[Vo]:Walmart delay on CF Book
Walmart last notified me the shipping date was July 28, 2007 for *Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion*. I just checked their email so that's for sure. When I enquired about why it didn't ship they told be it would ship August 28, 2007 because The release date for this item is August 28, 2007. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 12, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 12, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter (was Re: Deflation Fusion) ... Your argument below is flawed because E = grad (V) is the definition of V as much as it is the definition of E, so p1 and p2 cannot be fixed, as you imagined, independently of the real charges which determine the field: once you (the power supply) will have removed all N electrons from B1 and transferred them to B2, then the voltage difference will be as determined by the field created by the real charges. What would be idealized would be to imagine that a power supply can impose a given voltage difference across two bodies, regardless of the electrons those bodies can shed. Guess what Michel, you are certainly right about the above. snip The above refers to voltage differences, so you now agree that only potential differences matter? Absolutely not. I'll repeat the part you deleted above: This brings us back to the main side issue, about which I still feel the same. The veracity your subject statement under some conditions, or lack of same, is irrelevant. It is well known that classical electromagnetism is a gauge theory. However, it is unreasonable and irrelevant to repeatedly note that fact when a gauge has been specified. I never suggested changing the gauge. I never said you did. *I* set the gauge. What I am complaining about is your arguing outside that context. You in effect keep arguing that EM is gauge free after I have set the gauge within the context of the problem. Within the context of the deflation fusion topic, the context in which you criticized changes to Figure 1, when gauge is specified as I did, then *absolute* surface potential is an indicator of electron fugacity. I say once again that to suggest this effect can be created by relative potentials and not absolute potentials where potential is defined within the constraints I very clearly laid out, is to miss the point entirely. It leads to nonsensical designs and to the inability to understand why CF conditions may be so difficult to achieve reliably. This is exactly what I dispute and call nonsensical myself. Only *relative* potentials of the cathode wrt the two anodes will determine the total excess negative charge on the cathode, and therefore the average excess electron density. Since total cathode charge is an important parameter for your scheme you will probably measure it in both versions, hopefully finding the same value will achieve what I failed to do: convince you. The fact of the subject line is well known to even first year EE students BTW, I don't know how versed you are in EE but have you ever seen a dependence on absolute voltage in the current or charge vs voltage laws of resistors, inductors or capacitors? We've been over that many times. Once again you chose to argue out of context. Everybody knows EM is gauge free. Once you set a gauge for potential, however, it is not. I set that gauge a long time ago. If you want to discuss this further please try to do it within the context of the problem and not continue to state the obvious but irrelevant. When measuring experimental values we are (at least I am) pretty much stuck with measuring volts and amps. Surface potentials at points on electrodes measured within a grounded Faraday cage, with the inside of that cage acting as zero potential, should provide good correlations with excess electrons at those points. That sets the gauge. Excess electrons is an absolute measure, and it can now, for experimental purposes, using that definition, be correlated with an absolute potential.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! It certainly is all we can *directly measure* with a volt meter. So... here are a couple questions for you: 1. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more negative charges than positive at some point P on a given plate surface? 2. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more positive charges than negative at some point P on a given plate surface? I think it is possible to do both. Doing this is necessary to accomplish meaningful experiments relating to my theory. It also provides an means to establish, with the necessary degree of precision, a gauge whereby potential measurement is possible on an absolute basis, and thereby proves it is not true that only potential differences matter. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Walmart delay on CF Book
Dear Horace, The book is available from www.worldscientific.com and can be obtain by airmail in a few days. The books being distributed by WalMart are in transit from Singapore were they are printed. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: Walmart last notified me the shipping date was July 28, 2007 for *Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion*. I just checked their email so that's for sure. When I enquired about why it didn't ship they told be it would ship August 28, 2007 because The release date for this item is August 28, 2007. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: High efficiency electrolysis
Stiffler Scientific wrote: thomas malloy said; The idea is to use the potential to cause the oxygen and hydrogen to pull apart, not to muscle in an electron. That's the way a Faraday electrolyzer works. So you are saying the Boyce cell does not work by Oxidation-Reduction reaction? I don't know. I am saying that it's not the standard Fradaic, muscle the O and the H apart by substituting an e method. If using only H2O would it be; The water contains either NaOH or KOH as an electrolyte. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere A, has 1 coul more negative charges than positive. Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere B, has 2 coul more negative charges than positive. They have a finite potential difference V at some separation D. The same is true for two spheres X and Y where X has 2 coul less negative charges than positive, and Y has 1 coul less negative charges than positive. Sphere, charge in coul: A -1 B -2 X +2 Y +1 There is no difference in relative potentials, How do you know? All you can tell is that there is no difference in relative charges! Also note that in practice, the spheres would start as neutral (zero net charge), and the power supply would transfer electrons from one to the other so that your two spheres would have equal and opposite net charges at all times. Michel but the two differ significantly in electron fugacity, the significant variable.
[Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! It certainly is all we can *directly measure* with a volt meter. So... here are a couple questions for you: 1. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more negative charges than positive at some point P on a given plate surface? 2. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more positive charges than negative at some point P on a given plate surface? I think it is possible to do both. Of course it is possible! For 1 connect the plate to the most negative pole of a DC power supply, and connect a counterelectrode, e.g. a ball held close to point P, to the most positive pole. For 2 reverse the polarities. Doing this is necessary to accomplish meaningful experiments relating to my theory. Indeed. It also provides an means to establish, with the necessary degree of precision, a gauge whereby potential measurement is possible on an absolute basis, and thereby proves it is not true that only potential differences matter. Nonsense. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere A, has 1 coul more negative charges than positive. Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere B, has 2 coul more negative charges than positive. They have a finite potential difference V at some separation D. The same is true for two spheres X and Y where X has 2 coul less negative charges than positive, and Y has 1 coul less negative charges than positive. Sphere, charge in coul: A -1 B -2 X +2 Y +1 There is no difference in relative potentials, How do you know? Because the excess charge count is a *given*. It is a postulate. The pairs of spheres each have a finite potential difference V at some separation D. D is a *given* from which a V results. Coulomb's law is a *given*. I can apply logic to the givens and reach a conclusion. All you can tell is that there is no difference in relative charges! Charge is absolute. It is *my* contention that it is possible to establish a neutral condition, and thus a neutral potential, a gauge, from which fugacity can be determined by measuring potential differences. This then is in fact telling the difference in absolute charges, not relative charges. Electron fugacity can thus be determined, via an absolute potential, and in fact differing electron fugacities may produce differing results with respect to cold fusion vs mere relative potential differences which tell you nothing. It is your contention that only potential differences matter, not mine. Also note that in practice, the spheres would start as neutral (zero net charge), You can't say that the spheres start as neutral by your own reasoning. You are unable to define or determine neutral by your reasoning. You are applying circular logic. It also appears you are refusing to accept any set of premises from which logic can be applied to reach a conclusion with which you disagree. These are both common logical fallacies. and the power supply would transfer electrons from one to the other so that your two spheres would have equal and opposite net charges at all times. Michel but the two differ significantly in electron fugacity, the significant variable. I still would like to know: 1. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more negative charges than positive at some point P on a given plate surface? 2. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more positive charges than negative at some point P on a given plate surface? By point P I really mean some small volume (dx)^3 bordering the surface. These are not meant to be academic questions as much as practical ones. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Born-Again Batteries
As far as I know, Joe Newman was the first to create a small stir with the dead battery swapping-and-reviving routine. It does work, no doubt about that. John Bedini came along and got most of the credit, but still few experts believe that there is anything to it - other than can be explained by mainstream science. Here is an image of Bedini's bank of born-again batteries, which are a whopping 1600 amp/hrs and were definitely *dead* (he found them in a junk yard) and definitely *reborn*: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/images/Bedinis_1600A-hr_batteries.jpg Bearden of course, has weighed-in, some time ago, on his view of how Bedini gets the vacuum to contribute excess energy to the dead battery bank. But Bearden fails to mention the mundane explanation. http://www.keelynet.com/bedmot/bedbear.htm There could other explanations of what is going on, as it is most likely a complex situation - and some of those possibilities do not resort to ZPE - OR - may actually employ ZPE (in the guise of the Casimir force) to create other reactions, even LENR. Of course, we should first mention the mundane: which is desulfarators and smart chargers (shock chargers). They do work to revive dead batteries BUT they may be only part of the complete picture. http://www.battery-rechargeable-charger.com/reviving-dead-car-battery.html OK - hope I have set the stage properly. Now for a dive off the deep-end ;-) There is the explanation offered yesterday, which is sounding better (after sleeping on it) and that is for the faux-beta-decay. Let me elaborated. Robin first broached the idea in the context of the Mills' hydrino, but this precise hypothesis is in a broader context than that, and