Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Michel - Original Message - From: JNPCo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com
Re: [Vo]:NASA Prize
On Wed, 16 May 2007, thomas malloy wrote: I happened upon this URL. I doubt that space flight will ever be the providence of governments. http://www.space.com/news/050323_centennial_challenge.html Beam some wattage to a space-tether crawler device for large prizes. Prize ($1M total) also offered for tether material designs. Carbon nanotube is expected to be the main contender. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:When Terra hurts?
The longshot bet for an ailing Terra, short of a mythological trinity, may be another strange kind of trifecta - a triple coherency... (to be explained, hopefully) There does exist in physics one kind of 'lossless energy transfer' at room temperature, which is already in mass-production. It is used nowadays in advanced electronics, but can it be used for energy production? The nonrandom thoughts below share a similar premise, or another way of stating some of the conclusions which have been voiced recently by Paul Lowrance and Charlie Brown - such as the so-called heat diode or other types of electrical noise rectification, which would be an example of something similar on a microscale, but not exactly the same. In this variant on that theme, it is the spin of the electron which is most important - as unlike the massive electron itself, spin can be transported without any loss of energy, or dissipation. Furthermore, this effect occurs at room temperature in resistive materials already widely used in the semiconductor industry, such as gallium arsenide, or in the coating used for hard disk memory. The 'celestial analogy' is helpful to explain two properties of electrons: (center of mass) momentum and spin (angular momentum): The Earth has the same two kinds of motion. As its center of mass moves around the Sun, we have a quarterly 'differentiation of time' known as the 'seasons' with the 'year' being one complete revolution. The other momentum, which is timed, is that earth also spin on its axis, giving us the day. Normally when we talk about conversion of heat - we are talking about only using the linear momentum of materials, but not their spin. To utilize spin, you would need the same kind of etched circuitry used in CPU's or other chips. We can partially neglect the vagaries of quantum spin, in favor of electron spin with two usable markers - up or down. In computer electronics, we use can voltage to move an electron's center of mass, while with 'spintronics' which used mostly in hard disk memory, voltage is used to manipulate spin. When the spin is reversed, there can exist an associated near-field induction of that energy transfer. Since a polarized photon will substitute for voltage (EMF) then all we need for near perfect conversion of ambient heat, using spin, is a kind of ultra, or triple coherency. On paper, triple coherency offers a way to greatly increase the efficiency of many types of energy conversion - photovoltaics and the like, but at the considerable cost of engineering precision - requiring etched micro-circuitry. The electron spin can be manipulated by photons, even photons of heat (or cold!), at least cold enough to be below IR - and well into the terhertz range. The electron spin has energy, regardless of kinetic vibration, and the up/down 'flipping' of spin can transfer energy to nearby microscopic structures, even when everything is ice-cold. Like any emerging science - especially those of the non-pathological variety - alternative-energy and LENR will eventually have its own specialized vocabulary, lingo or argot and it is well on its way already. Newcomers here probably have difficulty with many of the acronyms in use, and this will get worse. Argot is defined by Wiki as a characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves !) You can draw your own conclusions on that, but suffice it to say that Vor-got will eventually be filled with acronyms, invented words, arcane phraseology, and general-nerdiness, which is to be appreciated mostly by the privileged few. In keeping with that sentiment, both the vocabulary of Spintronics and Excitonics will need to be ingrained into the alternative-energy argot, as even with 'cold fusion' the best way of removing or converting whatever excess energy is found there -- will probably need to be on the ultra-small geometric scale. I can even imagine cold fusion to be possible at cryogenic (overall) temperatures. That is the 'energy connection' to the geek-speak concepts of Spintronics/Excitonics. Think of it as the merger of digital electronics with 'compreture'. Huh? Seriously... It is the merger of future digital electronics (1 terahertz and up) with near ambient heat/pressure ranges (more like cold going up 30 terahertz). But you can also think of it as the key to any kind of LENR where BEC-like condensation results eventually in new or previously unknown reactions. Thus excitronics is like a QM effect (quantum mechanical) but not of the low-probability variety, which is normal for QM. An exciton, BTW is a bound state of an electron and a real 'imaginary particle' called an 'electron hole' in an insulator or semiconductor, and such is a Coulomb-correlated electron-hole pair. It is an elementary excitation, or a quasiparticle of a solid - and although it is virtual or 'imaginary' in that it cannot be seen, it is proven to be as real as any other
