[Vo]:What if radiation doesn't cause cancer?
Maybe J. Frank Parnell was right after all. Conventional theory says that radiation-induced cancer occurs with a certain probability based on accumulated molecular damage. But why didn't evolution provide a fix for this long ago? What if it did, and this cumulative damage doesn't occur except in certain people who suffer a genetic disorder which breaks a corrective process? Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer Increased in Some Individuals http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555669 http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-documentdoi=10.1667%2FRR3329 Apparently the benign menengiomas (brain cancer) caused by theraputic x-ray treatment widely given in the 1950s was concentrated in certain groups of people. A-bomb a city, but only certain people come down with radiation disease? Irradiate everyone with low power x-rays, but only certain families aren't immune? J. Frank Parnell (from Repo Man) http://www.myspace.com/jfrankparnell Ra-di-ation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked, goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest x-rays a year. They oughtta have 'em, too. (( ( ( ( ((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]:Vast Chinese Amateur Science Community?!!
Sounds like the vast community of amateur scientists in China are followers of Kuhnian revolutionary science, as opposed to Normal science. Fellow crackpots! Science fans: A basic description and analysis of the emergence of a pseudoscience movement in China http://whoislisteningtome.blogspot.com/2007/04/science-fans-basic-description-and.html (( ( ( ( ((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]:Re: What if radiation doesn't cause cancer?
William Beaty wrote: Conventional theory says that radiation-induced cancer occurs with a certain probability based on accumulated molecular damage. But why didn't evolution provide a fix for this long ago? It is not surprising that sensitivity to radiation varies between different genetic materials, but of course evolution would have killed itself if it had provided a definitive fix for aleatory radiation induced genetic damage --provided historically by cosmic rays-- which can lead to cancer or other horrors such as crippling malformations in the progeny... or to favorable evolution. Michel - Original Message - From: William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:10 AM Subject: [Vo]:What if radiation doesn't cause cancer? Maybe J. Frank Parnell was right after all. Conventional theory says that radiation-induced cancer occurs with a certain probability based on accumulated molecular damage. But why didn't evolution provide a fix for this long ago? What if it did, and this cumulative damage doesn't occur except in certain people who suffer a genetic disorder which breaks a corrective process? Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer Increased in Some Individuals http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555669 http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-documentdoi=10.1667%2FRR3329 Apparently the benign menengiomas (brain cancer) caused by theraputic x-ray treatment widely given in the 1950s was concentrated in certain groups of people. A-bomb a city, but only certain people come down with radiation disease? Irradiate everyone with low power x-rays, but only certain families aren't immune? J. Frank Parnell (from Repo Man) http://www.myspace.com/jfrankparnell Ra-di-ation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked, goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest x-rays a year. They oughtta have 'em, too. (( ( ( ( ((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
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I suggest to stand on the shoulders of Giants and do it the Amazon Search Inside or Google Books way: use the scanned images to make a searchable image document, which still makes the document appear as the original scanned images on screen, but makes it searchable by linking the images of what is recognized as words to an invisible background layer of OCR'ed text. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*), for searchability of the resulting searchable image pdfs to be excellent. (*)this would save Jed a lot of time so he could upload many more papers, for the benefit of all. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment ... Last year he sent me a scanned image of a paper. I OCR'ed, and sent him back the text, and I offered to upload it if he would check for OCR mistakes and provide better graphic images. He refused. Again, I have no idea why or what his purpose was in sending me the paper. Before he sent it, I told him that I convert all papers Acrobat text format. Why did he bother sending it if he does not want that? Perhaps he sent it and then refused to allow me to convert it so that he could complain to people that I refuse to upload his papers. To give himself a reason to complain, in other words. Who knows? Who cares? ...
[Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Here is a like to one of the first setups that showed a T increase. http://www.stifflerscientific.com/images/dd01.jpg THis may help in showing the basic approach. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:10 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
[Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Photo is nice but captions/diagrams would be welcome. Water vapor condensation heat could be involved if the two outlets have different humidity. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Here is a like to one of the first setups that showed a T increase. http://www.stifflerscientific.com/images/dd01.jpg THis may help in showing the basic approach. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:10 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
RE: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw!
I think you are very close on this, and of course it can be seen on the meters although the photo is not that clear for the meters. The meter on the right is outlet#2 and has a calibration error of +.2 DP (Dew Point) and of course RH% which has less interest until you factor in the temp. The goal of the device is indeed a water vapor diverter, yet the temp increase doe not match well with the energy calculated by the vapor difference, so you are correct in part, yet I may still have calculation errors. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! Photo is nice but captions/diagrams would be welcome. Water vapor condensation heat could be involved if the two outlets have different humidity. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Here is a like to one of the first setups that showed a T increase. http://www.stifflerscientific.com/images/dd01.jpg THis may help in showing the basic approach. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:10 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Michel- Excellent suggetion! BTW - may I ask how you became so facile in the English language? I assume you must be speaking French in your daily routine, and it is no easy feat to switch back and forth as effortlessly as you must be capable of doing Jones Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I suggest to stand on the shoulders of Giants and do it the Amazon Search Inside or Google Books way: use the scanned images to make a searchable image document, which still makes the document appear as the original scanned images on screen, but makes it searchable by linking the images of what is recognized as words to an invisible background layer of OCR'ed text. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*), for searchability of the resulting searchable image pdfs to be excellent. (*)this would save Jed a lot of time so he could upload many more papers, for the benefit of all. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment ... Last year he sent me a scanned image of a paper. I OCR'ed, and sent him back the text, and I offered to upload it if he would check for OCR mistakes and provide better graphic images. He refused. Again, I have no idea why or what his purpose was in sending me the paper. Before he sent it, I told him that I convert all papers Acrobat text format. Why did he bother sending it if he does not want that? Perhaps he sent it and then refused to allow me to convert it so that he could complain to people that I refuse to upload his papers. To give himself a reason to complain, in other words. Who knows? Who cares? ...
