Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
If I had time now, or resources, to contact them in the interest of mutually beneficial work, such would inevitably be part of my communication. Good work would be done given support to facilitate it. Zak On 3/15/2007, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Zac, The links you gave for Texas AM research in two phase separation shows that Aggies are beginning to learn how to attract research money... err.. well.. maybe after they learn how to spell seperate grin. I don't know any of these guys but if you do, you may mention they can contact me regarding their water in space recovery system . They will need to add shapes inside the cyclone separator to produce sympathetic vortexes to position the gas and solids for extraction in a zero grav regime. Suspect the project they are working on is mostly for a search for the next funding stage. Have to remember how NASA has morphed . Richard
[Vo]: Re: Three Phase Lifters
Three Phase Tesla Coils, Perhaps? Delta or Wye Connected? Buehler's High Voltage (D.C.) Capacitor Experiments: http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf Biefield-Brown Effect: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewarticle.php?id=39 No Net Charge Electric Dipole Interaction with E-Fields: http://physnet.org/home/modules/pdf_modules/m120.pdf Subject: Re: Induced Electric Dipole-Dipole E-Field Interaction Three-Point Analogy with rapid Point-Switching Stabilization; O (1) (2) OO(3) 1,1 Plus, 2 minus, 3 neutral 2,1 minus 2 plus 3 neutral 3, 3 minus 1 plus 2 neutral Or Such?, to maintain a dipole interaction with the earth's ~ 500 megacoulomb excess negative charge field, even though there is No Net Charge on the system. This can be done with a triangle of three interconnected sphere within sphere capacitors rather than flat plate capacitors to obtain stability and directional-attitude control. When you understand the connections, please fill me in. http://physnet.org/home/modules/pdf_modules/m120.pdf
[Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
RE: [Vo]: Aether Theory
Hi Thomas, I've been following the work of Dale Pond who claims to have replicated the Dynasphere of John E W Keely, www.svpvril.com . He claims that the Dynasphere taps the Strong Force. Dale Pond is correct that Keely tapped the strong force. In particular, Keely tapped the unbinding of molecules by using resonance. Since every atomic binding has a distance between bonds, every molecule has a frequency, which when resonated, will cause the bond to break apart. For water, the resonance needed to break the bond is about 42.8 kHz (going from memory). I have been working with my own versions of mechanical resonators. Instead of relying on a closed spherical resonator, I'm trying to develop a sufficiently strong electromechanical resonator on the cheap. I have had some successes in that I can generate mechanical oscillations well over 50 kHz. The method is to send a pulsed DC signal into a large flat spiral coil with a copper diaphragm and very strong NIB magnet over it. The strong NIB magnet mainly provides mass and strong magnetic coupling with the flat spiral coil magnetic field. I have yet to hook up my 700 watt audio amplifier to it, which is rated to 50 kHz. When I'm sure everything is right, I'll fire it up to reproduce this experiment: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/docx.htm I have also been in contact with a UK physicist for the past three years who has succeeded in dissociating all kinds of materials. He now runs an energy company that dissociates hazardous wastes (chemical weapons, light radioactive waste, biohazard material, daily trash, etc), which not only converts dangerous materials into an inert fine white powder, but also releases more energy than was put into the dissociation process, which is ultimately converted to electricity. The white powder is then used for making useful building materials. He has businesses established throughout Europe, Africa and Asia. I have information from a different source that certain US demilitarization facilities have been closed down. It appears to be because they now have this safer and more efficient method for disposing of waste. Keely's technology is alive and well and already in commercial use, although they don't use hollow spheres and tuning forks. Everything is done through perfectly engineered resonance within plasmas. One of the unique predictions of the Aether Physics Model is that there is a quantum length to the Universe and that most atoms bind with a distance between them greater than the quantum distance. The greater the distance between bindings, the more stable the atom becomes. The binding distance maxes out around iron, cobalt, and nickel. Certain atomic isotopes, which also happen to be fusion materials, have a binding distance less than the quantum length. The only stable element with an average binding length less than the quantum length is lithium. Every isotope of lithium is potential fusion material. It is my untested belief that the reason lithium batteries are known to explode is not just because of body heat, but because lithium can be set to resonance very easily and generates a fusion reaction. Deuterium and tritium are two other highly fusionable materials with average binding distances less than the quantum length. It is possible to get water and other molecules to dissociate via resonance, which releases energy by undoing the Van der Waals force. However, it is possible to resonate certain atoms, which causes them to use the strong nuclear force to in turn resonate the Aether, which absorbs new dark matter into the visible Universe, which creates new visible matter (aka fusion). New matter is the same thing as free energy. The Van der Waals force is just an extension of the strong nuclear force, except that instead of being applied internally, it is applied externally. Permanent magnetism is another manifestation of the strong force. The strong force is very strong, indeed, as Keely found out when his apparatus exploded on several occasions. In the water dissociation experiment mentioned above, all the material in the dissociating water's path was also dematerialized. When science advances by trial and error, the odds are always in favor of the error. That is why I set aside my experiments early on and ended up developing the Aether Physics Model. It is better to engineer an experiment than stumble upon an unexpected result. Dave
[Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
[Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Richard, One other thing turned up in my mini-quest to ascertain if there were any valid alternative energy aspects - to be found in the various allotrope's of oxygen This particular company/patent/consultant (ARAN) may be where you started, as it seems that you have been at this pursuit for a while, while the subject just recently stirred my interest a couple of days ago (but for obvious reasons, since an efficient source of this species (aka - polyoxygen) if made cheaply from air would be of interest in the manufacture of HOOH. Certainly however, if it were cheap enough AND a liquid at near RT - AND at the same time, relatively stable (that is unclear) then who needs peroxide? There is also the claim (unsubstantiated) that NASA is already using polyoxygen, and will be accelerating that use, but that seems unlikely, as the last shuttle launch still had the foam insulation - and something as basic as a new fuel would leak out (the news, not the diozone). Anyway here is a reference, and I will try to dig deeper into the missing details, when time permits: http://transformationalbreakthroughs.org/intpartners/h01coverallotropicoxygen.htm This outfit, as you will realize if you can wade through their tons of BS - is big on self-promotion and tiny on demonstrable lab results (typical LA!). They apparently got a patent and are trying to sell it to a deep pocket funder, or to get the DoD, or anyone else in government (Tom Ridge - LOL) interested. I do not sense that their gambit will work, without some real and demonstrable lab results, but who knows. Anyway - there is something they missed in the whole scenario, and that is the use of a natural nano-template for getting the species to form under high pressure - 2800 psi or so. I haven't fleshed-out the dimensional details yet, but if you are going somewhere with this, I will forward them to you first - should the math hold up under closer scrutiny, and it does seem possible at first blush that the particular template will work (on paper at least). Jones
Re: [Vo]: Proof of capturing ambient temperature energy
Hi, An well known member at Vo sent me the following email. Please see my comments. Undisclosed person: In reply to Paul message of Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:30:54 -0800: Hi Paul, [snip] Has it occurred to you that the device you envisage would cost about the same as a solar cell, but produce far less energy? No it wouldn't. It would work nonstop 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, in the complete darkness in ones basement or in complete daylight. That's the technology I'm working on. Furthermore, the first goal is to merely prove it exists. I have proof energy from ambient temperature is capturable. One of the simplest examples is a capacitor connected to a resistor. Sure, the cap will continue to charge discharge until it's disconnected from the resistor, but the point is energy contained in ambient temperature is capturable. I have other experiments that convert such ambient temperature to DC, but they are difficult/time-consuming to replicate. Tom has a nice experiment that's simple to replicate, but it's a little costly -- http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/ To give you an example of the amount of energy simple radiated by ambient temperature alone a very thin sheet, 1 x 1 m^2, radiates ~920 watts. Theoretically thousands of such sheets could stack less than one inch high. My magnetic avalanche research indicates a device the size of a coffee cup could potentially extract tens of kilowatts of continues energy day or night. Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: Cheap Lauch or Free Lunch was: Di-Ozone
Hypothetical situation: Let's say your space budget was under immense political pressure to contain costs. Let's say that 90% of the out-of-pocket cost for a launch, excluding the sunk costs is in liquid H2. This is not far off. H2 itself, made from methane, is relatively cheap but it is extraordinarily expensive to liquefy, and to keep in that state -and those $$ are out-of-pocket, for every launch. If this were not so, NASA would be sending up many more shuttles than they do now - as the hardware was designed to be used more often than is done. Let's say that using liquid methane and liquid O2 would be great from a cost standpoint, but the isp -- the specific thrust which is available from your (already in-place) launch-vehicle engines is too low with this fuel combo. You can make minor changes to the vehicle but not major. Is there an any happy medium which would save about half or more of the out-of-pocket cost for a payload? That would be where the hypothetical species: poly-oxygen (diozone specifically) would come in. Even if it were not stable (too risky) to store as a pre-manufactured liquid, it is possible that it could be made 'on the fly' from liquid O2 fast enough to be used in a modified engine, in order to burn LNG hot enough to get the same isp, as the alternative, but at a small percentage of the out-of-pocket cost. The key add-on would be an inline reactor subsystem, which would use high pressure O2 which has already been used to cool the rocket motor and then after polymerization - vent the diozone back into the motor. This reactor would, of necessity, contain an intense UV source in the critical spectrum of 254 nm. It would likely need to be a coherent source of UV light. O2 becomes extraordinarily reactive under 245 nm radiation, and would entropically seek to become more stable in such a situation (on paper by taking on a new structure). We do not know if - and how far - RD for this effort has gone, but there are thinly disguised hints: http://www.aculight.com/Downloads/NASA%20SBIR%20Contract.pdf Anyway -- under this spectrum of irradiation, it is (arguably) possible that diozone is the favored species to be formed from high pressure O2 in a 245 nm UV coherent field, and also that its lifetime of stability as a bound-ring exceeds the transit time to the rocket engine. That is pure speculation - maybe it is pure BS g. All I can say for sure - is that if this scenario were even remotely in the ball-park of accuracy, then NASA would have already been on it, like the proverbial stink-on-you-know-what. No bull. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who electrolyzed palladium whoever that was: Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner. Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel, It might be more helpful if you would say how you would title the paper. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who electrolyzed palladium whoever that was: Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner. Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Aether Theory
