref. say - a primary motivation ... was to 
establish the viability of oxygen rings as high energy density materials 
(HEDM) Perhaps 06 might provide a happy meeting ground (of 
properties), with substantial energy content and a substantial barrier 
to dissociation.


Methinks the apparent lack of interest in this seemingly far-out 
possibility, amongst the larger science community, could be somewhat 
related to an apparent lack of imagination. (the mental deficiency, 
expressed in PC terminology: being "SciFi challenged" aka "pathological 
skepticism")


Jones

My 'listmania' start to a new list: "imagine the possibilities" of O6 
(feel free to add -- we need to get at least 10 of them, to get this 
published on someone else's top-10 list of crank science projects ;-)


1) An alternative fuel derived from air
2) A more efficient oxidizer, derived from air
3) A more efficient water purifier (to make Richard-richer, perhaps ;-)
4) A more efficient chemical intermediary
5) A more efficient way to let divers stay underwater longer AND power 
an underwater PTO-unit


:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder wrote:


I interpret "heat after death" as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.


I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do 
not think that power is ever required to maintain production of 
excess heat. The input power of electrolysis is required to form the 
materials, or the NAE. Once the NAE is in place, electrolysis is no 
longer required.


I think heat after death occurs when the deuterium in the palladium 
gradually evolves and reaches the surface where the NAE lives.


- Jed

[Vo]:

[David Thomson]

Hi Esa,

 

Thanks for the excellent links.  You seem to have spent a lot of time
investigating Schauberger's work.  

 

Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger
family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature.  The seemingly static
vortex coils, for example, are described as "energizing," "living," and
"resonating."  In the classical scientific sense of these terms, such claims
are hogwash.

 

However, in the Aether Physics Model, the unit of conductance figures
prominently in both physical matter as well as non-material existence.
Non-material existence has many manifestations, just as does physical
existence.  "Space-time," "magnetic field," and "force" are a few instances
of non-material existence.  Yet, "mind," "emotion," and "sensory feeling"
are also manifestations of non-material existence.  There is empirical
evidence in the neurosciences linking emotions to the unit of conductance.
In the Aether Physics Model, conductance is equal to angular momentum per
strong charge.  Unless you understand "strong charge" as explained in the
APM, you won't immediately appreciate the importance of this equality.
Suffice it to say, vortices are based upon angular momentum of a medium.  A
water vortex occurs when the medium has rotation and a steady,
unidirectional force (gravity) is exerted perpendicular to the rotation.
Within limits, you can increase the vorticity by increasing either the
angular momentum or the force.

 

In the Aether Physics Model, the reciprocal of conductance is not resistance
(as in the Standard Model), but is magnetic flux.  This prediction of the
APM also has empirical roots.  In measurements of the Hall effect, and in
separate experiments relating conductance to resistance, it has been found
that conductance does not vary linearly with resistance, but does vary
linearly with magnetic flux.  

 

Another prominent unit in the Aether Physics Model is eddy current, which is
equal to magnetic flux squared.  While doing experiments with eddy currents,
I was able to determine that the eddy currents occur at a quantum level, not
a macro level.  

http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm

 

Eddy current is actually an Aether vortex, which is the same thing as the
quantum Aether unit but with the permeability being squared and the
geometrical constant being 64pi^3 instead of 16pi^2.  So it makes sense that
a macro copper object in the shape of a vortex could be a natural receptacle
for generating resonance of magnetic flux (magnetic flux squared is eddy
current, which is Aether vortex).  Although this Aether vortex object they
are selling would not appear energetic in terms of physical motion, it would
be energetic at the quantum scale in terms of increasing the quality of
conductance in other objects it comes in contact with, as well as the
conductance of the surrounding Aether environment.  And since emotions and
all feelings are directly related to conductance, if not its actual
manifestation as perceived by the mind, then their static Aether vortex
generator could very well have a positive effect on plants, animals, and
human emotions.  

 

It may turn out that Schauberger's work is far more related to the Aether
Physics Model than I had originally believed.  If there are any English
speaking persons directly affiliated with PKS who would like to communicate
with me on this, I would gladly work with them.

 

Dave 

 

http://www.implosionresearch.com/water.html

http://sulis-health.co.uk/sulis/water.shtml#jug

 

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Harry Veeder]

Nick Palmer wrote:

> I don't know how long you have been
> around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting
> and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989.

FYI. I've been following CF on and off since 1989, when I was 24.

Harry

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Harry Veeder]

Nick Palmer wrote:

> Harry Veeder wrote:-
> 
> < gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
> gasoline, the COP is still much bigger>>
> 
> No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an
> accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. I don't know how long you have been
> around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting
> and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989. Many people
> have brought up your point before. Most people "skilled in the art", and
> those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of
> preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that "heat
> after death" is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further
> electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to
> be generated for some time ( approaching "infinite" COP), shows the relative
> meaninglessness of chasing this form of "COP" - which is exactly what Ed
> Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a
> change... 
> 

Input power can come from outside the system or from inside the system.