does not depend on the hydrino of Mills' CQM. It depends on a transitory state of a proton bound with a resonant electron - which electron is far more energetic than normal, and which bound-state can be as short as nanoseconds. Mills hydrino is long-lived. It depends on an instant formation and pseudo-decay, by way of first- the binding of a resonant electron which corresponds to one of the values of high shrinkage which Mills CQM has inspired, and which is on Robin's site: http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/Hydrinos_explained.html This formula assumes that 137 steps are possible to get to the neutron level, but since the real neutron also demands a neutrino - an actual neutron would seldom (OK never) materialize. And as Robin has suggested, once the proto-neutron gets near any nucleus (the hydrino killing zone) then it is most likely pulled apart energetically and the excess energy would derive from a slingshot effect out of the quantum well of the target nucleus. If you start with a proton, which is temporarily free in an acid environment (probably any acid), and you need to get down to say, step 100 (out of 137 which is related to alpha, the fine-structure constant); then the formula is ((2 x n) -1) x 13.598 eV ... which requires a resonant electron of 2706 volts, mas o menos, to get to 100. There may be as many as 50 different resonant electron values which would work to create the faux-beta-decay situation. Here is where the Casimir force can enter the picture, so the final scenario is complex. Now the probability of finding one (electron) of exactly any of those values, in normal shock charging is small, as they depend on spikes (and on energy at the end of the Boltzmann tail of the distribution) but this result may still occur with significant probability - and may be responsible for any energy anomaly, when it is seen. However, if one starts-out with the notion that we want to engineer for this possibility, then the probability of it happening can me multiplied significantly. We start out with voltage at the high level and do not depend on the statistical tail - this can result in a significant increase. Jones Below, I have modified yesterdays posting It is premised on a Son-of-Shoulders-EVO (Ken Shoulders) notion: basically that coherent clusters of electrons in bound groups are a possible outcome of moderate voltage (2500 volt) cathode emissions under ideal circumstances. Here it would be circumstance far removed from a vacuum, such as in an electrochemical cell. Ken would not necessarily agree that this is even possible, so let me issue that caveat. Beyond that, there would need to be candidate reactions involving the EVOs which are either nuclear or hydrino-related, which give substantial energy, which is many times more than chemical energy. The idea is that the battery array will be self-charging due to this source of excess energy. My favorite hypothesis-du-jour is the faux-beta-decay. 1) First you have an EVO emitted from an electrode. It is possible that normal electron emission will be adequate for this, and the EVO is not a sine qua non, but it might increase the probability. 2) Second you have
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 1. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more negative charges than positive at some point P on a given plate surface? 2. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more positive charges than negative at some point P on a given plate surface? I think it is possible to do both. Of course it is possible! For 1 connect the plate to the most negative pole of a DC power supply, and connect a counterelectrode, e.g. a ball held close to point P, to the most positive pole. For 2 reverse the polarities. Suppose the DC power supply, a battery, carries a coulomb of excess positive charge, or a coulomb of excess negative charge? Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Born-Again Batteries
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote: It depends on a transitory state of a proton bound with a resonant electron - which electron is far more energetic than normal, and which bound-state can be as short as nanoseconds. Mills hydrino is long-lived. Keep working at it Jones and you will eventually arrive at my deflated hydrogen scenario. Keep in mind that the binding energy of the hydrino, or any orbital state, limits the strength of the field the particle can withstand before coming apart. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Born-Again Batteries
HH: Keep working at it Jones and you will eventually arrive at my deflated hydrogen scenario. Horace, Let men say that, yes, this similar concept of faux-beta-decay is totally derivative of recent postings to Vortex, many by you, some by Robin and some by Michel and others going back to the Mills' CQM theory; and my contribution if any, has been merely to pick and choose - and to put together the various pieces - some related and some unrelated - into solving a new puzzle for which the pieces had never appeared to be applicable before. And, at the same time fully admitting that the likelihood of this being correct is not great, since for one thing - all the reported battery anomalies are only a step above anecdotal, thus far. IOW- I am not seeking any credit for this, and only want to get it into the public domain