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the Day
Steven Krivit wrote: the earth is flat, or is the center of the universe Darwin got it wrong a young earth no new taxes... lone gunman I didn't inhale I better stop before venturing into political incorrectness... Oh, please you're on a roll -- I didn't have sex with that woman. Ha - OK first let me correct the quote authorship situation (thanks also to Steve's keen eye, or ear). The quote appears on the Kowalski Cold Fusion site, which by the way seems to be drawing a lot of readers: ...but on relook - it is not totally clear who said what - but it now looks very much like John Neergaard is the sayer, not the professor: Here is the page - about halfway down --- http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/299hydrinos.html John Neergaard (BS ChE, PhD Ph) should have been credited. Back, due to popular demand - to a listmania selection of improbable statements (aka- lies) * The check is in the mail. * I'll respect you in the morning. * I'm from your government, and I am here to help you. * It's only a cold sore. * You get this one, I'll pay next time. * My wife doesn't understand me. * Trust me, I'll take care of everything. * Of course I love you. * I am getting a divorce. * Drinking? Why, no, Officer. * It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing. * I never watch television except for PBS. * ...but we can still be good friends. * She means nothing to me. * Don't worry, I can go 20 miles when the gauge is on empty. * I gave at the office. * Don't worry, he's never bitten anyone. * I'll call you later. * We'll release the upgrade by the end of the year. * Read my lips: no new taxes * I've never done anything like this before * Now, I'm going to tell you the truth * It's supposed to make that noise. * I *love* your new hat/haircut/dress/suit...! * ...then take a left. You can't miss it. * Yes, I did. * Don't worry, it's OK -- I'm sterile...
[Vo]:Re: Requesting comments to this comment
Thanks for your kind although largely undeserved words Jones. My English is not effortless at all and could be much better considering I spent three years in the UK when I was a student, but daily reading of high quality contributions from you and other learned Vorticians definitely makes it improve! Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment Michel- Excellent suggetion! BTW - may I ask how you became so facile in the English language? I assume you must be speaking French in your daily routine, and it is no easy feat to switch back and forth as effortlessly as you must be capable of doing Jones Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I suggest to stand on the shoulders of Giants and do it the Amazon Search Inside or Google Books way: use the scanned images to make a searchable image document, which still makes the document appear as the original scanned images on screen, but makes it searchable by linking the images of what is recognized as words to an invisible background layer of OCR'ed text. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*), for searchability of the resulting searchable image pdfs to be excellent. (*)this would save Jed a lot of time so he could upload many more papers, for the benefit of all. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment ... Last year he sent me a scanned image of a paper. I OCR'ed, and sent him back the text, and I offered to upload it if he would check for OCR mistakes and provide better graphic images. He refused. Again, I have no idea why or what his purpose was in sending me the paper. Before he sent it, I told him that I convert all papers Acrobat text format. Why did he bother sending it if he does not want that? Perhaps he sent it and then refused to allow me to convert it so that he could complain to people that I refuse to upload his papers. To give himself a reason to complain, in other words. Who knows? Who cares? ...
[Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Do post your calculation Ron, if there is an error there is a chance that someone here will spot it. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! I think you are very close on this, and of course it can be seen on the meters although the photo is not that clear for the meters. The meter on the right is outlet#2 and has a calibration error of +.2 DP (Dew Point) and of course RH% which has less interest until you factor in the temp. The goal of the device is indeed a water vapor diverter, yet the temp increase doe not match well with the energy calculated by the vapor difference, so you are correct in part, yet I may still have calculation errors. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! Photo is nice but captions/diagrams would be welcome. Water vapor condensation heat could be involved if the two outlets have different humidity. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Here is a like to one of the first setups that showed a T increase. http://www.stifflerscientific.com/images/dd01.jpg THis may help in showing the basic approach. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:10 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
[Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Nevermind that one aspect of the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect has been declared nonexistent by some Hungarians: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvC..53..880B Doolittles everywhere know there are no 'ruder pests' than those who would crush cherished allusions ... and apologies in advance for another long and rambling post. Adjust your SPAM filters accordingly. About once every 6 months I get this same recurring vision of future free-energy: a simple neutron generator based on RF irradiation of deuterium oxide in a magnetic field -- IOW the simplicity of NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) using a PM (permanent magnet) tubular reactor. This could be miniaturized to a small size. The deuterium could also be absorbed into a ferromagnetic matrix - like nickel. But like Eliza, 'Doinglittle' to make this concept happen is a consequence of many situational difficulties. This idea resembles an older proposal by Dennis Letts and probably others, and has reportedly been tried in a rudimentary fashion, showing nothing. Hope springs eternal however - and instead of the idea going cold, perhaps it should go cryogenic, and tried once more. Neutrons - produced 'on demand' are arguably the most valuable commodity on earth. Avogadro's number of them will weigh about a gram, and a kilogram equivalent could be worth a cool $100,000,000, in terms of the value of the isotopes which can be bred from them, or the energy which they can create when they interact with boron, for instance. Why cold? Many strong ductile materials, steels for instance, become