I interpret "heat after death" as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.

If you think COP is  meaningless in this situation, then it is because you
have a (theoretical) bias against my interpretation.

Harry

 

Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation

[Zachary Jones]

The original version of this mail got lost a few days ago. (I tried to
attach the PDFs)  Here are some studies dealing with O6, from our fancy
library:

http://www.newalexandria.org/images/O6_studies.zip

Perhaps Richard, or someone else in Dime Box Texas, will have time to
pull out something useful from them.  I only searched Elsevier briefly,
there are more extensive chem databases


Zak


On 3/12/2007, "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
>
>
>>> We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 
>>> 1000PPD and above range.
>> 
>> What's a PPD?  
>  Ozone gas is measured in pounds per day .. PPD
>> 
>>> Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual 
>>> properties are
>>> extremely short lived and it is deadly.
>> 
>> Not deadly (I read somewhere that no casualty has ever been attributed to 
>> ozone), but it's very painful if you inhale too much of it, very much like 
>> inhaling bleach, no wonder it has a similar effect on microorganisms.
>
>Very deadly.. a extreme oxidant.
>> 
>> How is the ozone laden air pressurized in the industrial units you're using, 
>> air pump upstream of the ozone generation I imagine? And what's the 
>> operating principle of the O3 generator itself, is it the AC operated glass 
>> tube type?
>
>The incoming air is compressed, chilled and dried. The air enters the electric 
>arc chambers 8" diameter pipe runs( depending on type) and mixed into the main 
>process water . The air handling systems can be pressured or vacuum.
>
>> 
>>> Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a 
>>> "grease" to slide the O3
>>> into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 
>>> may not be O6.. hmmm.
>>> But if it is.. and it can be "borrowed" while it's extremely short life is 
>>> around to argue the point..
>>> it may be possible to " fold" the two into water before O6 catches on .. by 
>>> using a form of velocity
>>> shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped 
>>> "knife".
>> 
>> I doubt this makes the slightest sense to anyone except perhaps yourself, 
>> but hey this is Vortex :)
>>
>
>Hey ! You're not in Kindergarten.. Vortex is for people with some elastic 
> in their minds. 
>
>>> We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 
>>> alone doesn't want to play
>>> fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual 
>>> water process stream and have
>>> the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our 
>>> Gasmastrrr units returned for
>>> service that have the UHMW rotating member
>> 
>> What's this, your tank-bottom ozonized air bubbler?
>
>  See .. www.gasmastrrr.comThe gas is discharged into large mixing tanks 
> filled with water. The off-gas ozone that fails to mix is either recycled or 
> is destroyed so Michel doesn't learn the hard way that the stuff can kill ya.
>
>> 
>>> shot with electro-chem pitting
>> 
>> Chem pitting more likely. I guess you mean electro-chem like pitting?
>
> Electro-chem pitting description covers a range.. strange to see the 
> results.. if you ever saw the results of propeller or pump impeller 
> cavitation you would understand.
>> 
>>> that is a form of  SL cavitation.
>> 
>> What's this ?
>   Here goes sonolumeniscense.. long for SL.. 
>> 
>>> Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene "does not pit".. we all know that.
>> 
>> Very few materials are ozone resistant Richard. Have you checked the ozone 
>> resistance of this particular PE?
>
>Re-check you data.. excellent resistance to O3 at below 120 degrees.. 
> maybe some swelling at 140 degrees.
>
>> Also some materials catalyze ozone destruction (reversal to O2), such 
>> materials in your ozonized air circuit would result in not much ozone 
>> reaching the water you want to treat.
>> 
>> Michel
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "R.C.Macaulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:25 AM
>> Subject: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
>> 
>> 
>> Blank
>> Michael wrote..
>> 
>>>Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard?
>> 
>> Zachary wrote..
>>>Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a
>> commercial ozone unit won't provide?
>> 
>> 
>> We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 
>> 1000PPD and above range. The problems, the maintenance and the trouble 
>> mixing ozone beg for better technology.  It seems that microwave may have 
>> some application considering the huge transformer banks required to boost 
>> voltage for the present technology, plus the problems with drying the air or 
>> the dangers of using pure oxy. Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists 
>

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[Paul Lowrance]

David Thomson wrote:
> Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2.  Too bad you
> didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
> Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
> interest request me to.


No problem brother.  I posted from the start of our discussion one method that 
would catch my attention and most of the physics community.






David Thomson wrote:
[snip]
>> I took a peak at your website to discover one needs to *buy* your book to
> study your Aether theory.  Also I could not help but notice your obvious
> *Donations* request on your homepage.
>
> Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?


Yes, electronically.  There are countless sites that freely and gladly allow 
people place their research.  I use Peswiki.com.  IMHO here's a significant 
difference between you and I -->


From the beginning of my research I have placed the following statement at the 
top of my research web page:
"NoteThis project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. 
No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and 
research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this 
project and research."