before someone else comes along and tries to patent it, or in the case of the prior-battery-swappers (Newman/Bedini/Bearden) claim that this hypothesis is what they had intended all along. It would seem that your focus is towards real nuclear reactions, and in contrast, this faux-beta-decay concept tries to avoid any and all nuclear reactions, including LENR. It merely assumes that there is a grain of truth to the battery-anomaly, which methodology could benefit from the Casimir force being active (or alternatively the EVO), but without the need for LENR or the hydrino. Hopefully it makes that assumption: i.e. of a real anomaly being there - more believable with a revised theoretical underpinning, pending confirmation... and will stimulate others to look deeper (and use higher voltage than they ever thought would be useful). Obviously there is something in the air on Vo this month, relative to below ground state hydrogen and understanding the SPAWAR results, and obviously the various postings are taking a different POV from that of Mills, who did get close, and from Widom/Larson who did get close, and from Swartz who did postulate the H-to-D route, and who probably discovered some D being formed directly from H (light water). These are all steps leading in a similar, but not identical, direction. IOW this is another slant on the possibility that Mills' was generally accurate on the below-ground-state possibility, but in which the deflated atom, which I do agree with you - is a better term for the species - is not stable over time. It doesn't have to be and it doesn't necessarily require any catalyst. Mills did not cover all the bases properly, and should not be allowed to shoehorn every hydrogen anomaly into das CQM boot. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Born-Again Batteries
Anybody remember the Apple Pippin ? ...a so-called portable computer from 1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_pippin_apple_portable_make_worst_tech_products_list It is somewhat of an embarrassment to Apple today, most likely, since it didn't sell well and as PC World said: “Stonehenge is a portable sun dial, if you have enough people on hand to get things rolling. In 1989, it cost a whopping $6500! Probably the equivalent of $15,000 today. Steve is nevertheless a wealthy guy and Woz is not far behind. However, all of this nostalgia is important only because this beast did have a decent but heavy lead-acid battery; and what would be interesting today, is to find is a source for about 500-1000 smallish, surplus, lead acid batteries for cheap (or free). Hey - Steve or Woz - do you ever tune into Vortex? Not likely. Anyway, as Wiki sez: these batteries are all over 15 years old, it is very rare to find an original battery that will hold charge ... which is OK with me as long as they are free. IOW they are going to be *revived* from the dead, almost in a Biblical sense - a modern day miracle. We can even even call it the Lazarus experiment. Here is what I would do, with Woz's help, of course. I would wire all 1000 both in series; AND in parallel (to the load) but with a break on both sides of the circuit-circularity, in order to accommodate 1) a very fast high voltage switch on the series circuit (like a thyratron) and 2) any old relay on the parallel side. The idea is to self-charge in series (at the preferred battery frequency) and to discharge in parallel. After the dead batteries are revived (desulfurization) then the real test would be to see if they can consistently delivery more energy to a load than is put into charging them. This would be according to the hypothesis presented earlier = faux-beta-decay. Anybody got Woz's email address? or will this work: http://www.woz.org/ If not, please forward this and the previous postings to his attention. He might take a break (from podcasting or fly-casting) just to go for this - as far-out as that might seem ... what else can he do with all those unsold Pippins in the basement? Jones
[Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
Whether the DC power supply has excess charge itself or not, if it can apply the desired voltage difference between the electrodes (which you can check with a voltmeter), then the expected surface charges (one net positive, the other net negative) will be there at the facing surfaces, in accordance with Gauss's law, see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/gaulaw.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesht.html#c2 Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 1. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more negative charges than positive at some point P on a given plate surface? 2. Is it possible to establish a condition where it is certain there are more positive charges than negative at some point P on a given plate surface? I think it is possible to do both. Of course it is possible! For 1 connect the plate to the most negative pole of a DC power supply, and connect a counterelectrode, e.g. a ball held close to point P, to the most positive pole. For 2 reverse the polarities. Suppose the DC power supply, a battery, carries a coulomb of excess positive charge, or a coulomb of excess negative charge? Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
