Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Jones is buying loads of cheap compact fluorescents instead of currently available solar PV panels. He think he will be making a bigger impact. He is right! However, it's worth saying that, like large fluorescents, these bulbs contain mercury vapour. From personal experience with cheap compacts (though nowhere not as cheap as this!) they have a fairly high failure rate in the first couple of days and one of the failure modes was the tubes just breaking off where they are attached to the base, thus letting the mercury escape IN YOUR HOUSE. Can you let me know how your U light America bulbs do, Jones? Nick Palmer
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource . . . That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQChl=en (Relativity: the special and the general theory By Albert Einstein) and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you winning or losing this regrettable dispute. Just my 2 cents Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Nick Palmer wrote.. they have a fairly high failure rate in the first couple of days and one of the failure modes was the tubes just breaking off where they are attached to the base, thus letting the mercury escape IN YOUR HOUSE. Can you let me know how your U light America bulbs do, Jones? Howdy Nick, Failure rate here has been horrific until the new Sylvania bulbs arrived..For the past two years all have failed. Don't ask for warranty.. on the extended warranty claims of long life. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
--- Nick Richard, I will report on any unusual failure rate. Thus far I have put in about 65-70 of the eighty purchased - no problem, but it is clear that the one obvious design flaw exists - and this is not idiot proof. In general every consumer product must be idiot proof. they have a fairly high failure rate in the first couple of days and one of the failure modes was the tubes just breaking off where they are attached to the base, thus letting the mercury escape IN YOUR HOUSE. Can you let me know how your U light America bulbs do, Jones? Yes. With the more expensive Syvania, etc bulbs (twenty or more times more expensive) the fragile glass spiral is (often but not always) enclosed in a plastic sleeve or globe which does two things: It keeps an idiot from trying to screw the bulb in or out by grasping the fragile glass, instead of base, and it keeps any vapor released on failure inside. Actually I have never had even a single failure of any compact fluorescent going back what, ten years? However those Sylavania bulbs are far less bright than these, and often are not a usable replacement for reading. OTOH they draw only 15 watts. These are easily as bright as 100 watt incandescent while drawing less than 1/4 the power (23 watts) - and the light is perfect for reading - not too blue and zero noise. Anyone know how they get the voltage up there with no ballast hiss and at such low cost ? It would have been so very simple to enclose this glass spiral in a protective plastic external layer -- that it is crazy not to have done so = and indeed this is most likely why they are inexpensive. I suspect these should never be used in a house where a child or even teenager would be tempted to replace one, as they would surely not know how - or read the instructions and would twist the spiral Not that adults or anyone else reads instructions these days. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mirror Matter, SLC erzions
Thanks Jones for this interesting reference. On Jul 22, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Jones Beene wrote: This is a resend as it seems the there was a problem the first one. Horace has mentioned the continuing mystery of mirror matter and a possible involvement in LENR. Is it possible that mirror matter accumulates to a greater degree at higher elevation, like at Salt Lake City. Yes. Having negative mass, it is more likely to stay on earth or at least accessible if it binds with condensed matter on the surface and not atmospheric gas. At least that hypothesis is easily falsifiable by using identical cells - one at sea level and then the same cell a mile-higher, and comparing results. Or ... 20 years ago, Bazhutov of Russia introduced the concept of the erzion: in Interpretation of cold nuclear fusion by means of erzion catalysis. Was that before Fleischmann and Pons? Is there a reference published about that time? The earliest reference [1] in the paper was 1979, but it gives no title or even hint as to topic. Hands up Voticians - how many remember that notable occasion in the history of CF? Just as I thought - nada. Not to worry, Russians do not give up easily, as Napoleon and Hitler discovered to their mutual humiliation. Muons are indeed known to catalyze cold fusion, and could, in principle, be the cause of a more repeatable variety of LENR in some locations, since they arrive at the Earth's surface in cosmic showers and would have longer effective lifetimes at higher elevation. The short life time of the normal variety precludes the possibility of robust Muon catalyzed fusion in normal circumstances. But what if there were another, heavy and negative particle with much longer life, in these cosmic showers - or from a solar source? Muons would possibly have dual, even dual-dual identity. Mirror matter muons might be longer lived. Mirror matter muons would not have the negative charge that ordinary muons do, and which catalyzes ordinary fusion. The Russians call these hypothetical particles erzions, and postulate that they could have been accumulating on the Earth's surface for a long time, maybe everywhere or maybe in places with less magnetic interference. Erzion catalysis would proceed like muon catalysis and if