frangible when subject to extreme cold, but that has nothing to do with the atomic nucleus - except by analogy. Does an elongated nucleus become less stable when the spin of its electron is locked by a combination of a strong magnetic field and low temperature ? This type of nucleus would certainly seem to lose an axis of free movement - which often provides suprises. Although heavy water freezes easily it can be taken down near absolute zero, at which point the atoms may not move much, but the nucleus can still be active. It is also a molecular boson, if that makes any difference. What brought this to mind again was the recent thread on Strange Properties of Water, and Chaplin's phase chart - and Ice-X. [Side Note]: Recruits in that thread was a vague reference to a strange and confused movie with a borrowed Cat's Cradle subtheme, applied to a computer virus which freezes the world's computers, kinda like the Y2K hoopla. Anyway, moving on - there is a real Ice X. It has full packing symmetry and has the most remarkable feature of being over 2.5 times more dense than water. Presumably the heavy water version would be almost 2.8 times denser. Now consider (keeping in mind that this speculation is closer to SciFi than HiFiSci) what could happen if the molecular bosons acted like a simple atomic BEC...?... and of course, if one started out with super pure D2O, all of the O being only the 16 isotope. If subthermal neutrons are freed at a microgram per minute rate, which could create 10-20 kWe, this may not even raise the temperature of the ice very much, so long as they can get free of the ice tube to interact elsewhere within the alloted 1000 seconds or so before neutron decay. At the sub-angstrom level, a nucleus such as deuterium could (possibly) become *less* stable at lower temperatures in a magnetic field - but also with a narrow range of overlapping RF (at a resonant frequency to either the proton or neutron). Obviously if this happened, NMR techniques, such as are used in Medical diagnotiscs, would show some anomaly at low temperature as all lifeforms contain some deuterium. It is an open question as to whether or not anyone has actually performed NMR on deuterated materials at cryogenic temperatures, close to absolute zero - and then had the foresight to look for free neutrons. It would be interesting (and save a lot of time and aggravation) to know this, but most NMR machines are not equipped to input two different frequencies at the same time, so it is doubtful to have been done before by serendipity. Beginning with what we know or suspect about the D2 nucleus - in a blown-up mental image: it is a highly elongated nucleus, similar to a barbell of two spheres separated by at least one unit of diameter of either sphere. One end of that barbell is slightly heavier, so there is built-in axial instability anyway, and if we now substitute for the bar (connection between the two spheres) the mental conception of a spring (gluon-spring?) so that there is also a constant oscillation between the two - then we are getting close to the needed level of imagery. We want to push the oscillation of the barbell to resonance at the same time as increase the amplitude of asymmetrical jerk (cross vector). Both of these two isotopes H and D - have a strong magnetic moment, but a significantly different moment, and also a very
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones wrote.. At a certain modest level of magnetic field (say the field provided by a permanent magnet) then the nuclear components of ice with a moment, will tend to mutually align but not quite. When one end of the barbell is stimulated at its resonant RF and the other fells its different resonant frequency- will the bar - i.e. the gluon spring, as it were - ever be extended further (either axially or in another vector) than the short reach of the strong force (which BTW is not much further afield, in this nucleus than the furthest extremity of its normal elongation) ? Howdy Jones, Or, unless a bending force is induced that would cause an action like a strain gage.. hmm.. or container to vary the pressure. Richard
[Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
Much discussion has occurred in the cold fusion (LENR) literature regarding the importance of achieving high D/Pd ratios, i.e. high D/ Pd loading ratios, in CF cathodes, and thus high hydrogen fugacity. Fugacity is similar to pressure in that it is a measure of the energy required to add an additional atom to the system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugacity Much work in the field has focused on the difficulty of achieving high fugacity because lattice imperfections exist, electrode metals fail, diffusion occurs into cracks, etc. Some work has focused on the importance of superimposed electrostatic fields in or on cathodes, specifically that of S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier- Boss, F. E. Gordon. For early work see: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf This work noted structural and morphological changes in electrode structure, dendritic growth, etc., in the presence of strong electrostatic fields. Based on this work I suggested a change in cell geometry to maximize field potential at the surface of the cathode, and active area of the cathode. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf Despite an intense focus on hydrogen fugacity, and some work related to superimposed electrostatic fields, no work has focused on electron fugacity. This is a complex area due to the quantum mechanical requirement for degenerate electrons to occupy ever higher energetic states when their density passes a critical value, and no conduction electron is free to move. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter One aspect of achieving high loading coefficients is that free conduction band electrons, which are ionically bound to the adsorbed hydrogen in the lattice, are bound to a specific location when the adsorbed hydrogen reaches saturation and thus can no longer diffuse. In fact, one means of measuring cathode loading is to measure cathode conductivity. A key aspect of achieving high electron fugacity then, when no other means is applied or even known to be of use, is to achieve loading to the point no diffusion can occur.Cracked electrodes, lattice imperfections, unsealed exposed surfaces, and anything else that permits diffusion decreases electron fugacity. Electron fugacity at the surface of a metal conductor can be increased by raising the potential of the metal. This increase of potential is synonymous with an increase in charge density. Free electrons migrate to the surface of a metal conductor - to a point. When saturation occurs, additional electrons are forced to occupy locations within the volume of the conductor. At very high potentials, orbitals