[Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
Hi Horace, I don't deny that gravimagnetism exists (it's an obvious consequence of gravity propagating at a finite speed, if the term means what I think it means i.e. the gravitational Lorentz force) but when you say the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth, are you suggesting the observed precession rate is not, or not entirely, accounted for by the official explanation that this precession is due to the gravitational torque exerted by the Sun on the Earth's equatorial bulge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes#Explanation The official theory works nicely though, I remember I had to derive the precession rate as a physics exercise when I was a student many years ago, assuming the Earth was an homogeneous ellipsoid of the right dimensions, and it came out strikingly close to observations. Regards, Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly On May 2, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: I had been trying to figure out if Pioneer is currently heading closer or farther away from the galactic center. Do you know? Hoyt Stearns Pioneer 10 is heading toward Aldebaran in Taurus. Pioneer 11 is headed toward Aquila (The Eagle), northwest of the constellation of Sagittarius. The galactic center is located in the direction of Sagittarius, so Pioneer 11 is headed in its general direction, but way north of it. The galactic center is located near the radio source Sagittarius A*, which is located at 17h45m40.04s −29°00′28.1″, about 29 degrees below the ecliptic. Taurus is away from the Sagittarius, so Pioneer 10 is headed away from the galactic center. By calling the ambient gravimagnetic field galactic I did not mean to imply the galactic center is the source of the ambient gravimagnetic field. In fact, I wrote in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SolarLunarGK.pdf The cumulative gravimagnetic field of the sun and moon do not come within 11 orders of magnitude of the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth. Momentarily ignoring the many possibilities for error, this leads automatically to the wild speculation that we have a powerful unseen spinning neighbor that has been around for a long time, longer than the solar system. The plane of the solar system (the ecliptic) is not aligned with the plane of the Milky Way, so it is unlikely the galactic core is involved. The axis of precession is aligned with the poles of the ecliptic, thus the ambient gravimagnetic field must be also, on average. We may have a dark partner in our part of the galaxy. If the dark partner were 150 light years away it would have to have [(1.551 x 10^-11 i Hz)/(9.526x10^-23 i Hz)]/(150 ly/1.496x10^8 km)^3 = 1.39x10^32 times the gravimagnetic dipole moment of the sun. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, I don't deny that gravimagnetism exists (it's an obvious consequence of gravity propagating at a finite speed, if the term means what I think it means i.e. the gravitational Lorentz force) but when you say the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth, are you suggesting the observed precession rate is not, or not entirely, accounted for by the official explanation that this precession is due to the gravitational torque exerted by the Sun on the Earth's equatorial bulge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes#Explanation The official theory works nicely though, I remember I had to derive the precession rate as a physics exercise when I was a student many years ago, assuming the Earth was an homogeneous ellipsoid of the right dimensions, and it came out strikingly close to observations. Regards, Michel You make an excellent point Michel. I seem to have have a major flaw in reasoning here! At very least, I need to make a correction, and at most dump the whole idea. First, let's (hopefully) dispense with the moon. (I haven't convinced myself this is can be done yet.) It appears the earth's polar motion due to the moon nets to zero, so we can eliminate it as a cause for precession of the equinox. For example, see: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/ MethodsNutationVisualized.htm Now, we still in any case have to deal with differential gravitation on the earth's bulge from the sun as a source of precession. I was under the impression that, ignoring nutation, the pole precessed at a fairly constant rate throughout the year. If the differential gravity effect on the bulge ring were a valid explanation for all the precession, then it would have to come to a complete stop twice a year at the equinoxes, when the net torque from the sun is zero, especially if the sun and moon are aligned. I was under the (apparently wrong) impression this does not happen. However, I have not located a chart yet today that nets out the polar motion due to the sun, or even shows intuitively this is not so. The net precession rate is (360 deg/ 25765 yr)*(3600 secsarc/deg) = 50.3 secs arc per year average. During solstices, the precession rate has to be twice this if the precession rate is zero at the equinoxes. I computed Q_earth = 4.26E21 N m to effect the average precession rate. This would mean the torque would have to be twice that at the solstices, or 8.52E21 N m. To simplify the model lets assume the excess mass 2m is in the form of a barbell with m mass at each end, and with length = the diameter of the earth, and on a 23 deg. angle with the sun. Let m1 be the mass closest, m2 be the mass furthest. Let distance to the sun r be 1 AU = 1.5E11 m, and earth radius be 6378 km = 6.4E6 m. Earth diameter