On 16/03/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Thomas, I've been following the work of Dale Pond who claims to have replicated the Dynasphere of John E W Keely, www.svpvril.com . He claims that the Dynasphere taps the Strong Force. Dale Pond is correct that Keely tapped the strong force. In particular, Keely tapped the unbinding of molecules by using resonance. Since every atomic binding has a distance between bonds, every molecule has a frequency, which when resonated, will cause the bond to break apart. For water, the resonance needed to break the bond is about 42.8 kHz (going from memory). ( from http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:John_Keely) From JoesCell2: *Proffessor Keely found that water will explode at a frequency of 42,712.2Hz. ... did it with a Quartz BowlThink Quartz and how symmetry applies to magnets because that is how quartz crystals are formed, via symmetry. The 42,712.2Hz was applied to a quartz bowl with distilled water at which time it EXPLODED and disappeared. After this experiment Keely began studing geometric shapes that hold these specialized frequencies which can manipulate matter and the mind. So the power of the mind possibly can be realized by the special shapes that Keely discovered from special frequencies. if you know how this works you wouldnt even need a Joe Cellhttp://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Joe_Cellto make power and after a while not even the special shapes because you could use your voice. i will add that if you want* *your joe cells to work better place it on a 10 or 12 point tesseract made on copper foil. You can get it at lowes home improvement in their building materials section*. Verification of frequency to produce etheric force from water? A recent ( *1965*) possible verification of the *frequencyhttp://peswiki.com/index.php/Frequencies * Keely used to dissociate water into *etheric force* was related to me by a scientist when we were discussing certain aspects of free energy. He wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but his name is on file. I have no other verification of this experiment, however I believe it merits telling. The scientist, I shall call him Dr. X, was doing experiments with *ultrasonic sound in a column of water*. The object of the experiments was to devise a means of *separating* various densities of materials by *injecting* them into a *column of water* which was *subjected to an ultrasonic standing wave vibration*. The experimental setup is sketched in Figure 3-3 (for BBS considerations a description follows). A *Barium Titanate ultrasonic transducer* was fixed to the bottom of a *quartz tube* which was closed at the bottom and open at the top. Pure water was poured into the tube and the water column was *tuned* so that a standing wave was produced at *40,000 CPS (cycles per second)*. The transducer was powered by a *700 Watt power amplifier* which was driven by an *ultrasonic frequency generator*. Because of the large amount of power put into the column of water a certain amount of evaporation took place at a constant rate when the transducer was energized. Therefore, *to maintain a standing wave* in the water column *a feedback device* caused the *frequency* to be *raised* as the water evaporated and the temperature changed. As a test, Dr. X decided to run through the experiment with only water in the tube to ensure that a standing wave was maintained as the water evaporated and the *frequency rose higher and higher*. When the experiment was started everything worked beautifully. Dr. X took periodic readings of his instrumentation and was assured that the *standing wave* was being maintained. Suddenly, with no warning whatever the water *disappeared* from the open quartz tube. He looked up thinking to see the water splashed on the ceiling when to his amazement a clean hole went right through the ceiling. The hole was the same size as the inside of the *quartz tube*. Further investigation showed the hole continued on through the roof also! Dr. X checked his notebook and found the last frequency entry to be *41,300 CPS*. It was shortly after this that the water disappeared. Because of the time interval between the last reading and the disappearing water, the frequency sent to the transducer was higher than the last reading and Dr. X said it could well have been very close to *42,800 CPS*, the Keely *dissociation frequency*. This obviously dangerous event caused Dr. X to dismantle the equipment and try some other approach to his problem. This experiment points the way to the use of our modern technology in conjunction with Keely's laws of dissociation to change matter into energy without the use of radioactive materials or extremely expensive atomic accelerators. Keely's technology is alive and well and already in commercial use, although they don't use hollow spheres and tuning forks. Everything is done through perfectly engineered resonance within plasmas. do the companies reference keely in any