On 13/8/2007 11:08 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Measuring relative surface potentials between two electrodes simply doesn't tell you if there are excess surface electrons on one or both or neither. It still seems pretty obvious to me. You can say that three times it won't make it true, whatever Lewis Carroll says ;-) Come on, what you describe is a capacitor, there are excess electrons on the surface of the most negative electrode facing the most positive one, of a very predictable total charge given by: C*Delta_V = C*(potential of most positive electrode - potential of most negative electrode) Elementary EE stuff. Only potential differences matter I tell you! Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere A, has 1 coul more negative charges than positive. Suppose a 1 m radius metal sphere, sphere B, has 2 coul more negative charges than positive. They have a finite potential difference V at some separation D. The same is true for two spheres X and Y where X has 2 coul less negative charges than positive, and Y has 1 coul less negative charges than positive. Sphere, charge in coul: A -1 B -2 X +2 Y +1 There is no difference in relative potentials, How do you know? Because the excess charge count is a *given*. It is a postulate. The pairs of spheres each have a finite potential difference V at some separation D. D is a *given* from which a V results. Coulomb's law is a *given*. I can apply logic to the givens and reach a conclusion. All you can tell is that there is no difference in relative charges! Charge is absolute. It is *my* contention that it is possible to establish a neutral condition, and thus a neutral potential, a gauge, from which fugacity can be determined by measuring potential differences. This then is in fact telling the difference in absolute charges, not relative charges. Electron fugacity can thus be determined, via an absolute potential, and in fact differing electron fugacities may produce differing results with respect to cold fusion vs mere relative potential differences which tell you nothing. It is your contention that only potential differences matter, not mine. Horace, You seem to feel you must rely exclusively on measures of voltage and amperage to determine the absolute charge. However, you could direct a beam of electrons near the spheres and look for a deflection in the beam. If the deflection is towards the sphere it is positively charged. If the deflection is away from the sphere it is negatively charged. Along with a measure of voltage this would be enough to determine the absolute charge...or not? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Born-Again Batteries
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: HH: Keep working at it Jones and you will eventually arrive at my deflated hydrogen scenario. Horace, Let men say that, yes, this similar concept of faux-beta-decay is totally derivative of recent postings to Vortex, ... [snip] I am not seeking any credit for this Sorry, I apparently miscommunicated. My point is not about credit, but only that if you take your logical path to extremes, the faux neutron concept to extremes, but leave out the unnecessary energy loss required to be catalyzed in the hydrino concept, or to create a highly bound state in general, you eventually are deductively led to the concept of deflated state hydrogen, which in my hypothesis is not an actual state so much as a partial quantum state. Some would look at it as merely a potentiality of existence with non-zero probability. I think of it more as a brief state interlaced with other existences. I think it has actually been observed in the form of disappearing protons (but I can't find that article to reference it ... it is one of many articles I know exist but haven't found yet.) Once you have that, and see that the binding energy, as for the hydrino, is not high enough to overcome the field into a nucleus, then see that subsequent long distance tunneling events must occur, but in fact those very long distance events are energetically enabled by the neutral charge of the deflated state. You are then free to abandon the faux neutron concept entirely. This logic also applies to multi-electron multi-nucleus states. You don't actually need a di- neutron or quad neutron, for example, because the final state is reachable without them. The deflated state deuteron(s) can tunnel much longer distances with higher probabilities and to larger target volumes because it is energetically favorable. Keep on synthesizin'. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Horace, You seem to feel you must rely exclusively on measures of voltage and amperage to determine the absolute charge. These are the common instruments at hand, and I think they are good enough, though they aren't even necessary to accomplish an electron fugacity experimental design. However, you could direct a beam of electrons near the spheres and look for a deflection in the beam. If the deflection is towards the sphere it is positively charged. If the deflection is away from the sphere it is negatively charged. Along with a measure of voltage this would be enough to determine the absolute charge...or not? Harry This is where I was headed and why I chose spheres instead of plates. When well between two plates the answer to the above is no, because it is only the relative potentials of the plates that determine the electron motion. Same goes for the line exactly between the two sphere centers. But, as you point out, this is not true if you get well away from that center line (and you are well out in space where there is no field from the universe.) Then the absolute net charge on the plates is clearly visible by which way the electron goes, which can be away from the spheres or towards them. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Potential
Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? Simple questions, eh? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Potential
1) Should read . . . first electron outside the load drifts . . . On 8/13/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? Simple questions, eh? Terry
[Vo]:The End is Near
For the first time, I honestly think that the end *IS* near. Did we finally win? http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/autos/electric_car/index.htm?cnn=yes There are actually a plethora of BEVs about to enter the market. Time to start an electrical install company for 220 VAC chargers! Terry
[Vo]:Re: Potential
Not simple of course :-) Without going into the details it may be something like: 1) 1 second (3 x 10^10 cm at light speed) + load entrance to load center drifting time at electron speed in load (slow, I would think it can be determined based on the current, on the load's cross section area, and on the free electron density of its material) 2) source to load (3 x 10^10 cm) drifting time at electron speed in wire (slow, also to be determined as above) Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Potential 1) Should read . . . first electron outside the load drifts . . . On 8/13/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? Simple questions, eh? Terry
Re: [Vo]:The End is Near
Terry Blanton wrote: For the first time, I honestly think that the end *IS* near. Did we finally win? http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/13/autos/electric_car/index.htm?cnn=yes There are actually a plethora of BEVs about to enter the market. Time to start an electrical install company for 220 VAC chargers! With a subject line like that I expected something a lot more earth shaking than a bureauratic regulation against a diesel / electric hybrid. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Potential
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
I seldom write anything right the first time through, despite proof reading. Sigh. I wrote: But, as you point out, this is not true if you get well away from that center line (and you are well out in space where there is no field from the universe.) Then the absolute net charge on the plates is clearly visible by which way the electron goes, which can be away from the spheres or towards them. But, as you point out, this is not true if you get well away from that center line (and the spheres and you are well out in space where there is no field from the universe.) Then the absolute net charge on the spheres is clearly visible by which way the electron goes, which can be away from the spheres, or towards them. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Only potential differences matter
Horace wrote: snip Suppose the DC power supply, a battery, carries a coulomb of excess positive charge, or a coulomb of excess negative charge? Charge can always be detected by the field that is around it - provided you can get around it to measure! Gauss's law (I think it is) says that if you construct a closed surface and then measure the electric field all over that surface, then the sum (integral) of that measurement tells you how much charge is enclosed within that surface (fields are always measurable without needing to connect a meter between two points - eg by a field-mill). However if you can't get all around it, and the charge is arranged so that the field in the areas where you can measure cancels to some extent, then it is not (currently) possible to know that that charge is present nearby. This is the situation within a charged sphere (or Faraday cage) for instance. While ever you are confined to the cage, you cannot tell from measurements that you can make within the cage whether you and the cage are charged to a high or low potential. This is the manner in which potential is unmeasurable - you could be surrounded by a layer of charge and at a very high potential, but from within the canceling distribution that the charge occupies on the external surface of the cage, you cannot measure what the potential (or phi) is within the cage. A similar case is true with gravity - you can't in principle tell whether you are floating near to a lot of mass, or in empty space. If you can make observations outside your enclosure - such as looking at spectral lines from distant disturbances, and compare them to the spectral lines from similar disturbances you can create. Then it becomes possible to know the difference in gravitational potential between where you are and the distant observation - as time ticks at a different rate dependent on your gravitational potential and the spectral lines will be shifted accordingly. So it is very likely that there is a similar test that could be done to measure your electric potential - but in some way you will have sampled the space outside of your cage by means of the signal that has traveled from the remote location - through the space with the field in it - to where you are.