of surface atoms deform out into the space beyond the normal surface. If sufficient fugacity is achieved the addition of more electrons results in higher energy state of the electrons, not a higher temperature of the electron gas. It is at this point fusion may possibly be catalysed. High electron energies, reduced deBroglie wavelength, permits electron catalysis of fusion. The 3 body tunneling reaction is energetically increased: D+ + e- + D+ --- He++ + e- + energy D+ + e- + D+ --- T+ + P + e- + energy This involves the simultaneous 2 body tunneling of an electron and deuteron to the location of another deuteron. When the fugacity of both hydrogen and electrons reaches a critical point, addition of more energy to the lattice results in fusions. This is an energy focusing effect. An increase in the group energy state, i.e. group fugacity, results in a pressure outlet involving only a few members. Note that the catalytic electron escape reduces the resultant nuclear temperature. The branching ratios from an electron catalyzed reaction will differ from those of a kinetic fusion reaction. The surface electron fugacity of a cathode can be achieved by increasing the electrostatic potential of the cathode, and thus the electrostatic field at the cathode surface. It can also be increased by a bumpy or dendritic surface. An alternative way, or more importantly an additional way, to increase the electric field strength at an electrode surface is to bounce a laser beam off of it at a high angle of deflection. Laser stimulation of a very high negative potential cathode surface may work in a gas environment, provided the surface outgassing is controlled by choice of a surface metal with a low hydrogen permeability and which sustains both a high hydrogen and high electron fugacity. Such a surface can be fed adsorbed hydrogen via a Pd backing. Enough for now. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Better yet I'll just post the link to the work, but will be a day or two as I need my intern to update the site. But is forth coming. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 10:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! Do post your calculation Ron, if there is an error there is a chance that someone here will spot it. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! I think you are very close on this, and of course it can be seen on the meters although the photo is not that clear for the meters. The meter on the right is outlet#2 and has a calibration error of +.2 DP (Dew Point) and of course RH% which has less interest until you factor in the temp. The goal of the device is indeed a water vapor diverter, yet the temp increase doe not match well with the energy calculated by the vapor difference, so you are correct in part, yet I may still have calculation errors. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Maxwell's Demon, naw! Photo is nice but captions/diagrams would be welcome. Water vapor condensation heat could be involved if the two outlets have different humidity. Michel - Original Message - From: Stiffler Scientific [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Here is a like to one of the first setups that showed a T increase. http://www.stifflerscientific.com/images/dd01.jpg THis may help in showing the basic approach. -Original Message- From: Stiffler Scientific [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:10 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) Outlet 12 are both @ 4 PSIG and only difference is the Demon door? Outlet 1 2 reach equilibrium with ambient when pump is off (no air flow). All instruments are calibrated to NIST standards and Outlet 1 2 will reach equilibrium with ambient with no air flow. No obstructions exist in outlets, except for Temperature and Humidity probes (all the same in each tube). The outlet ports are at the same elevation above test bench. What is suggested to insure that the Demon may indeed be present? Will be trying a cascade of the setup to see if the +0.6 'C can indeed be increased to a total of +1.2 'C by the addition of the second unit. At the present insulations is not being employed. Any suggesting on what should be tried to determine the anomalous increase in temperature? I would think that if it was the Demon that the outlet (1) temp should be Tq - 0.6 = T1 ~ 23.4 which is not the case. I would think that if the Demon was at work that cooling should also be seen. So that vorts time is not wasted, I will welcome suggestion via private mail on how the experiment might be monitored so that this strange difference can be found. Unless found to be a stupid measurement error and vorts want additional info I will supply a link to the test data.
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
- Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question Harry wrote:While the brakes are applied the wheel is not turning about its own centre. Wrt the ground it isn't, but wrt the distant stars it is, at the rate of one turn per day (it can't be non-rotating wrt both, agreed?). As I said, and as Steven paraphrased and Horace finally opined: "...If it's initially non-rotating wrt the Earth, i.e. rotating once per day wrt the distant stars, it will keep its angular speed i.e. it will remain at rest wrt the Earth." IOW what you drew (wheel not rotating wrt the distant stars) is not what will happen when the brakes are released, on the contrary the wheel will keep rotating wrt the stars at the sa! me rate a But if the hand of God placed a non-rotating wheel (wrt to distant stars) in the supporting frame, then it would behave as I drew it? ;-) Harry
[Vo]:Idle minds.
A man on the street muse of the universe and of which it is made. Mans science seems determined to find the root particle of our existence, the smallest thing that all that exists can be broken down to. But what if this entity does not exist? What if all particle manifestations are just that? Could all of matter be constructed from harmonics of a single wave and the root of all as we perceive it is just a single pure wave upon which is built all of existence? Mathematicians should be able to construct just such a view and we mortals should be able to understand just how it could be. Consider that our touch perception of solid is a combination of chemical and electrical in nature. Our brain works both at the chemical and electrical levels. Our eyes see things that are defined by waves. Has not science determined that light (photons) can be either/or wave or not wave. If you take that pure root wave function and mix it to an infinite level with all conceivable harmonics, could we not be just a bunch of distorted waves? Sometimes after a week in the salt mines, idea's like this seems to jump into the minds of idle people, those that don't have a hobby or watch football.