You push your Aether theory, but when the poor scientist goes to your website 
they discover you are selling a book.





> You might
> not be aware of this, but nearly every physics book has a price attached to
> it.


We're talking about your proposed theory.  Read about Peer review -->

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





>> So it appears we agree that your APM cannot predict the double slit
> experiment.
>
> The APM doesn't explain why you are so obnoxious, but that is not within the
> scope of the theory, either.


Again, please stop the ad hominem.  I can assure you are wasting your emotional 
energy on such remarks, which have no negative effect on me. So please refrain 
yourself.






>> May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?
>
> Apparently you can.  The real question, based upon your professed dislike
> for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer?  I have spoken
> several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM
> predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting the
> 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed and
> reciprocal natures of charges.  And this is just a short list.  Certainly, a
> mathematically quantified Unified Force Theory, electron binding energy
> equation, and proper quantification of charge structures is worthy of
> scientific acknowledgement?


After asking you far too many times, and you avoiding the question, one has to 
presume you are not qualified at quantum physics.


Again, compare your tactics to mine.  From the beginning of my research I have 
placed the following statement at the top of my research web page -->


My quote:
"NoteThis project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. 
No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and 
research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this 
project and research."





>>> And I said anything remotely similar to this... where?
>
>> My claim is that energy is capturable form ambient temperature.  The
> capacitor experiment demonstrates this.  I'll ask you again, do you believe
> a capacitor connected to a resistor captures energy from ambient
> temperature?
>
> You are either dense, naïve, or both.  I have merely been throwing back the
> same kind of mindless cynicism at your work as you threw at mine.  You have
> gotten really worked up about this and put on quite a defensive display.


That's the usual response I get.  For the umpteenth time I request people not 
attach emotions to my statements.  I could literally write a significant post of 
just your "assumptions."  You "assume" I got worked up.


Your APM makes broad claims.  My requests are legit.  Your so-called quote, 
"throwing back the same kind of mindless cynicism" was obviously not legit.  I 
am not proposing a new theory or model.



So I conclude -->

1. You agree that a capacitor can capture some energy contained in ambient 
temperature.


2. You are not qualified in the field Quantum physics.

3. Your APM cannot predict the double slit experiments or many other experiments 
and effects that QM successfully predicts.


4. You want scientists to study your APM, but you charge real money for the 
book.  Furthermore you ask for donations.





> Only if you give my work the proper analysis it deserves would I even
> consider giving you the same courtesy.
>


I tried by asking you if your theory predicts what QM has successfully 
predicted.  I'll even take another step forward by asking what a scientist could 
do with your model?  Could one use your APM in a computer software simulation? 
That may not interest the physi

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[David Thomson]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2.  Too bad you
didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
interest request me to.  

As for answering your question about QM, I did that in my most recent post.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:01 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

It seems only right to shed some light given Dave talks a lot about quantum 
aspects. Here are a few quotes from Dave's website -->

---
"This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics
Model 
not only describes quantum structure, *BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM
MECHANICS*"

"This model provides new insights to quantum physical structures not
presently 
solved by the Standard Model"

"According to modern physics, the graviton is the quantum of the
gravitational 
field. The language is different from the Aether Physics Model concerning
the 
quantum of gravity"

"However, unlike the Standard Model, the Aether unit is not only the quantum
of 
the gravitational field; it is the quantum of all the fields. In fact, in
the 
Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is the only quantum that can produce a

field of any kind since it also is the source of space-resonance."

"As an adjunct to Quantum Mechanics, this book is a foundational
introduction to 
the mathematical Aether Physics Model."

"A single theory of angular momentum, which is encapsulated by quantum
Aether 
units, explains the structure of quantum existence.."

"The quantum Universe has the quality of space-resonance, as opposed to
space-time."

"The Aether unit is like an individual piece of real estate in the quantum
Universe"

"The Aether is a quantum rotating magnetic field, which maintains the onn 
half-spin, and is the source of the structure of quantum physical matter."

"Quantum measurements will show that all true quantum constants have a
definite 
structure, imparted by the Aether."

"Quantum matter has only two dimensions of length, that is, it only has
surface 
characteristic."

"Since almost all controllable physical processes occur through interactions
of 
the electron and photon, the quantum measurements of the electron usually
define 
the quantum measurement units."

"Think of Aether as being a quantum hole in which subatomic matter is able
to 
reside.  Onta get their physical geometry from these quantum holes, but the 
quantum holes also impart the spin nature to onta.  The "quantum holes" have
a 
toroidal structure in the shape of a double loxodrome, as seen in the image
above."

"Aether is a dynamic fabric of space-resonance composed of independent,
quantum 
units."

"The Aether Physics Model sees all stable quantum matter (onta) as primary 
angular momentum"

"In one quantum moment, there are a given number of photon fronts arriving
at an 
atom."

"The bi-directional spinning toroids component of the equation are equal to
the 
quantum measurement unit of double cardioid."