[Vo]:The usual garbage from a skeptical professor
Here is romanticized view of scientists, which includes a dig at cold fusion: http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/sci-morality.htm I wrote the author a letter, which he uploaded here, along with a rebuttal by an anonymous professor who buys his opinions wholesale from Robert Park. I could probably have written the Professor's side of the debate better than he himself managed to do it, since left out a few cliches such as extraordinary claims . . . bla, bla, bla. See: http://www.crisispapers.org/features/ep-blogs.htm Here is my response to the author, Dr. Partridge: Thanks for putting the messages in one place. It looks good. I agree the professor should have the last word, especially when he claims that Julian Schwinger and Heinz Gerischer were isolated and they resembled ESPers, or that Naturwissenschaften and the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics are not principal physics journals and the Japanese Institute of Pure and Applied Physics is a peripheral scientific organization. It is Japan's preeminent physics society, equivalent to the APS or the Royal Society. This is like saying Toyota is a peripheral automobile manufacturer. Such assertions speak for themselves! No rebuttal is needed. The professor illustrates why it is essential to look carefully at primary sources, and at the actual content of a claim, rather than trying to judge based on rumors and second-hand impressions, and by one's fragmentary impressions of, say, a foreign physics society one has only vaguely heard of, or never heard of. The professor dismisses the claim based on an opinion expressed by Robert Park, which in turn was based on what some other unnamed people told Park. This is a third-hand opinion, or perhaps fourth hand. No one in this chain of whispers has cited an experimental fact or figure. No one has demonstrated knowledge of what instruments were used, what was measured, what the signal-to-ratio was, or any other salient, objectively measured fact. It is hard to imagine a less scientific approach! Regarding your statements, I never asserted that there is a conspiracy against cold fusion. That's absurd. I know most of the main opponents, and they are not conspiring together in any sense. See chapter 19 of my book, which you can now read in English, Portuguese or Japanese: http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm Also, you made an annoying technical error in your statement, and I wish you would correct it. You wrote: Mr. Rothwell will surely complain that the critics of Cold Fusion have no right to dismiss the theory if they refuse to read the published reports. Cold fusion is not a theory; it is an experimental observation. There is a world of difference. Most cold fusion researchers are experimentalists, and it irks them when people confuse them with theorists. To be more exact, cold fusion is: a set of a widely replicated, high signal-to-noise experimental observations of excess heat without chemical ash, tritium, gamma rays, helium production commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction, transmutations and other nuclear effects that have been published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals of physics and chemistry. That's a mouthful, but anyway, please call it an experimental observation. You wrote: I feel confident that if and when Cold Fusion can come up with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments, mainstreams physicists will take notice. In my opinion, they came out with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments in 1990. But I do not know why you are so confident that mainstream physicists will take notice of such things. I can list hundreds of major technological and scientific breakthroughs that were ignored or denigrated for decades. See, for example, the history of marine chronometers, aviation, semiconductors, hygiene (Semmelweis), pasteurization (which was not enforced in New York City until 1917), the effects of AIDS in women, helicobacter and ulcers, amorphous semiconductors, and the maser and laser. Someone who calls himself a gadfly should know this kind of history. It shows that gadflies are important, and that people often swat at them. Regarding the maser, here are some thought-provoking quotes from the autobiography of Nobel laureate Townes: One day after we had been at it [maser research] for about two years, Rabi and Kusch, the former and current chairmen of the departmentboth of them Nobel laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of weight behind their opinionscame into my office and sat down. They were worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did mine. 'Look,' they said, 'you should stop the work you are doing. It isn't going to work. You know it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. You're wasting money. Just stop!' The problem was that I was still an outsider to the field of molecular beams,
Re: [Vo]:When Terra hurts?