Re: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
Nice work! Let me add one fleeting comment about degenerate matter (dm) which might or might not be relevant in the big picture (and before I forget it): (dm) being matter which has sufficiently high density of fermion content that the dominant contribution to its pressure arises from the Pauli exclusion principle. But to be entirely precise, since electrons can pair - we must add non-BEC matter. That is normally assumed, since these experiments are all taking place above the range of 300 K. However, there is one slim situation which this rule cannot cover: if degeneracy pressure arises because of Pauli, then that will not fully apply to a situation in which there is even a transitory BEC state. From the earliest days of LENR analysis, observers have suggested that Pd-hydrides, which are superconductive at low temperatures, could become temporarily superconductive under other circumstances. Ironically, degeneracy pressure itself could provide one circumstance - since pressure can have the same effect as cold - in eliminating freedom of movements. And visually - every SEM image of an active LENR site, including the famous one on Rothwell's Mizuno translation, looks exactly like an *implosion* and definitely less like an *explosion*. just a passing thought, and I am resisting the temptation to add something punny to degenerate ... Jones
[Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
Horace, Regarding that external horizontal electrostatic field effect, the electrolyte being essentially a conductor, and the clear plastic walls being insulators, don't you expect charges to rapidly accumulate at the internal surfaces of the vertical plastic walls until the internal horizontal efield from the external electrodes is exactly zero? Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:04 PM Subject: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion ... Some work has focused on the importance of superimposed electrostatic fields in or on cathodes, specifically that of S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier- Boss, F. E. Gordon. For early work see: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf This work noted structural and morphological changes in electrode structure, dendritic growth, etc., in the presence of strong electrostatic fields. Based on this work I suggested a change in cell geometry to maximize field potential at the surface of the cathode, and active area of the cathode. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf ...
[Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. This dispute has nothing to do with the format of the papers. Swartz does not want to upload his papers anywhere, in any format: not at his own web site, not at LENR-CANR, ISCMNS.org, not in Acrobat format, not in a scanned image. There are 2 or 3 other cold fusion authors who do not wish to make their papers available on line. That's okay with me. I never upload anything without permission. What sets Swartz apart from these others is: 1. He is more vehement. He he told me that if I uploaded one he would sue me. Not that I ever would! 2. He pretends that I am persecuting him by refusing to upload. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*) . . . I have had bad results with this. To be blunt, I have been a tech writer and editor for 30+ years and I am not going upload crappy-looking, third-generation copies of documents. That's unprofessional. I have no say over the content of these papers, but I am not going to be associated with amateur presentations, spelling errors, and blurry, sideways figures! It takes little effort to OCR most papers. People download thousands of copies of a paper, so we should take the trouble to present it properly, without OCR errors or blurry figures. The paper Swartz sent me was short and it could be prepared in an hour or two. If Swartz does not think it worth an hour of his time to clean up a paper for an audience of 300,000 people per year, then I think he has no respect for his readers. I gave Swartz a list of reasons why I insist on the text Acrobat format. He did not respond. Note that other websites nowadays, including all professional journals and Arxiv.org, insist on text Acrobat format. I think cold fusion researchers should at least try to look as professional as other scientists. I might have published the list of reasons here before, but here it is again. 1. It looks more professional and neat. Like it or not, readers often judge the quality of a paper or web site by neatness. They will not even read a paper that looks messy. 2. Image files are difficult for many people to read, and large, and unwieldy. Many of our readers in Russia, China, the Middle East and elsewhere must use slow connections. Scientists in Iran and Russia have such difficulty, they sometimes ask before a CD-ROM copy of the system (which I am happy to provide). 3. Google and the other search tools will not properly index an image Acrobat paper. The hybrid image-text format is even worse. Most of our readers come via Google, Yahoo and the other search tools, so we must make the papers visible to them, and correctly indexed. 4. They are compatible with tools used by disabled people, such as voice output, vision enhancement, Braille output, and special cursor controls. Since I am a mildly disabled person myself, I am acutely aware of how important this is. (For anyone who has trouble controlling a cursor -- as I do -- image files are a damn nuisance to view and scroll through. I can do it with my special office gadgets and gigantic screen, but I would never bother with an ordinary computer. There are countless web sites I will not bother to look at because of problems like this.) 5. Text Acrobat files are compatible with electronic dictionaries and translation tools. Many of our readers are outside of the US, and many are not native speakers of English so I expect they use electronic dictionaries to look up words. I often do this with papers in Japanese. 6. Text format makes it much easier to look up references and quote text. 7. Text format allows important electronic content enhancements such as hyperlinks, contextual information, rejuvenation and so on. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex I think these advantages far outweigh the minor imposition of having to spend a few hours converting a paper back into a machine readable format. Of course it is best to preserve the original machine readable files in the first place. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Vast Chinese Amateur Science Community?!!