Header of your chapter 6:
"Redefining units in terms of distributed charge and quantum measurements."

"Aether unit, it moves one quantum distance (Compton wavelength) in the 
direction it is going.  The speed of light is one quantum distance times the

quantum frequency."

"In the Aether Physics Model, quantum constants offer a new analysis tool
for 
examining quantum processes."

"We have discovered a new geometrically and mathematically correct
foundation 
for physics, which precisely quantifies the quantum structure."

The main header in your home page --> "Quantum AetherDynamics Institute"
---



It's only right to request your knowledge of quantum physics. So I'll ask
you 
yet one more time ... Can you do QM mathematics? Can you solve QM problems?
Are 
you a specialist in the field of Quantum physics?  On your sites home page, 
"This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics
Model 
not only describes quantum structure, ***BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM 
MECHANICS*** and has the potential to far exceed the capability of the
Standard 
Model."



Regards,
Paul

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[David Thomson]

Hi Paul,

> Quote from www.16pi2.com
> "the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can
also describe quantum mechanics"

For the benefit of others who would like to see this quote in context, it
actually reads, "BREAKING NEWS: We have succeeded in developing the electron
binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals.  This is a significant
breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model not only describes
quantum structure, but can also describe quantum mechanics and has the
potential to far exceed the capability of the Standard Model. "

I believe I have mentioned the electron binding energy equation over a dozen
times so far on this list.  The electron binding energy equation is our
first foray into stepping beyond quantum structure and expanding on quantum
mechanics.  

> The domain name www.16pi2.com is registered under your name.

And whose name did you expect it would be registered under?

> I took a peak at your website to discover one needs to *buy* your book to
study your Aether theory.  Also I could not help but notice your obvious
*Donations* request on your homepage.

Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?  You might
not be aware of this, but nearly every physics book has a price attached to
it.  This is not a conspiracy, it is an economic necessity.  The same goes
for donations.  We are not the first IRS 501(c)3 registered non-profit
science research organization to request donations on the Internet.  As for
the theory being available for free, I have posted a link to our 27 page
white paper numerous times on this list, which gives a very good synopsis of
what is in the book as far as understanding the scientific basis of the
Aether Physics Model (and it is free).  This white paper was also published
in the September/October 2006 issue of Infinite Energy Magazine, which
incidentally has a price tag.   

> So it appears we agree that your APM cannot predict the double slit
experiment. 

The APM doesn't explain why you are so obnoxious, but that is not within the
scope of the theory, either.

> May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?

Apparently you can.  The real question, based upon your professed dislike
for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer?  I have spoken
several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM
predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting the
1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed and
reciprocal natures of charges.  And this is just a short list.  Certainly, a
mathematically quantified Unified Force Theory, electron binding energy
equation, and proper quantification of charge structures is worthy of
scientific acknowledgement?  

>> And I said anything remotely similar to this... where?

> My claim is that energy is capturable form ambient temperature.  The
capacitor experiment demonstrates this.  I'll ask you again, do you believe
a capacitor connected to a resistor captures energy from ambient
temperature?

You are either dense, naïve, or both.  I have merely been throwing back the
same kind of mindless cynicism at your work as you threw at mine.  You have
gotten really worked up about this and put on quite a defensive display.
Only if you give my work the proper analysis it deserves would I even
consider giving you the same courtesy.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[Paul Lowrance]

It seems only right to shed some light given Dave talks a lot about quantum 
aspects. Here are a few quotes from Dave's website -->


---
"This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model 
not only describes quantum structure, *BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM MECHANICS*"


"This model provides new insights to quantum physical structures not presently 
solved by the Standard Model"


"According to modern physics, the graviton is the quantum of the gravitational 
field. The language is different from the Aether Physics Model concerning the 
quantum of gravity"


"However, unlike the Standard Model, the Aether unit is not only the quantum of 
the gravitational field; it is the quantum of all the fields. In fact, in the 
Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is the only quantum that can produce a 
field of any kind since it also is the source of space-resonance."


"As an adjunct to Quantum Mechanics, this book is a foundational introduction to 
the mathematical Aether Physics Model."


"A single theory of angular momentum, which is encapsulated by quantum Aether 
units, explains the structure of quantum existence.."


"The quantum Universe has the quality of space-resonance, as opposed to 
space-time."

"The Aether unit is like an individual piece of real estate in the quantum 
Universe"

"The Aether is a quantum rotating magnetic field, which maintains the onn 
half-spin, and is the source of the structure of quantum physical matter."


"Quantum measurements will show that all true quantum constants have a definite 
structure, imparted by the Aether."


"Quantum matter has only two dimensions of length, that is, it only has surface 
characteristic."


"Since almost all controllable physical processes occur through interactions of 
the electron and photon, the quantum measurements of the electron usually define 
the quantum measurement units."