erzions are long lived, cold fusion is more easily explained, along with some other physical mysteries such as Lebed-X3 energy. The result would be (4)He, thus accounting for the dearth of neutrons; some would however be emitted as secondaries. OK now here is the latest paper from Yu.N.Bazhutov Moscow State Technical University: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0106218 Interesting this was pre-print in 2001 but it is about experiments in 1979 and 1999. ... a reflection of a man ahead of his time? or else more Russian Scat? (you must read the paper to get the SKAT punnage). Jones Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel, you seem to miss the point to this discussion. The LENR website is whatever Jed wants it to be. We started the site and Jed operates it without pay for the benefit of the field. In addition, he applies the highest standards to this operation. Yet, when Swartz raise the issue of censorship based on his own inability to communicate, this is accepted as a plausible complaint. At any time Swartz could make his papers available either on LENR by meeting our standards or on his own site. This is not a two-sided issue. On the one side are two people who are working hard to advance knowledge about cold fusion and on the other side is someone who complains about an issue he could easily correct, all the while insulting Jed and I by his insinuation. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource . . . That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQChl=en (Relativity: the special and the general theory By Albert Einstein) and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you winning or losing this regrettable dispute. Just my 2 cents Michel
Re: [Vo]:Mirror Matter, SLC erzions
--- Horace Heffner wrote: Mirror matter muons would not have the negative charge that ordinary muons do, and which catalyzes ordinary fusion. Yes... but wasn't your hypothesis that the two - normal matter and mirror matter might occasionally bind together? Presumably the properties of the bound pair would be different from either. Were you able to follow the Russian theoretical argument ? BTW the reference to Lebed X-3 energy probably relates to the cygnon or other emissions from Cygnus X-3 http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw12.html which is far different from a muon or mirror muon, so this paper may be of little value to LENR. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? A library. We seldom publish original papers. (Except ahem my book . . . and a few review papers.) Everything comes from other published sources, so that makes it a library. If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. Now look, Michel, I already told you this. I would NEVER, EVER, NOT IN 1 MILLION YEARS DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE WLL OF THE AUTHOR. Got it? NEVER. I would not edit a paper, or upload one, or remove one. Swartz claims that I do but -- to put it bluntly -- he is full of shit. Please get this through your head once and for all: I DO NOT ACT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AUTHOR. Except in 3 cases out of 600 when we decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. First of all, the images supplied by Swartz was not high quality. They were dreadful, like a fax machine copy. I do not think any self-respecting web master would upload them. Second, Google and Amazon books may upload images, but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. The search function works because the documents have been partially or fully OCRed, usually with lots of mistakes. In some sites they are OCRed on demand, which generates even more errors. As long as you are going to the trouble to OCR a document you might as well spend an extra hour or two and do it right. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. There is no benefit to this format, other than the time it saves to prepare the document, and as I said, an author should be willing to spare an hour for an audience of 300,000 people per year. I set these standards for good reasons. I have dealt with hundreds of authors and every one of them was pleased to take some time to proofread papers. Swartz is the only author who has ever complained or asked me to upload papers in some other format. Would Mitchell? Of course not! He will not upload these papers in any format, at his site, my site or any other. His complaints about the format are bogus nonsense. If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would immediately come up with some other excuse, and he would demand that I remove the papers or face a lawsuit. It is all an act -- it is nothing but bogus excuses and nonsense. If he had any intention of making these papers available he would have uploaded them to his own website years ago. - Jed
[Vo]:IAEA to examine Kashiwahara reactor
The Japanese the government and power company officials announced that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has agreed to examine the damaged Kashiwahara reactor and report to the public on its conditions. This tells me the public does not trust the Japanese government or the power companies! It is embarrassing. The government is scrambling to establish credibility because there is a national election this week, and tourism in the area has dropped off precipitously and people are refusing to eat produce or fish from the area because they fear radioactive contamination. Ah, here is a news article in English: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101sid=ag2oi7qye.Z4refer=japan NHK news on Sunday showed several still photos and videos of the damaged plant, for the first in-depth look. They showed a grainy still photo of the toppled radwaste drums, and several shots of buckled