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind. The word electrolyze applies to a process of passing current through an ionic solution. Various chemical reactions are initiated by this process. The title of the paper says that the process was applied to palladium. In this process, deuterium and lithium are added to the palladium, some of the palladium dissolves in the solution, and occasionally conditions are produced that result in excess energy. I could have said that palladium was used as an electrode in an electrolytic cell and was caused to be modified by the process. While this would have satisfied Michel, it is too long for a title. The present title accurately and briefly describes what was done. I hope this discussion can move on to more important issues. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who electrolyzed palladium whoever that was: Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner. Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
[Vo]: 'Pulling the plug' on OZ
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/03/14/1173722523336.html ... and you thought Quake Wars was just a game...
Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
If light was literally a projectile, then it should be literally subject to the laws of mechanics and momentum changes should vary continuously. However, we know empirically that light of a particular wavelength can only bring about discrete changes of momentum. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Dear Ed, How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of electrochemistry? Whatever happens to the palladium, it is not 'electro-chemically decomposed' (the meaning of 'electrolyzed'), cf the Faraday quote. So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind indeed, instead of: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte the title should have been, as would be obvious to even a first year student in chemistry: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of a Heavy-Water Electrolyte using a Palladium Cathode but correcting the title would not be enough I am afraid, the very same erroneous terminology occurs inside the paper. Michel P.S. Will we have to call on independent referees (professional electrochemists) to solve this controversy? :) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind. The word electrolyze applies to a process of passing current through an ionic solution. Various chemical reactions are initiated by this process. The title of the paper says that the process was applied to palladium. In this process, deuterium and lithium are added to the palladium, some of the palladium dissolves in the solution, and occasionally conditions are produced that result in excess energy. I could have said that palladium was used as an electrode in an electrolytic cell and was caused to be modified by the process. While this would have satisfied Michel, it is too long for a title. The present title accurately and briefly describes what was done. I hope this discussion can move on to more important issues. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who electrolyzed palladium whoever that was: Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner. Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
[Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Sure it is quantized, but this doesn't make it apparent. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone If light was literally a projectile, then it should be literally subject to the laws of mechanics and momentum changes should vary continuously. However, we know empirically that light of a particular wavelength can only bring about discrete changes of momentum. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
[Vo]:
SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions To Michel Jullian, I noticed you recently stated: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer). I see you have made additional posts since then. I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve resolution of the mistake, you would have revealed the specifics of said mistake up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having Ed ! Storm's best interests in mind. Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, who self-appoint themselves in the role of a teacher who then use this tactic on the targeted student are not so much interested in the welfare of their student or even in the learning process for that matter. They are more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance to them. Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating that his book contains absurdities, that if published as-is, could ...disgrace the lenr.org library. You are entitled to your opinions. With not so many Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel Jullian wrote: How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of electrochemistry? Whatever happens to the palladium, it is not 'electro-chemically decomposed' (the meaning of 'electrolyzed'), cf the Faraday quote. Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Ok. It would be more accurate to call it emergent momentum rather than than apparent momentum...but that is as far as I am prepared to go. ;-) Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Sure it is quantized, but this doesn't make it apparent. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone If light was literally a projectile, then it should be literally subject to the laws of mechanics and momentum changes should vary continuously. However, we know empirically that light of a particular wavelength can only bring about discrete changes of momentum. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Yo Jed, it's not a matter of telling someone how to speak his native language. The vocabulary of science is meant to allow accurate communication between scientists, so that e.g. when one says electrolyzed or excess heat it means the same thing to everybody. Now Faraday lived a long time ago, that's true. Words do change over time, but when they do, traces of such changes usually can be found in recent dictionaries. Let's pick one at random: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolyze e·lec·tro·lyze (-lktr-lz) tr.v. e·lec·tro·lyzed, e·lec·tro·lyz·ing, e·lec·tro·lyz·es To cause to decompose by electrolysis. Short of writing one up yourself, can you find a dictionary where the definition of 'electrolyze' is so different from the above that it could even remotely apply to the electrode rather than to the electrolyte? When you electrolyzed water at school, did you in fact electrolyze platinum? Does your car drive you? Someone has attacked me, virulently, not on the merits of my contribution, but on the way I communicated it with the drama and all. I will reply that all Ed had to do, instead of replying he didn't see what my problem was, was reach for a dictionary to see what the hell I could mean, realize his error, and reply gruffly but honestly right, my mistake, it's the D2O which is electrolyzed and there would have been no drama. That's what I expected him to do, like I would have expected any scientist, because that's what I would have done in his place. Now should scientists criticize each other over scientific communications? I think so, and I think CF in particular would be in better health if there had been less leniency towards each other's mistakes. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel Jullian wrote: How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of electrochemistry? Whatever happens to the palladium, it is not 'electro-chemically decomposed' (the meaning of 'electrolyzed'), cf the Faraday quote. Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
To Steven Vincent Johnson, Share and enjoy (mask the bottom halves of the letters, and read them in the local language of Eadrax) Michel Share and Enjoy is the company motto of the hugely successful Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Complaints division, which now covers the major land masses of three medium sized planets and is the only part of the Corporation to have shown a consistent profit in recent years. The motto stands --- or rather stood --- in three mile high illuminated letters near the Complaints Department spaceport on Eadrax. Unfortunately its weight was such that shortly after it was erected, the ground beneath the letters caved in and they dropped for nearly half their length through the offices of many talented young complaints executives --- now deceased. The protruding upper halves of the letters now appear, in the local language, to read ``Go stick your head in a pig'', and are no longer illuminated, except at times of special celebration. - Original Message - From: Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM Subject: [Vo]: SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions To Michel Jullian, I noticed you recently stated: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer). I see you have made additional posts since then. I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve resolution of the mistake, you would have revealed the specifics of said mistake up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having Ed ! Storm's best interests in mind. Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, who self-appoint themselves in the role of a teacher who then use this tactic on the targeted student are not so much interested in the welfare of their student or even in the learning process for that matter. They are more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance to them. Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating that his book contains absurdities, that if published as-is, could ...disgrace the lenr.org library. You are entitled to your opinions. With not so many Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
On 3/16/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is also the claim (unsubstantiated) that NASA is already using polyoxygen, and will be accelerating that use, but that seems unlikely, as the last shuttle launch still had the foam insulation - and something as basic as a new fuel would leak out (the news, not the diozone) IANARS but I seriously doubt that you can take an engine designed for leaded fuel and just pump in unleaded. I think shuttle's engines, pumps, etc would require some significant rework. Terry stuck in Montreal with an intimate understanding of why it is called the great white north
[Vo]:
Emacs! The leader in news and information on low energy nuclear reactions March 16, 2007 -- Issue #21 ISSUE #21 is available online at http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#FROMEDFrom the Editor 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#thawIce Thaws for Naval Research Lab: LENR Manuscript Accepted; Reproducible Cathode Material Reported 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#purduePurdue Integrity Panel Completes Research Inquiry 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#cottonDeath of Cold Fusion Opponent Albert Cotton Under Investigation 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#anomalies8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen- and Deuterium-Loaded Metals 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#acsThe 233rd American Chemical Society National Meeting 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#milesMelvin Miles Gives Cold Fusion Lecture At University Of La Verne 9. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#uu1989 University of Utah Cold Fusion Press Conference ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 10. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreportExtraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting 11. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#fabScience http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#fabCold Fusion Attack Story Fabricated 12. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#wlWidom-Larsen Theory Debate 13. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#pubsPUBLICATIONS 14. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS New Energy Times (tm) is a project of New Energy Institute, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation which provides information and educational services to help bring about the clean-energy revolution. The New Energy Times (tm) newsletter, Web site, and documentary projects are made possible by the generous contributions of our sponsors and supporters. -- If you have received this announcement from a colleague and you wish to be added to the New Energy Times (tm) mailing list, or if you would like to unsubscribe, click here http://newenergytimes.com/news/news.htm. attachment: 50f444c7.jpg