"Think of Aether as being a quantum hole in which subatomic matter is able to 
reside.  Onta get their physical geometry from these quantum holes, but the 
quantum holes also impart the spin nature to onta.  The "quantum holes" have a 
toroidal structure in the shape of a double loxodrome, as seen in the image above."


"Aether is a dynamic fabric of space-resonance composed of independent, quantum 
units."


"The Aether Physics Model sees all stable quantum matter (onta) as primary 
angular momentum"


"In one quantum moment, there are a given number of photon fronts arriving at an 
atom."


"The bi-directional spinning toroids component of the equation are equal to the 
quantum measurement unit of double cardioid."


Header of your chapter 6:
"Redefining units in terms of distributed charge and quantum measurements."

"Aether unit, it moves one quantum distance (Compton wavelength) in the 
direction it is going.  The speed of light is one quantum distance times the 
quantum frequency."


"In the Aether Physics Model, quantum constants offer a new analysis tool for 
examining quantum processes."


"We have discovered a new geometrically and mathematically correct foundation 
for physics, which precisely quantifies the quantum structure."


The main header in your home page --> "Quantum AetherDynamics Institute"
---



It's only right to request your knowledge of quantum physics. So I'll ask you 
yet one more time ... Can you do QM mathematics? Can you solve QM problems? Are 
you a specialist in the field of Quantum physics?  On your sites home page, 
"This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model 
not only describes quantum structure, ***BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM 
MECHANICS*** and has the potential to far exceed the capability of the Standard 
Model."




Regards,
Paul

Re: [Vo]:

[Esa Ruoho]

On 14/03/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Hi Esa
>i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took
great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics >and physics
and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger
did publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic >open-path geometry that seemed to
mesh in with everything else. should be interesting to see how the two
walters coincide, walter >russell and schauberge.r
What exactly did you give to Vladimir?  Until you mentioned "Walter," I
had not realized he added to his work.  A quick Google search shows his web
site is in German.  My limited American language skills have hidden Walter's
work from me.


Walter Schauberger bio in english:
http://www.kupferspuren.at/CopperTools/e_WS.htm

just a few hints that there are such things as these:
1) Radlberger - Der hyperbolische Kegel nach Walter Schauberger (2002) which
is full of math and all that stuff, which seems available, well, online.

2) that PKS have published a few calendars consisting of hyperbolic cone
geometry, and materials based on that (the calendars are in the german
language)

3) that PKS is somewhat available, heres some info about them:

from source#1: ( http://schauberger-books.org.uk/links.shtml#links )
After his father died, Walter Schauberger set up, in 1962, the Pythagoras
Kepler School  (PKS) at Engleithen in the
Salzkammergut mountains of Upper Austria. He was a physicist and
mathematician, and set out to validate mathematically his father's research.
His particular interests were harmonic theories (the monochord) and
conceptions of non-Euclidian geometry (plane sections of a hyperbolic cone).
He never published his research; however, Callum
Coats,
who studied with Walter at the PKS , is
currently writing up some of Walter's work. It was intended that Walter's
eldest son, a physicist, Dr. Tilman Schauberger should succeed him at the
PKS  but, in the event, Tilman died
shortly after his father's death in 1994.

As a result, Walter's younger son Jörg gave up his work in the Austrian
media to help save his grandfather's work. Aided by his wife, he runs
courses at the PKS  for those who wish to
learn more about the Eco-technology heritage. Every year, there are usually
about six seminars in German, with participants from Austria,
Germany,
Switzerland, but also from Italy, Hungary, the Benelux Countries or from
Scandinavia. Less frequently they now also run international seminars in
English, bringing together people from all over the world who are engaged in
Schauberger-inspired research, to share their findings. Speakers at these
seminars are specialists or technicians in water or environmental issues who
are willing to follow unorthodox ways of studying how Nature works. Members
of the PKS  now give lectures in many
different countries round the world.

*Water and the vortex* are the present main topics of study at the
PKS.
However, they intend to test Viktor's ideas for river balancing with energy
bodies and flow guides to help rivers flow naturally and to protect valuable
land and property from flooding.

*The Schauberger Archives* are open for research by appointment - see the
PKS  website. The PKS copper gardening
tools, books, cards and videos are on sale by mail order.


from source#2:
Viktor Schauberger's archive had originally been maintained by his son
Walter Schauberger, a mathematics and physics graduate, and is now
administered by the immediate family. Walter Schauberger was deeply involved
in the further teaching and researching of his father's discoveries which
were based on acute observations of nature; and he brought these perceptions
into accord with harmonic theories of Pythagoras and Johannes Kepler. In
reverence for these great scientists, Walter Schauberger named the research
centre in Engleithen the PYTHAGORAS KEPLER SCHOOL (PKS) and embraced their
formulated research into the term the PYTHAGORAS KEPLER SYSTEM. After an
interruption (Walter Schauberger died in 1994), regular PKS-seminars were
re-established in summer 1996 in the VILLA ROTHSTEIN. A C


shame again that helicola.com is offline.
I wonder what the problem is?  Everything seemed fine last fall when we
were emailing back and forth.  Maybe he got a government contract?