is 12.8E6 m. Due to the 23 deg. tilt, the difference in distances to the sun d for m1 and m2 is d = cos(23)*(12.8E6 m) = 11.8E6 m. Msun = 2E30 kg. Now for some seat of the pants calcs. The forces on the masses are: F1 = G (m Msun)/r^2 F2 = G (m Msun)/(r+d)^2 F1 - F2 = [G (m Msun)/r^2] - [G (m Msun)/(r+d)^2] F1 - F2 = G m Msun [1/r^2 - 1/(r+d)^2] F1 - F2 = G m Msun [7E-27 m^-2] But, the torque on the axis is sin(23)*(6.4E9 m)*(F1-F2), so torque Q = sin(23 deg.) (F1-F2) Q = sin(23 deg.) (6.4E9 m) G m Msun [7E-27 m^-2] m = Q / (0.39 (6.4E9 m) G Msun [7E-27 m^-2]) m = (8.52E21 N m) / (2.1E3 m^2/s^2) m = 4.1E18 kg The mass of the earth is 6E24 kg, so the ring to account for the torque is only a millionth the mass of the earth. So a rough approximation to the 43 km thick bulge ring mass is 8E18 kg. This 8E18 kg seems way too low for the bulge mass. The density of earth is about 5.5 g/cm^3 (too high for crust, but OK for this.) The volume of the ring must be 8E18 kg/(5.5 g/cm^3) = 1.45E15 m^3. Using 2 pi (6.4E9 m) as length of ring, and 43 km as thickness, we get ring width = (1.45E15 m^3)/[2 pi (6.4E9 m) (4.3E4 m)] = 0.8 m I have something major wrong above. Likely, I'll have to go back to the original torque calc. It's almost 6AM now, so I'm too tired to resolve this right now. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
Howdy Vorts, Kiruna Sweden.. any update found to their website? http://www.irf.se/Offices/Kiruna/?dbfile=External%20linksdbsec=Administration Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, I don't deny that gravimagnetism exists (it's an obvious consequence of gravity propagating at a finite speed, if the term means what I think it means i.e. the gravitational Lorentz force) but when you say the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth, are you suggesting the observed precession rate is not, or not entirely, accounted for by the official explanation that this precession is due to the gravitational torque exerted by the Sun on the Earth's equatorial bulge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes#Explanation The official theory works nicely though, I remember I had to derive the precession rate as a physics exercise when I was a student many years ago, assuming the Earth was an homogeneous ellipsoid of the right dimensions, and it came out strikingly close to observations. Regards, Michel You make an excellent point Michel. I seem to have have a major flaw in reasoning here! At very least, I need to make a correction, and at most dump the whole idea. First, let's (hopefully) dispense with the moon. (I haven't convinced myself this is can be done yet.) It appears the earth's polar motion due to the moon nets to zero, so we can eliminate it as a cause for precession of the equinox. For example, see: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/ MethodsNutationVisualized.htm Now, we still in any case have to deal with differential gravitation on the earth's bulge from the sun as a source of precession. I was under the impression that, ignoring nutation, the pole precessed at a fairly constant rate throughout the year. If the differential gravity effect on the bulge ring were a valid explanation for all the precession, then it would have to come to a complete stop twice a year at the equinoxes, when the net torque from the sun is zero, especially if the sun and moon are aligned. I was under the (apparently wrong) impression this does not happen. However, I have not located a chart yet today that nets out the polar motion due to the sun, or even shows intuitively this is not so. The net precession rate is (360 deg/ 25765 yr)*(3600 secsarc/deg) = 50.3 secs arc per year average. During solstices, the precession rate has to be twice this if the precession rate is zero at the equinoxes. I computed Q_earth = 4.26E21 N m to effect the average precession rate. This would mean the torque would have to be twice that at the solstices, or 8.52E21 N m. To simplify the model lets assume the excess mass 2m is in the form of a barbell with m mass at each end, and with length = the diameter of the earth, and on a 23 deg. angle with the sun. Let m1 be the mass closest, m2 be the mass furthest. Let distance to the sun r be 1 AU = 1.5E11 m, and earth radius be 6378 km = 6.4E6 m. Earth diameter is 12.8E6 m. Due to the 23 deg. tilt, the difference in distances to the sun d for m1 and m2 is d = cos(23)*(12.8E6 m) = 11.8E6 m. Msun = 2E30 kg. Now for some seat of the pants calcs. The forces on the masses are: F1 = G (m Msun)/r^2 F2 = G (m Msun)/(r+d)^2 F1 - F2 = [G (m Msun)/r^2] - [G (m Msun)/(r+d)^2] F1 - F2 = G m Msun [1/r^2 - 1/(r+d)^2] F1 - F2 = G m Msun [7E-27 m^-2] But, the torque on the axis is sin(23)*(6.4E9 m)*(F1-F2), so torque Q = sin(23 deg.) (F1-F2) Q = sin(23 deg.) (6.4E6 m) G m Msun [7E-27 m^-2] m = Q / (0.39 (6.4E6 m) G Msun [7E-27 m^-2]) m = (8.52E21 N m) / (2.3 m^2/s^2) m = 3.7E21 kg The mass of the earth is 6E24 kg, so the ring to account for the torque is only a thousandth the mass of the earth, which is sounding more like it. So a rough approximation to the 43 km thick bulge ring mass is 7.4E21 kg. The density of earth is about 5.5 g/cm^3 (too high for crust, but OK for this.) The volume of the ring must be 7.4E21 kg/(5.5 g/cm^3) = 1.45E18 m^3. Using 2 pi (6.4E6 m) as length of ring, and 43 km as thickness, we get ring width = (1.45E18 m^3)/[2 pi (6.4E6 m) (4.3E4 m)] = 8.4E5 m = 840 km so this is looking to be in the ballpark. I'll have to think about this. Looks bad for the ambient field idea. It always did look amazingly high. Regards, Horace Heffner
[Vo]:Cold fusion - hot news again