On Jul 21, 2007, at 1:22 AM, William Beaty wrote: Sounds like the vast community of amateur scientists in China are followers of Kuhnian revolutionary science, as opposed to Normal science. Fellow crackpots! Science fans: A basic description and analysis of the emergence of a pseudoscience movement in China http://whoislisteningtome.blogspot.com/2007/04/science-fans-basic- description-and.html Some regard them as mad or crazy, and pity them. Some consider their research as pseudoscience and criticize them. Professional scientists generally think their efforts are useless and their visits and letters to professional organizations are a disturbance. Say, I resemble that remark! Fellow crackpots for sure. 8^) We need an automatic translating news group facility to communicate with our fellow outcasts. Maybe we can cross-infect. 8^) We could at least share rejection letters. Gee, maybe some have access to the internet and can read this, and in fact *are* reading this now. Here's my first Gravimagnetics article rejection critique: The dictionary defines isomorphism as a one-to-one correspondence between two mathematical sets. The two mathematical sets considered by Heffner are (1) electromagnetism and (2) gravitation. More specifically, he tries to express the two theories by similar mathematical equations. If one of the theories is already complete, then the missing equations of the other theory can be derived from mathematical similarity. This is not an accepted method of finding 'new science' and Heffner would have great difficulties in publishing his paper in recognized physics journals. One of the problems of Heffner's isomophism of relativistic (Einsteinian) electromagnetism is that it has to be paired with relativistic gravitation, which rules out Newtonian gravitation. This incredibly feeble rejection is a sure sign I'm on to something. I feel reasonably certain fellow crackpots would be more receptive to a theory which explains the Pioneer Anomaly, dark energy, dark matter, and the Galaxy Rotation Problem. A theory that beautifully mates to Newton, special relativity, and to a limited degree GR. It succeeds where GR fails in explaining the source of warm matter from black holes, polar jets from black holes having no accretion disk, and powerful magnetic fields from black holes. It explains hundreds of clearly visible naked supermassive high spin black holes precessionally spewing spiral jets of matter out into our visible universe in the course of creating new galaxies superimposed over mirror galaxies. It leads many places... My main problem, aside from being an uneducated crackpot whose only academic achievement in physics is completion of a freshman course in mechanics in 1962, is the darn article is never done. There are always too many mistakes to correct, and too many new things in the queue to explore or document. It is one fruitful idea generator if nothing else. I won't live long enough to see its fruition. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. This dispute has nothing to do with the format of the papers. Swartz does not want to upload his papers anywhere, in any format: not at his own web site, not at LENR-CANR, ISCMNS.org, not in Acrobat format, not in a scanned image. There are 2 or 3 other cold fusion authors who do not wish to make their papers available on line. That's okay with me. I never upload anything without permission. What sets Swartz apart from these others is: 1. He is more vehement. He he told me that if I uploaded one he would sue me. Not that I ever would! 2. He pretends that I am persecuting him by refusing to upload. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*) . . . I have had bad results with this. To be blunt, I have been a tech writer and editor for 30+ years and I am not going upload crappy-looking, third-generation copies of documents. That's unprofessional. I have no say over the content of these papers, but I am not going to be associated with amateur presentations, spelling errors, and blurry, sideways figures! It takes little effort to OCR most papers. People download thousands of copies of a paper, so we should take the trouble to present it properly, without OCR errors or blurry figures. The paper Swartz sent me was short and it could be prepared in an hour or two. If Swartz does not think it worth an hour of his time to clean up a paper for an audience of 300,000 people per year, then I think he has no respect for his readers. I gave Swartz a list of reasons why I insist on the text Acrobat format. He did not respond. Note that other websites nowadays, including all professional journals and Arxiv.org, insist on text Acrobat format. I think cold fusion researchers should at least try to look as professional as other scientists. I might have published the list of reasons here before, but here it is again. 1. It looks more professional and neat. Like it or not, readers often judge the quality of a paper or web site by neatness. They will not even read a paper that looks messy. 2. Image files are difficult for many people to read, and large, and unwieldy. Many of our readers in Russia, China, the Middle East and elsewhere must use slow connections. Scientists in Iran and Russia have such difficulty, they sometimes ask before a CD-ROM copy of the system (which I am happy to provide). 3. Google and the other search tools will not properly index an image Acrobat paper. The hybrid image-text format is even worse. Most of our readers come via Google, Yahoo and the other search tools, so we must make the papers visible to them, and correctly indexed. 4. They are compatible with tools used by disabled people, such as voice output, vision enhancement, Braille output, and special cursor controls. Since I am a mildly disabled person myself, I am acutely aware of how important this is. (For anyone who has trouble controlling a cursor -- as I do -- image files are a damn nuisance to view and scroll through. I can do it with my special office gadgets and gigantic screen, but I would never bother with an ordinary computer. There are countless web sites I will not bother to look at because of problems like this.) 5. Text Acrobat files are compatible with electronic dictionaries and translation tools. Many of our readers are outside of the US, and many are not native speakers of English so I expect they use electronic dictionaries to look up words. I often do this with papers in Japanese. 6. Text format makes it much easier to look up references and quote text. 7. Text format allows important electronic content enhancements such as hyperlinks, contextual information, rejuvenation and so on. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex I think these advantages far outweigh the minor imposition of having to spend a few hours converting a paper back into a machine readable format. Of course it is best to preserve the original machine readable files in the first place. -
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? What utter complete nonsense. The reason we wanted the papers posted, and were willing to let Rothwell scan the abstract only, is that Jed Rothwell simply cannot be trusted to be accurate and precise in his translations. We have seen him mistranslate 'cathode' for 'anode', and make other errors over the years. He simply neither 'cares', nor understands the importance of accuracy in this matter. -- Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. More Rothwell falsehoods. Rothwell (and Storms) were given complete copies of the papers, including by mail, and by CDROM, and by email, as readers of vortex and CMNS (and those who received identical copies as test issues) know, but Rothwell has elected (as we have said they have the right to do) to keep them censored, just as they have censored others, such as the good works of Ken Shoulders, and previously Bob Bass. The single case to which Rothwell refers was test, done with Dr. Brian Josephson, to see if Rothwell would accept being able to OCR only the abstract. He refused and demanded to scan the entire paper (and screw it up as he does to others). That is not acceptable. Anyone who has ever taken the time to correct Rothwell knows that such an effort is unfortunately a serious waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow calorimetry, which are wrong. Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell, but they are not wrong. Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his calorimetry of the Patterson beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a kilowatt, through the use of vertical flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control. In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that there was nothing like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense. Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there was no need for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked for a kilowatt, and walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's input. This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell is oblivious to. Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work, and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow calorimetry off the LENR site. The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and Jed's putdowns of of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate result. For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are: Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996), and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) . As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10 orally (including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later, after Dr. Mallove was murdered. We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site censored and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow calorimetry and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
On Jul 21, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Horace, Regarding that external horizontal electrostatic field effect, the electrolyte being essentially a conductor, and the clear plastic walls being insulators, don't you expect charges to rapidly accumulate at the internal surfaces of the vertical plastic walls until the internal horizontal efield from the external electrodes is exactly zero? Actually, that is exactly the first thing I thought when I first read the article, except maybe the phrase this is stupid. However, I did not and do not believe the photos or data are faked. Also, the authors are credible. Fig. 2 is very convincing. I took the article on its face value and went from there with my thinking. Note the plastic walls conduct, so when it comes to HV static fields, there is still something going on there different from the case where there are no HV electrodes. The plastic really isn't quite the barrier it appears to be. More importantly, there is in fact a large potential drop across the gap between ground and the HV electrode. Any neutralization of that E field comes in the form of changes in charge concentration, both in the electrolyte and in the electrodes. Both may be significant and work together. The 2 molecule thick interface layer on the cathode surface contains much of the potential drop in an ordinary electrochemical cell. A change in charge concentration there, on both sides, due to a superimposed E field, can possibly assist a cold fusion mechanism. Based on Fig. 2 this change in charge concentration does exist and has a measurable or at least identifiable effect on the cathode chemistry and morphology. The gas mode version I just suggested avoids this issue entirely I hope. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:04 PM Subject: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion ... Some work has focused on the importance of superimposed electrostatic fields in or on cathodes, specifically that of S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier- Boss, F. E. Gordon. For early work see: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf This work noted structural and morphological changes in electrode structure, dendritic growth, etc., in the presence of strong electrostatic fields. Based on this work I suggested a change in cell geometry to maximize field potential at the surface of the cathode, and active area of the cathode. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf ... Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
I don't question the effect, but I suspect it is not due to the _static_ externally imposed electric field, which even if a few pA or even nA flow through the plastic walls will remain zero internally as you will certainly agree. I don't know, maybe some parasitic capacitive coupling of an AC signal, possibly the ripple on top of the constant HV. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion On Jul 21, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Horace, Regarding that external horizontal electrostatic field effect, the electrolyte being essentially a conductor, and the clear plastic walls being insulators, don't you expect charges to rapidly accumulate at the internal surfaces of the vertical plastic walls until the internal horizontal efield from the external electrodes is exactly zero? Actually, that is exactly the first thing I thought when I first read the article, except maybe the phrase this is stupid. However, I did not and do not believe the photos or data are faked. Also, the authors are credible. Fig. 2 is very convincing. I took the article on its face value and went from there with my thinking. Note the plastic walls conduct, so when it comes to HV static fields, there is still something going on there different from the case where there are no HV electrodes. The plastic really isn't quite the barrier it appears to be. More importantly, there is in fact a large potential drop across the gap between ground and the HV electrode. Any neutralization of that E field comes in the form of changes in charge concentration, both in the electrolyte and in the electrodes. Both may be significant and work together. The 2 molecule thick interface layer on the cathode surface contains much of the potential drop in an ordinary electrochemical cell. A change in charge concentration there, on both sides, due to a superimposed E field, can possibly assist a cold fusion mechanism. Based on Fig. 2 this change in charge concentration does exist and has a measurable or at least identifiable effect on the cathode chemistry and morphology. The gas mode version I just suggested avoids this issue entirely I hope. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:04 PM Subject: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion ... Some work has focused on the importance of superimposed electrostatic fields in or on cathodes, specifically that of S. Szpak, P. A. Mosier- Boss, F. E. Gordon. For early work see: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf This work noted structural and morphological changes in electrode structure, dendritic growth, etc., in the presence of strong electrostatic fields. Based on this work I suggested a change in cell geometry to maximize field potential at the surface of the cathode, and active area of the cathode. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf ... Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow calorimetry, which are wrong. Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell, but they are not wrong. Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his calorimetry of the Patterson beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a kilowatt, through the use of vertical flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control. In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that there was nothing like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense. Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there was no need for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked for a kilowatt, and walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's input. This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell is oblivious to. Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work, and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow calorimetry off the LENR site. The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and Jed's putdowns of of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate result. For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are: Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996), and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) . As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10 orally (including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later, after Dr. Mallove was murdered. Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Ed We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site censored and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow calorimetry and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: I don't question the effect, but I suspect it is not due to the _static_ externally imposed electric field, which even if a few pA or even nA flow through the plastic walls will remain zero internally as you will certainly agree. Yes, the total super-positioned E field nets to about zero, but the way that happens is by a change in charge distribution. That change in charge distribution has effects. The electron fugacity in the cathode builds. Looking at Fig. 3 in http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf The E field is neutralized by the distribution of charges in the electrolyte changing, and by an increase in the electron charge density in the cathode. In the plastic the charge distribution changes by displacement of the nuclei from the atomic centers of charge. The increase in negative ion charges in the electrolyte near the plastic is offset by an increase in positive ion charges near the cathode (ion charge balances to zero in the electrolyte). We have a voltage divider. Initially most of the voltage drop is through the plastic. Beyond the plastic most of the voltage drop is through the 2 molecule thick interface. However, as electrolysis proceeds and loading reaches its peak, the conductivity of the top layer of the electrolyte diminishes. Much of the voltage drop starts to occur right in the cathode surface. At this time the fugacity of the electrons builds right there - in the cathode surface, but not very deep, provided the material is tough enough to sustain the voltage drop without diffusion losses. This place of high electron fugacity, high deuteron fugacity, low deuteron mobility, low conductivity, is the active zone for fusion. It takes a while to build in some electrode materials and is never achieved at all in many. A gas regime high electron fugacity cell should alleviate many of these problems and hopefully produce more consistent and possibly useful results. It is interesting that a micro-engineered-cathode might also work. The idea would be to try to prevent bad cathode material from ruining good material results. The idea would be to make a waffle iron like grid of co-deposited Pd-D squares resting on resistor squares mounted on a conductive base and electrically separated by insulating material. The purpose of the resistors is to prevent bad cells from shorting out all the current to the good cells. I don't know, maybe some parasitic capacitive coupling of an AC signal, possibly the ripple on top of the constant HV. There have been various attempts, especially in the early 90's, to look at the effect of a small voltage AC signal of various frequencies superimposed on the DC electrolysis signal. Like all other attempts, none had reproducible results as far as I know, while Mosier-Boss and Gordon continue to make progress with their approach. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In that case, Mitch, why don't you upload them to your own web page? Why are you censoring yourself?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
I wrote:However, as electrolysis proceeds and loading reaches its peak, the conductivity of the top layer of the electrolyte diminishes. That should say:However, as electrolysis proceeds and loading reaches its peak, the conductivity of the top layer of the electrode diminishes. Of course it should go without saying that all I've said in this thread is uninformed personal opinion from the lunatic fringe ... but I'll say it anyway. 8^) Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Dear Edmund, There are many untruths in your above statements (vide infra). Censorship at the misnamed LENR site is longstanding, and no-one gets any satisfaction as the two of you impair the community. Science is based upon truth and full reporting, Ed. 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. What a shame. His work is incredibly important. Proof: Sankaranarayanan Savvatimova Scaramuzzi Schreiber Schwinger Shamoo Shanahan Shrikhande Shyam Spallone Srinivasan Storms Stringham Szpak 2) Rothwell has already admitted censorship. At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell wrote to vortex admitting to censoring, but then purported it was for political reasons, such as not to upset some of his critics (ROTFLOL) so he will not get hit with by a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park. Rothwell: I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so political, but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations. 3) This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster: censor - to subject to censorship; an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material. 4) Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct. == from the late beloved Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space. - Jed This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene = end of missive === 5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored the TITLES of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers given at ICCF-10. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. 6) Despite, Edmunds putative claim that he never got the papers as discussed in or about August 2004, it was clear that Jed got the papers on pdf and other formats. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed and Storms also got the papers by mail on hard-copy print. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. It never came. Jed got the papers in hand at Gene's funeral. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed later got the papers by CD-ROM, and I doubt he had trouble since we discussed the papers on the telephone AND since no one else who received the CDROM had trouble. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. 7) Documenting and admitting that the two of them are involved in this, attention is directed to: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. - Jed 8) For the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of Rothwell and you to do this because
Re: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw!
Stiffler Scientific wrote: Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) How are you powering the demon door? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
Something else leaves me wondering... Harry wrote: While the brakes are applied the wheel is not turning about its own centre. Michel wrote: Wrt the ground it isn't, but wrt the distant stars it is, at the rate of one turn per day (it can't be non-rotating wrt both, agreed?). If you began to ride the wheel nearest the ground after the brake is realeased the net centrifugal force you would feel should depend only on the rotation of the earth, since the wheel is not rotating wrt to the ground. However, wrt to the distant stars the wheel is rotating so you should feel a reduced centrifugal force. Apparently theory leads to a contradiction. Or is my reasoning faulty? Harry
[Vo]:technology extends human capacity
Vortexians; The exchange with Michel Jullian's being a French speaker brought this link to mind, http://www.jacquesvallee.net/blog/blog.html . I'm a big fan of Dr. Vallee's, having read two of his books on UFO's. His observations on the behavior of the aliens comport with my understanding of them. Based on my limited ability to read French. The article, which was written for the Foundation for the Future. draws similarities between modern communications technology and religion. He talks about the Catholics broadcasting the Pope's speeches, and his funeral rights. Moslems turning towards Mecca to pray, and receiving instructions on a lap top. Buddhist prayers and communicating on a cell phone. Ancient funeral rights and predictions about the future being written on burning paper. How did I do? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
Harry Veeder wrote: Interesting thread. The reason I started it was because I'd like to know, suppose the earth started spinning faster, say 10 times it's present rotational speed, how much weight would I loose? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