 > one idea comes to mind, maybe the server has just xpired.

While researching on Walter I found another related Schauberger site to be
offline.

Schaubergers 
inventions



you can easily access this site by going to
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle

Re: [Vo]: Definition of "Appeal to Authority" fallacy

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry wrote:


Ahuh, and yet no details are ever availible.


That is incorrect. NIST has published thousands of pages of data. 
Please do not dispute matters of fact.



I'm not questioning if when a floor is pulled if further floors 
worth of destruction will occur, obviously it will.
The question is in a building such as the twin towers or other tall 
conventional buildings if a floor near the top is pulled if the 
entire thing will collapse at near freefall speeds.


All other buildings destroyed by this method, on purpose or by 
accident, have fallen at freefall speeds.



I would expect in the case of the WTC that a lot of it would 
collapse, but I would think it might stop 2/3rds of the way down . . .


You have that backward. When the floor near the top has enough energy 
to break the next one down, that adds one floor to the mass of 
falling material, increasing the total mass that strikes the next 
floor down. After ten floors collapse you have 10 floors worth of 
additional mass falling down. This is not quite true, because some of 
the material falls out the sides and straight down, but most of it 
joins the total mass of falling material, and adds to the force of 
the reaction. Two-thirds down you have *far* greater force striking 
each additional floor, and much greater damage. If anything, it 
should go faster.



, and at the very least to occur far more slowly than freefall 
speeds which means that the building offered 0 resistance which is 
at odds with the conservation of energy.


As Stephen A. Lawrence already pointed out on this forum, the 
breaking reaction occurs at the speed of sound. A floor either breaks 
or it does not break within a fraction of a second. The energy 
absorbed by the breaking is absorbed in that fraction of a second and 
the reaction continues nearly as quickly as it would in free fall.


You can see from the 9/11 photos -- and from the photos of other 
buildings deliberately destroyed by this method -- that the speed is 
a little slower than free fall. Material thrown out the side hits the 
ground a little sooner than the falling bulk of the building.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[Paul Lowrance]

David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>> You just don't get it.  Can you Aether theory even predict the single
> electron double slit experiment?
>
> Apparently, you still cannot understand a simple concept.  The Aether
> Physics Model is about structure, not mechanics.


Quote from www.16pi2.com
"the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can also 
describe quantum mechanics"


The domain name www.16pi2.com is registered under your name.

I took a peak at your website to discover one needs to *buy* your book to study 
your Aether theory.  Also I could not help but notice your obvious *Donations* 
request on your homepage.


So it appears we agree that your APM cannot predict the double slit experiment. 
 May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot?





>> What wild-eyed idea?  One can only believe after all your talk that you
> believe thermal noise cannot charge a capacitor, lol?
>
> And I said anything remotely similar to this... where?


My claim is that energy is capturable form ambient temperature.  The capacitor 
experiment demonstrates this.  I'll ask you again, do you believe a capacitor 
connected to a resistor captures energy from ambient temperature?





> I deleted the psychotic ramblings as it is apparent you are losing touch
> with reality, as I am sure others can clearly see.


Please stop the ad hominem remarks.  What you deleted were challenges.




Regards,
Paul

[Vo]:

[David Thomson]

Hi Esa

 

> i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took
great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics
and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger
did publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic open-path geometry that seemed to
mesh in with everything else. should be interesting to see how the two
walters coincide, walter russell and schauberge.r

 

What exactly did you give to Vladimir?  Until you mentioned "Walter," I had
not realized he added to his work.  A quick Google search shows his web site
is in German.  My limited American language skills have hidden Walter's work
from me.  

> shame again that helicola.com is offline. 

I wonder what the problem is?  Everything seemed fine last fall when we were
emailing back and forth.  Maybe he got a government contract?

> one idea comes to mind, maybe the server has just xpired.

 

While researching on Walter I found another related Schauberger site to be
offline.

 

Schaubergers inventions
 

 

What inventions related to Viktor and Walter Schauberger do you consider to
be of particular interest and why?

 

Dave

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions now vladimir b ginzburg

[Esa Ruoho]

back onlist:

On 14/03/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 > and i loved that  properly referenced history-list that he had  in one
of his books, obviously my own interest in that wouldve been to see lots on
walter russell and viktor schauberger, but the rest of the list seemed to be
quite fun.

Yes, although Ginzburg mentioned Schauberger in glowing terms, he didn't
go into much detail.  This is probably because Viktor Schauberger didn't
explain his theory mathematically, but only practically.  Ginzburg's work is
mathematical in nature.



i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took great
pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics and,
well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger did
publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic open-path geometry that seemed to mesh
in with everything else. should be interesting to see how the two walters
coincide, walter russell and schauberge.r


shame again that helicola.com is offline.