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19426021.000-cold-fusion- -hot-news-again.html Article Preview Cold fusion - hot news again? * 05 May 2007 * Bennett Daviss * Magazine issue 2602 Physicists scoff, but enthusiasts say they now have evidence that proves room temperature fusion is real. New Scientist investigates FROM a distance, the plastic wafer Frank Gordon is proudly displaying looks like an ordinary microscope slide. Yet to Gordon it is hugely more significant than that. If he is to be believed, the pattern of pits embedded in this unassuming sliver of polymer provides confirmation for the idea that nuclear fusion reactions can be made to happen at room temperature, using simple lab equipment. It's a dramatic claim, because nuclear fusion promises virtually limitless energy. Gordon's plastic wafer is the product of the latest in a long line of cold fusion experiments conducted at the US navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, California. What makes this one stand out is that it has been published in the respected peer-reviewed journal Naturwissenschaften, which counts Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg and Konrad Lorenz among its eminent past authors (DOI: 10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7). Could it really be true that nuclear fusion ...
Re: [Vo]:listserve general question
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/ send null message with subject unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/2/07, Charles M. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do I turn off the mailings but view them on the archives? Where are the archives? Aloha, Charlie
[Vo]:Navy Cold Fusion article in New Scientist
Scientists at the U.S. Navy's San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have produced something unique in the 18-year history of the scientific drama historically known as cold fusion: simple, portable, highly repeatable, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists. Bennett Daviss wrote an article for http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19426021.000-cold-fusion--hot-news-again.htmlNew Scientist on May 3 as a follow-up piece to the in-depth http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#eearticle on the SPAWAR San Diego research by Steven Krivit and Daviss published in New Energy Times in November. For the record, the term cold fusion was never chosen by Fleischmann and Pons; it was wished on them by the press. It was and is a poor descriptor for the phenomenon. The concept of fusion remains highly speculative, a variety of phenomena are clearly not fusion, and then there is the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. Related New Energy Times stories: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROMEDReport on the 2006 Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference (Sept. 10, 2006) http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee Extraordinary Evidence (Nov. 10, 2006) http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsreportExtraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting (March 16, 2007) http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htmCharged Particles for Dummies: A Conversation With Lawrence P.G. Forsley (May 10, 2007) Steven Krivit Editor, New Energy Times
Re2: [Vo]:listserve general question
Charlie's further question: Will I still be able to submit posts? On Thu, 3 May 2007 12:28:11 -0400 Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/ send null message with subject unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/2/07, Charles M. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do I turn off the mailings but view them on the archives? Where are the archives? Aloha, Charlie
Re: Re2: [Vo]:listserve general question
Negative. But you can subscribe to the digest. Here's the complete directions: You have added to the subscriber list of: vortex-l@eskimo.com the following mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By default, copies of your own submissions will be returned. KEEP A COPY OF THIS MESSAGE IN A SAFE PLACE. IT CONTAINS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE VORTEX-L DISCUSSION GROUP. This is an automated subscription mechanism. For your verification, a transcript of the original subscription request is attached below the section on forum rules. If the wrong address has been subscribed and you seem to be unable to fix it yourself, reply to this message now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). * WELCOME TO VORTEX-L * WARNING: AT LEAST READ THE RULES! 1. $10/yr donation 2. NO SNEERING 3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 40K 4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY 5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS 6. NO SPAMMERS The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any anomalous physics such as Cold Fusion, reports of excess energy in free energy devices, chemical transmutation, gravity generation and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly-moderated list. Interested parties are welcome to subscribe. PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE SUBSCRIBING. There is no charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for suggested donation.) Admin addr: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail addr: vortex-L@eskimo.com Webpage:http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html Moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] William J. Beaty 7540 20th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117 206-788-0775 USA * Vortex-L subscription instructions: To subscribe, send a *blank* message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Put the single word subscribe in the subject line of the header. No quotes around subscribe, of course. You will get an automatic greeting message in response. Once subscribed, send your email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Vortex-L digest mode: If you prefer digest mode messages, collections of messages up to 40K total or every 2 days, then subscribe to the vortex-digest instead of to vortex-L. Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Put the single word subscribe in the subject line of the header. Vortex-L forwards each received message within minutes or hours of receipt. Vortex-digest collects messages, then sends them as single large chunks. Vortex-L and Vortex-digest are two separate lists. It is possible to subscribe to one or the other, or both. Help: To obtain a copy of this file, send a blank email with the word help in the subject line. Send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Address Changes: If your email address changes, you can email [EMAIL PROTECTED] to fix things. Or, you can simply send a subscribe command while using your new account. When your old account is turned off, the vortex-L bounce detector will unsubscribe it. If you still have access to the older account address, you can unsubscribe yourself using that address. * WARNING: THE UNSUBSCRIBER MIGHT GET YOU Vortex-L software contains a mechanism which might automatically unsubscribe you. This will happen if your email address starts bouncing all vortex-L email for several days. This is done in order to stop possible email-loops, and to prevent the eskimo.com software from being overwhelmed by email-bounce warning messages. When the Unsubscriber takes you off, it sends you a message explaining its action. Unfortunately this message will usually bounce also. From your viewpoint the message traffic from Vortex-L will suddenly cease. If the email server on your internet service has a habit of overloading or crashing for several days at at time, you will probably encounter the Unsubscriber. If vortex-L traffic seems to suddenly stop, or if your messages to the group are returned with warnings that you are not subscribed, simply resubscribe to Vortex-L. Missed messages are available as textfiles on the Vortex-L webpage, or go to the escribe archive at http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/ ** Vortex-L Rules: 1.
Re: [VO]: LENR,where's the pork?
In reply to R.C.Macaulay's message of Tue, 1 May 2007 07:52:55 -0500: Hi, [snip] BlankHoowdy Vorts, The mystery of the lack of forward motion in developing new energy sources may be solved bt the simple equation 50% of 0 = zero, where pork is zero. Folks, no progress is possible unless and until real money discovers a way to monolopize free energy for mega-bucks [snip] That's easy. Manufacture small generators and sell billions of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 01 May 2007 11:46:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] or 2,912 square nautical miles). When the trace iron prompts growth and reproduction of the tiny organism, scientists on the WeatherBird II plan to measure how much carbon dioxide the plankton ingests. Wrong measurement. What they fail to take into account is that a surge in plankton growth will result in an equivalent surge in plankton predators, and these will return much of the captured CO2 to the atmosphere. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:They Obviously Believe in UCaps
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 2 May 2007 20:29:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] http://www.zenncars.com/home/EEStor%20equity%20investment%20April%2030%202007%20FINAL%202.pdf [snip] Inc. The negotiated investment terms also grant ZENN an additional investment option of up to US $5 million on the same terms, following EEStor's successful completion of its next major milestone: permittivity testing. It isn't permittivity that's the likely problem, it's the breakdown voltage. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times
Hi Robin, The question is, what is most efficient to take carbon down to the deep ocean as marine snow, dead plankton minus decomposition gases, or predator feces plus dead predators minus the CO2 they have breathed out? Intuitively, I would think the latter, but I may be wrong. In any case some carbon will be sedimented, but I agree the measurement they are planning is incomplete, what matters is net removed CO2, not just the amount initially absorbed by the bloom. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 01 May 2007 11:46:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] or 2,912 square nautical miles). When the trace iron prompts growth and reproduction of the tiny organism, scientists on the WeatherBird II plan to measure how much carbon dioxide the plankton ingests. Wrong measurement. What they fail to take into account is that a surge in plankton growth will result in an equivalent surge in plankton predators, and these will return much of the captured CO2 to the atmosphere. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