roads, retaining walls and building walls with gaps and . . . umm . . . (dansou in Japanese -- not sure what they are called in English) . . . shear faults: vertical gaps as large as ~1 meter where the land fell leaving the wall exposed or collapsed. Despite the damage, the main facility seems intact to me, but who knows. The IAEA will soon know. Power company and government officials say they had no idea the plant was near a major earthquake fault. It looks to me it is right on top of a fault! Japan is the most earthquake prone country on earth, and they spend billions researching and preparing for earthquakes, so I do not believe for a second that they were unaware of this fault. The public does not trust them because they say things like this. The earthquake also damaged a Riken Corp. factory that produces a engine parts for, it turns out, most cars made in Japan, including cars by Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Mitusbishi. Because they use just-in-time supplies, production lines all over the country are shutting down for lack of piston rings. Apparently they put all their eggs in one basket. 600 experts were dispatched to the factory and I think NHK said that partial production has already resumed, and the factory will be fully back on line this week. I have complained about the incompetence of officials in Japan during this disaster, but I must say, overall they've done a splendid job. Perhaps this is because of the upcoming election, as I said, but that's the beauty of elections: officials at every level are scrambling! The news showed a five-minute segment of Prime Minister Abe sitting at a long table surrounded by local and national officials and military people, and he was talking about diapers. Diapers! Also hand wipes, water, electric fans and portable air conditioners. What a contrast with the US response to Katrina! I expect Japanese officials were thinking about Katrina, and also the Japanese government's inept response to the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Local neighborhood organizations also worked well in this disaster. I have read that in major disasters affecting entire geographic areas, most victims are rescued by neighbors and ordinary people, rather than rescue workers. After the Kobe earthquake officials organized neighborhood-watch groups to help old and disabled people. Thousands of volunteers arrived from all over the country over the weekend to assist in the cleanup. Another remarkable technical accomplishment reported on the news is an Internet connected earthquake warning device. Several of these experimental gadgets were installed in houses in the prefecture. When seismology lab sensors detect early waves, they issue an alarm over the Internet ~30 seconds to one minute before the main quake shock waves. Several of these devices worked according to spec. They flash a light and chant in robotic Japanese earthquake, earthquake, earthquake . . . Unfortunately, they were in houses distant from the epicenter where the magnitude was only 4 or 5 and there was little damage. I do not think any were installed in the severely damaged areas. Still, they went off, and one mother and child interviewed on the news said they had time to get out of the house before the quake struck. Even 30 seconds warning would save lives. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? A library. We seldom publish original papers. (Except ahem my book . . . and a few review papers.) Everything comes from other published sources, so that makes it a library. If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. Now look, Michel, I already told you this. I would NEVER, EVER, NOT IN 1 MILLION YEARS DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE WLL OF THE AUTHOR. Got it? NEVER. I would not edit a paper, or upload one, or remove one. Swartz claims that I do but -- to put it bluntly -- he is full of shit. Please get this through your head once and for all: I DO NOT ACT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AUTHOR. Except in 3 cases out of 600 when we decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. Please don't shout. Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was: if the author thinks, understandably, that it's not the business of a library to tamper with the original work, don't insist that it must be edited/improved to upload it, act as a library and upload it. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. First of all, the images supplied by Swartz was not high quality. They were dreadful, like a fax machine copy. I do not think any self-respecting web master would upload them. Better images can be made from an original paper print, he says you have the papers in print. Second, Google and Amazon books may upload images, but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex Yes but you are not a scientific publisher, that's my point, why act as one? and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. The search function works because the documents have been partially or fully OCRed, usually with lots of mistakes. In some sites they are OCRed on demand, which generates even more errors. As long as you are going to the trouble to OCR a document you might as well spend an extra hour or two and do it right. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. Then let them use Acrobat Reader. Also think of the time you would save, uploading images would allow you to have very rapidly a virtually complete collection, thousands rather than hundreds of CF papers. There is no benefit to this format, other than the time it saves to prepare the document, and as I said, an author should be willing to spare an hour for an audience of 300,000 people per year. I set these standards for good reasons. I have dealt with hundreds of authors and every one of them was pleased to take some time to proofread papers. Swartz is the only author who has ever complained or asked me to upload papers in some other format. Would Mitchell? Of course not! He will not upload these papers in any format, at his site, my site or any other. His complaints about the format are bogus nonsense. If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would immediately come up with some other excuse, Then why don't you try him? Whether or not he comes up with another excuse will tell us who was in good faith and who wasn't, which is quite unclear at the moment. Michel and he would demand that I remove the papers or face a lawsuit. It is all an act -- it is nothing but bogus excuses and nonsense. If he had any intention of making these papers available he would have uploaded them to his own website years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. Please don't shout. Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was: if the author thinks, understandably, that it's not the business of a library to tamper with the original work, don't insist that it must be edited/improved to upload it, act as a library and upload it. In my opinion, changing the format to text Acrobat is not tampering. This is analogous to a public library that demands a hardback copy instead of paperback. Or, you might compare it to what a library physically does with a book: they throw away the paper slipcover, they glue on identification strips, and then they burn DDS number into the spine of the book. This does not affect the content, and neither does changing the format from image to text Acrobat. Better images can be made from an original paper print, he says you have the papers in print. He is wrong. I do not have the papers in print. I offered to make better scans if he mails them. Any scanner could make a better copy than the one he sent me. . . . but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex Yes but you are not a scientific publisher, that's my point, why act as one? Of course I am! What else would I be? Every paper on LENR-CANR is about science. No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. Then let them use Acrobat Reader. That is what they use. It does not work with some of these searchable PDF files, and files converted with strange parameters. I have dealt with hundreds of PDF files in every format. They have many problems. Text Acrobat has the least number of problems. Also think of the time you would save, uploading images would allow you to have very rapidly a virtually complete collection, thousands rather than hundreds of CF papers. The format is not holding me back. I cannot upload additional papers because the authors have not given me permission. (Most of them do not respond.) Dieter Britz sent me a scanned collection of 1,283 papers, plus I have several hundred more on paper. Also, there is no point to saving time if you upload unreadable glop. If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would immediately come up with some other excuse, Then why don't you try him? Why don't YOU try him? He is a very trying person. Go ahead and ask him why he does not upload these papers to his own web page, in the scanned image format. You deal with him, and leave me out of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN
Steve, You end with FWIW. I have to say, as with much of Bearden's ranting...not much! Mark OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it was inevitable. Tom Bearden has weighed in on the recent STEORN incident. See: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/072107.htm According to Bearden it would appear that the STEORN device may have suffered the fate of having been ...moved to the 'new' site with a new local vacuum dynamics. Just to clarify, Bearden's explanation is a tad more technical than what the above sentence would lead one to assume. Predictably, Bearden also speculated that ...the bad guys may have adversely altered the machine's operation ...from a distance. It's clear that many in the Vortex group do not hold Bearden's research in high regard. Nevertheless, Bearden's concluding paragraphs, at least for me, seemed to capture the STEORN-KINETICA mishap in a provocatively stimulating way: With high probability, one or the other � a natural change of local 'system to vacuum' interaction and dynamics, or an 'artificial' alteration of local 'system to vacuum' interaction with the Steorn machine � was what happened to cause Steorn's failed demo. The fact that it occurred with repeated change of the affected bearings in the machine shows that it was (again with high probability) not the bearings that were at fault. That means the environmental vacuum potential was indeed altered and different from what the machine is designed for. FWIW, Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:IAEA to examine KashiwaZAKI reactor
I called it the Kashiwahara reactor for some reason. It is Kashiwazaki (Oakpoint), not ~hara (field). Iwamura, in case you are wondering, means Rockville. Japanese placenames and personal names may sound exotic, but they are pedestrian-sounding in translation. I know lots of Japanese placenames. I once spent 6 months transcribing them for the U.S. Army in case we ever want to bomb them again. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
It would have been so very simple to enclose this glass spiral in a protective plastic external layer -- that it is crazy not to have done so = and indeed this is most likely why they are inexpensive. I suspect these should never be used in a house where a child or even teenager would be tempted to replace one, as they would surely not know how - or read the instructions and would twist the spiral Not that adults or anyone else reads instructions these days. Jones Howdy Jones. Most failure experienced on 42 watt N:VISION brand. The lower wattage bulbs have better life. Don't try using a dimmer control. BI its gone ! Richard