I wonder what the problem is?  Everything seemed fine last fall when we
were emailing back and forth.  Maybe he got a government contract?



one idea comes to mind, maybe the server has just xpired.

Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions now vladimir b ginzburg

[Esa Ruoho]

i didnt mean "touched in the head" as in whacked out - i just thought maybe
there'd be some people who have studied what he has published regards vortex
theories and spirals, and then wouldve, you know, ended that mib
conversation.
he seemed to be a nice person :)
and i loved that  properly referenced history-list that he had  in one of
his books, obviously my own interest in that wouldve been to see lots on
walter russell and viktor schauberger, but the rest of the list seemed to be
quite fun.
shame again that helicola.com is offline.

On 14/03/07, David Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Hi Esa,
> hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg?
> seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices!
Interesting comment to be made on a list called "vortex-l."
I have corresponded with him and have one of his books.  Unlike my work,
which is completely dimension based and derives straight from the empirical
constants, Ginzburg tries to work within the SM and Relativity theories.  He
is actually quite scholarly and gives a properly referenced history of
vortex structures in ancient and modern physics theories.  He then goes on
to show his own work with regard to modern physics.
Far from being touched in the head, if anybody on this list is truly
interested in vortices with regard to physics, they will want to read his
book "Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy."
Dave

RE: [Vo]: Aether Theory

[David Thomson]

Hi Thomas,

> Does one of you have a website about the Aether?

I have a web site on the Aether Physics Model at www.16pi2.com

A white paper gives the foundations of the theory at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

Dave

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions

[David Thomson]

Hi Paul,

> You just don't get it.  Can you Aether theory even predict the single
electron double slit experiment?

Apparently, you still cannot understand a simple concept.  The Aether
Physics Model is about structure, not mechanics.  If you can require a
structural theory to explain mechanics, then I can require your violation of
the second law of thermodynamics to also break the first law.  It's that
silly.

> What wild-eyed idea?  One can only believe after all your talk that you
believe thermal noise cannot charge a capacitor, lol?

And I said anything remotely similar to this... where?

I deleted the psychotic ramblings as it is apparent you are losing touch
with reality, as I am sure others can clearly see.  

Dave

RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions now vladimir b ginzburg

[David Thomson]

Hi Esa,

 

> hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg?

> seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices!

Interesting comment to be made on a list called "vortex-l."

 

I have corresponded with him and have one of his books.  Unlike my work,
which is completely dimension based and derives straight from the empirical
constants, Ginzburg tries to work within the SM and Relativity theories.  He
is actually quite scholarly and gives a properly referenced history of
vortex structures in ancient and modern physics theories.  He then goes on
to show his own work with regard to modern physics.

 

Far from being touched in the head, if anybody on this list is truly
interested in vortices with regard to physics, they will want to read his
book "Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy."

 

Dave

[VO]: Electric Power Grid USA

[R.C.Macaulay]

BlankHowdy Vorts,

Takeover specialists have plans to take TXU Dallas private in what may be the 
largest buyout ever. TXU is the largest electric power producer in Texas and is 
connected to the ERCOT which co-ordinates the entire Texas power grid.

As demand for electric power increases in the USA without producing an 
equivalent increase in power .. well.. do the math.

When will we hit the wall.. This year.

What can we do about it.. too late.

Why? The nation needs to bring a mimimum of 10 large stations online per year. 
Some to simply replace those taken out of service. Takes 3-5 years to secure 
the machinery and build a single plant.

While our attention is being distracted by the magicians behind the curtain.. 
some night soon we awaken to what happens when a massive power outage occurs, A 
power plant can fail. A grid cannot be allowed to fail.

Try calling to complain.. no phone.. try tracing the owners.. all offshore. Try 
calling our esteemed former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, now with UBS Switzerland 
with offices in Austin Texas that is working on the buyout of TXU. The deal is 
so huge that Blackstone,Texas& Pacific and Carlyle is involved.

I used to think the electric power meltdown would happen on either the east or 
west coast.. now Texas is in the running.

Get a bicycle.

Richard

 



Blank Bkgrd.gif
Description: GIF image

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Michel Jullian]

I disagree Nick, even the old timers in Cold Fusion can learn from newbies, as 
surprising as it may seem. A few recent examples taken from this newbie's one 
year experience in the field:

1/ Only last year I taught Michael McKubre how to derive simply the 
thermo-neutral voltage in H2O electrolysis (cf 'JHS questions on evolved gas 
energy in CF' thread). He requested permission to quote or paraphrase my 
derivation with credits, kudos for that, he behaved like a great scientist.

2/ Only a few months ago I taught Melvin Miles and Mitchell Swartz the general 
definition of 'anode' (which they both called wrong, and never admitted 
afterwards having been wrong themselves in doing so, I say they didn't behave 
like great scientists)

3/ Even now I am in the process of teaching Edmund Storms what 'electrolysis' 
means, which I am sure he will acknowledge gracefully.