Jones wrote, Due to the many interlocking and conflicting considerations, it seems to be only possible to get all three of these factors into overlapping coherency for a short time with available materials, which seems to involve size between about 10-100 microns for the phonon, and with a corresponding electron hole of a similar exciton dimension, and 3-30 THz for the photon. Such a structure would become naturally colder, as it converted ambient heat into electricity (and perhaps equally desirable for cooling as for free power generation). Howdy Jones, Perhaps the best work you have posted on Vortex. Ah! Yes, the hole. I picture a pair of cones with the points joined , both are spinning like tops. I picture the cones having an invisible shell, the shell is not moving. When one cone is suddenly disturbed the spin instantly removes to the opposite cone not unlike an elongated balloon when one end is squeezed. My word picture does not explain a hole. The points are joined but what allows the spin to flow thru the points? Ah! Ha! Your word picture imagines a hole between the two. In Southern Louisana many of the old folks passed down stories from the swamps that eluded to visible balls of lightning phenomena seen floating across the room. Some reported that the ball would pass thru a glass window and leave a hole. All fun stuff to tell to the grandchillin' before bedtime but ...some described the hole in detail, hardly necessary for telling ghost stories. They could have left out details because some stories specifically stated the ball passed thru the glass without leaving a hole. Expand on that. Can you use a different term than a hole .. Richard
[Vo]:Sprain Magmo
Paul just posted a new video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H07vGnZot0 It shows a four magnet rotor and a generator driving a load. The energy per pulse did not change but the COP did (upward as would be expected). Better hurry, I don't know how long the BoD will allow it to remain. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The usual garbage from a skeptical professor
Thanks Jed for trying to keep such people honest. You do a masterful job. You might ask the dear Professor a question about honesty since his article was about moral and honest behavior in science. Clearly, to publish fraudulent information supporting a discovery is wrong. Is it also not equally wrong to report fraudulent information dismissing a discovery? Does not a respected scholar have an obligation to learn something about a subject before dismissing it? Would the professor respect a scientist who simply made up information in his publication? Why is the information he has published about cold fusion any different? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is romanticized view of scientists, which includes a dig at cold fusion: http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/sci-morality.htm I wrote the author a letter, which he uploaded here, along with a rebuttal by an anonymous professor who buys his opinions wholesale from Robert Park. I could probably have written the Professor's side of the debate better than he himself managed to do it, since left out a few cliches such as extraordinary claims . . . bla, bla, bla. See: http://www.crisispapers.org/features/ep-blogs.htm Here is my response to the author, Dr. Partridge: Thanks for putting the messages in one place. It looks good. I agree the professor should have the last word, especially when he claims that Julian Schwinger and Heinz Gerischer were isolated and they resembled ESPers, or that Naturwissenschaften and the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics are not principal physics journals and the Japanese Institute of Pure and Applied Physics is a peripheral scientific organization. It is Japan's preeminent physics society, equivalent to the APS or the Royal Society. This is like saying Toyota is a peripheral automobile manufacturer. Such assertions speak for themselves! No rebuttal is needed. The professor illustrates why it is essential to look carefully at primary sources, and at the actual content of a claim, rather than trying to judge based on rumors and second-hand impressions, and by one's fragmentary impressions of, say, a foreign physics society one has only vaguely heard of, or never heard of. The professor dismisses the claim based on an opinion expressed by Robert Park, which in turn was based on what some other unnamed people told Park. This is a third-hand opinion, or perhaps fourth hand. No one in this chain of whispers has cited an experimental fact or figure. No one has demonstrated knowledge of what instruments were used, what was measured, what the signal-to-ratio was, or any other salient, objectively measured fact. It is hard to imagine a less scientific approach! Regarding your statements, I never asserted that there is a conspiracy against cold fusion. That's absurd. I know most of the main opponents, and they are not conspiring together in any sense. See chapter 19 of my book, which you can now read in English, Portuguese or Japanese: http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm Also, you made an annoying technical error in your statement, and I wish you would correct it. You wrote: Mr. Rothwell will surely complain that the critics of Cold Fusion have no right to dismiss the theory if they refuse to read the published reports. Cold fusion is not a theory; it is an experimental observation. There is a world of difference. Most cold fusion researchers are experimentalists, and it irks them when people confuse them with theorists. To be more exact, cold fusion is: a set of a widely replicated, high signal-to-noise experimental observations of excess heat without chemical ash, tritium, gamma rays, helium production commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction, transmutations and other nuclear effects that have been published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals of physics and chemistry. That's a mouthful, but anyway, please call it an experimental observation. You wrote: I feel confident that if and when Cold Fusion can come up with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments, mainstreams physicists will take notice. In my opinion, they came out with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments in 1990. But I do not know why you are so confident that mainstream physicists will take notice of such things. I can list hundreds of major technological and scientific breakthroughs that were ignored or denigrated for decades. See, for example, the history of marine chronometers, aviation, semiconductors, hygiene (Semmelweis), pasteurization (which was not enforced in New York City until 1917), the effects of AIDS in women, helicobacter and ulcers, amorphous semiconductors, and the maser and laser. Someone who calls himself a gadfly should know this kind of history. It shows that gadflies are important, and that people often swat at them. Regarding the maser, here are some thought-provoking quotes from the autobiography of Nobel laureate Townes: One day
Re: [Vo]:Sprain Magmo
One overriding question... Why are there two Pringles left? No seriously ...why the focus on the small bulb? Assuming that it is not self-powered yet, what difference could the bulb make? Terry Blanton wrote: Paul just posted a new video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H07vGnZot0 It shows a four magnet rotor and a generator driving a load. The energy per pulse did not change but the COP did (upward as would be expected). Better hurry, I don't know how long the BoD will allow it to remain. Terry
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Michel Jullian wrote: You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Accusation of a scam, but without evidence, is a very serious matter. It's not reasoning, it's just ad-hominem (and is banned by vortex-L Rule #2: NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned.) Don't make the same mistake that Robert Park et. al. have constantly made. Simply state why you believe Newman to be a scammer, and your arguments will have impact. - Original Message - From: JNPCo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