[Vo]:Thermovoltaic fab first
I decided to start with fabricating an InSb thermovoltaic cell made by atomic layer electrolytic deposition because it is mostly Georgia University Augusta's process so university technology transfer issues can be reduced while fulfilling the objective of absorbing ambient heat in order to produce electrical power. It probably has less power density than a diode array. I brought this to the attention of Min Gao an inSb themovoltaic cell expert at Cardiff University Wales. The InSb will be heavily Te doped to be highly conductive n type. Please help me avoid non fundamental prototyping errors that would jeopardize the project. If an interesting amount of thermovoltic power is seen and the group is harmonious, prototype development attention will return to the diode array Aloha, Charlie
Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN
On Jul 23, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Zachary Jones wrote: I suppose I largely hold this same sense - though it does make me think of the PK/mind-machine affect documented by the PEAR lab. (Tests in which operator intention causes deviations in random systems) I think their random number generation was not random. Their hysteresis correction method was not totally effective. I put forth a better method but I doubt anything like it was ever used and I would have no reason to think they would have see it. I think the project is defunct. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RandPad.pdf I do wonder if any hysteresis correction at all was necessary though. It might mask real stuff. Output from truly random processes, though having biased distributions, might better have been handled by comparative statistical methods. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
On Jul 23, 2007, at 3:55 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Most failure experienced on 42 watt N:VISION brand. The lower wattage bulbs have better life. Don't try using a dimmer control. BI its gone ! Also, most bulbs warn not to use them in enclosures like bathroom fan lights. (I suppose they overheat?) I've used them outside (also a no no) in sub-zero weather (bigger no no) but in a bulb enclosure (three wrongs make a right in this case?) with no problem. I just came from Wal-Mart and was very surprised to see a large collection of GE (exposed spiral) type compact fluorescents, and almost no other brands on the shelf. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
On 22/7/2007 4:30 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question ... 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? your weight lost in newtons would be: mr(w^2) where m is your mass in kg, w is revolutions/second, radians/second actually (2*pi*rotations/second) yes, indeed. Harry and r is the radius of earth in meters. To convert newtons to pounds multiply by .225
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
On 21/7/2007 2:52 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 21, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: 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? ;-) All you would need to get the rotation right would be a sidereal drive from a telescope equatorial mount. If you extracted any energy from the wheel motion wrt earth though, its angular velocity would change to closer to that of earth, until it matched and no more ennergy would be available. No free lunch there, but the answer to the above question is yes. Yes, although in this case I wasn't specifically looking for a free lunch... but maybe a free ride. ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:38:09 -0800: Hi Horace, [snip] I think Bill has a device somewhere on his web page that can create very high momentary voltages. Perhaps long enough to bring about fusion in the cathode (though as you pointed out, a gas cell may work better). The device comprises two coupled capacitors. One of the two is a door-knob type, the other is a sheet of foil wrapped around a fluorescent tube. When the tube is lit the plasma forms a second electrode separated from the foil by the glass wall of the tube. The foil is wired to the door-knob cap. When the tube is lit, the foil can be charged negatively relative to ground. If the tube is turned off, the plasma electrode disappears (its charge going to ground), and the charge on the foil is no longer balanced. This results in the charge spreading itself as thinly as possible over the metal surfaces with which it is in contact, including the door-knob cap. Because a single pole capacitor has a much smaller capacitance than a plate capacitor, the voltage jumps enormously. Now if this door-knob cap. happens to be made of e.g. nickel, and furthermore is already saturated with Hydrogen, then fireworks may ensue. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Bearden weighs in on STEORN
Zachary Jones wrote: On Jul 23, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:46 AM, thomas malloy wrote: IMHO, it's not proper to substitute the word research for speculation, which AFAIK, is what the local vacuum dynamics is. I'm wondering what the other Vortexians have to say about that? I can neither confirm nor deny... I suppose I largely hold this same sense - though it does make me think of the PK/mind-machine affect documented by the PEAR lab. (Tests in which operator intention causes deviations in random systems) I can't resist mentioning that we believe that there are fallen angels who have nothing better to do than mess with people's minds. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