I have more examples if you're interested. So you see even the mothers of all 
grandmothers are perfectible in the art of egg sucking, and admitting they are 
makes them even greater great grandmothers in my view.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer


> Harry Veeder wrote:-
> 
> < gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the 
> gasoline, the COP is still much bigger>>
> 
> No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an 
> accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. I don't know how long you have been 
> around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting 
> and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989. Many people 
> have brought up your point before. Most people "skilled in the art", and 
> those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of 
> preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that "heat 
> after death" is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further 
> electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to 
> be generated for some time ( approaching "infinite" COP), shows the relative 
> meaninglessness of chasing this form of "COP" - which is exactly what Ed 
> Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a 
> change... 
>

Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer

[Nick Palmer]

Harry Veeder wrote:-

>


No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an 
accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. I don't know how long you have been 
around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting 
and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989. Many people 
have brought up your point before. Most people "skilled in the art", and 
those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of 
preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that "heat 
after death" is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further 
electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to 
be generated for some time ( approaching "infinite" COP), shows the relative 
meaninglessness of chasing this form of "COP" - which is exactly what Ed 
Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a 
change... 

[Vo]: Re: JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF

[Michel Jullian]

Of course there is energy stored in those gases John, exactly the same amount 
that was put in their dissociation. Here is a transcript of what I posted on 
August 16, 2006 to our restricted list of CMNS researchers on the subject (it 
was for H2O electrolysis mind you, figures are slightly different for D2O). I 
authorized some of the top researchers there to quote my derivation (fairly 
basic stuff I thought) in their papers or books so I guess I can authorize 
myself to post it here:

-
Hi M** and E*,

I did post a calculation, that was in a July 2 post "**". Here is a 
revised version:

For water dissociation the enthalpy tables (e.g. those in my calculator) give:

H2O(l) -> 0.5 O2(g) + H2(g) - 285.83 kJ/mol (endothermic)  [P.S. MJ 2007-03-14 
I should have written more generally "endoenergetic"]
   
The delta H ~286 kJ per mole is of course Avogadro's number (6.02*10^23) times 
the required electric energy per dissociated molecule, which is therefore:

E= 286*10^3/6.02*10^23 = 4.75*10^-19 J/molecule

We also know that we need to circulate 2 electrons per molecule, so if V is the 
part of the electrolysis voltage used to dissociate the molecule and e is the 
electron charge 1.6*10^-19 C, another expression for the required electric 
energy (work) for the molecule dissociation is: E=V*2e. Thus:

V=E/2e = 4.75*10-19/3.2*10^-19 = 4.75/3.2 = 1.48V

Please note that the -285.83 kJ/mol reaction enthalpy this calculation is based 
on is for STP conditions 1atm and 25°C, so for different conditions e.g. 1atm 
and 100°C the appropriate reaction enthalpy must be used and will yield a 
different thermo-neutral voltage value.

Michel


So if what we are electro-lyzing (hyphen as a hint for Edmund) is H2O, and if 
both the evolved H2 and O2 and the initial H2O _are at 1 atm and 25°C_, the 
energy stored in those gases is simply 1.48V times the total charge circulated 
through the cell (integral of current over time).

Let me know if this makes sense to you John.

>   A  REWARD for the effort, in advance, even if no one helps with my
> questions:

What's the reward BTW? ;-)

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: "john herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "vortex-l" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:54 AM
Subject: [Vo]: 


...
> [3]   I offer a note here about Cold Fusion:
> 
>   In advance Isit corrected if someone can show a paper or other
> that
> addresses the note below
> 
>   (A) In almost every paper I have read and conferences and
> dedicated presentations I have attended that are directed toward the ideas
> of CF
>  There is one big "hole" which will-would-can change the figures of all
> of the energy
> figures:
> (B)  CF is an electrochemical experiment. Aqueoushence H2 and
> O2 are
> liberated, generated, result of electrolysis of water or how some ever
>   (C)  But no one seems to give a  measure of the volume of these
> gasesand what
>   energy would be resulting if the set up collected the gases as
> separate gas
> flow or stream outputs AND
>   i)  burned them and measured the heat
>   ii)  combined them with a catalyst set up INTENDED to make
> and measured the same
>   iii)  combined the gases in a fuel cell and measured the
> electrical output
> 
> -> And then offer figures of the energy of the use-chemical-fuel
> cell of these
> gases which are the result of nearly Any CF cell I have come across.
> 
>Yes I have read and talked to presenters and sometime the
> gases are vented, recombined often with some proprietary or not defined
> catalyst  but when I ask...
>   "How much gas and what energy it would contribute ...if combusted or fuel
> cell or
> thermal by other means ...I get no answer...or "not part of the calculation"
> or
> ?I do not know? or"itdoesnomatter"
> 
>  Note Bene:  If the gases are produced...the energy they represent
> Does
> make a difference in the total intermediate andor end result.
> 
> Any comment or help on these gasses?
> 
>   Thanks to all,
>   JHS