You're welcome Horace. Your calculation of the torque effect seemed sound to me, I can't remember how I had done it at the time. Regards, Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, I don't deny that gravimagnetism exists (it's an obvious consequence of gravity propagating at a finite speed, if the term means what I think it means i.e. the gravitational Lorentz force) but when you say the ambient gravimagnetic field in the vicinity of Earth required to account for the precession of the Earth, are you suggesting the observed precession rate is not, or not entirely, accounted for by the official explanation that this precession is due to the gravitational torque exerted by the Sun on the Earth's equatorial bulge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes#Explanation The official theory works nicely though, I remember I had to derive the precession rate as a physics exercise when I was a student many years ago, assuming the Earth was an homogeneous ellipsoid of the right dimensions, and it came out strikingly close to observations. Regards, Michel Michel, I very much appreciate your comments. I decided to pull all the ambient field stuff from the article at: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf If I can find any other basis for calculating an ambient field value I'll take a crack at it. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times
Hi Michel/Robin - the most significant thing about some plankton is that they are coccoliths ie they form calcium carbonate skeletons which end up as chalk etc - permanent removal of CO2. In fact, they are a major negative influence on CO2 levels by absorbing volcanic derived CO2 and preventing an excess building up, however, like all of the natural stabilising climate control mechanisms, they have been stressed and pushed to and beyond the limits Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times
By George, laddies, it doesn' make much sense to force an algae bloom and not harvest it. Obviously that is too ambitious a plan to pull-off from day one - but looking ahead a few years ... (here is another idea for Russ to borrow) Call me crazy (or call me Ishmael) but... wouldn't the ideal situation be to have in place a system of at least two (or more) ships tracing the same route ?? the leading one being a spreader of minerals to make the algae bloom, and the following vessels -- which are a day or two behind, but in the same pathway, harvesting the algae for biofuel (and spreading more minerals if they were also being tailed). And as for bio-micimcry in this regard - we might look to the Baleen whales for the proper design, if we can still find one, as they have been hunted to near extinction. The second ship would be the Baleener (We can even christen her as Omoo-Too g or if the Japanese beat us to the goo, she may be called Omoo-Maru) ... anyway... the baleener would be a kind of double wide, so to speak, a large ocean-going catamaran, modified so that between the hulls is a continuous roll of baleen/screen/filter which removes algae, plankton, seaweed, small fish and everything else by the megaton -- to serve as the biomass which can be converted into both fuel and food. Hey -- the ships can be be (at least partly) wind-powered as well. Not that the scheme isn't green-enough without wind. Ish... Side note: Speaking if windy tales, whales and ishmaels, there is a strange kind of unifying factor over there where Ish was born. The (non-Melvillian) Ishmael was Abraham's eldest son, born near Baghdad. You may not realize this but Judaism, Islam and Christianity are collectively known as Abrahamic religions because they all trace their earliest history to the covenant God made with Abraham. Ishmael was born by his Abe's wife's handmaiden and not his wife Sarah, and so Joha the trickster will often quip that there was a bastard around from the very start g. Nick Palmer wrote: Hi Michel/Robin - the most significant thing about some plankton is that they are coccoliths ie they form calcium carbonate skeletons which end up as chalk etc - permanent removal of CO2. In fact, they are a major negative influence on CO2 levels by absorbing volcanic derived CO2 and preventing an excess building up, however, like all of the natural stabilising climate control mechanisms, they have been stressed and pushed to and beyond the limits Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Re: Gravimagnetism and the Pioneer Anomaly
On May 3, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: You're welcome Horace. Your calculation of the torque effect seemed sound to me, I can't remember how I had done it at the time. There still seems to be something way wrong from a Newtonian viewpoint. The gravitational force is linear between the sun and earth. There is no angular momentum component to the sun's gravitational field, at least from a Newtonian viewpoint. And yet, a change in angular momentum of the earth results when precession occurs, and further it depends on the initial earth angular momentum, the angular velocity of the bulge. No rotation, no precession. And yet the gravitons, if such exist, leaving the sun, have no way of knowing in advance if the earth is rotating or not. The Newtonian gravitational field of the sun doesn't change it's effect on earth depending on whether earth rotates or not. Conversely, from a Newtonian standpoint, the gravitational field of the earth acting upon the sun differs not depending on whether the earth rotates or not, or sun rotates or not. Newton falls apart utterly. This is apparently not an action-equal-reaction situation. Angular momentum appears not to be conserved instantaneously from a Newtonian viewpoint when the earth rotates and thus precesses. So much for assuming a mass exists at its center of mass too, for calculation purposes. It seems to me gravimagnetics or some other invention is essential to restore conservation of angular momentum, at least on an instantaneous basis. Regards, Horace Heffner
