[Vo]:Electronic Products does not attack cold fusion
Another non-sarcastic mention of cold fusion in a technical magazine: http://www2.electronicproducts.com/We_need_energy_%E2%80%93_now_what--article-vwptpo_jun2009-html.aspx "We need energy – now what? Energy and using it to improve work advantage has always been at the center of human advancement. Our tools must revolve around the current energy-producing technology and change when the source of energy changes. . . . .Of course, we have many alternatives to choose from: hydrogen, wind, solar, biomass, and other possibilities. Even cold fusion, yes *tha*t cold fusion, is making ripples again in the pond of potential energy sources. . . ." So far in 2009 I have seen dozens of supportive articles in magazines and newspapers but I do not recall seeing any attacks. Naturally, there are attacks in blogs such as Robert Park's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bit more, from Hiddink...
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:33:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] >PPS I still don't see how a plasma can support charge on its surface, >anyone can enlighten me on this? [snip] That's the one thing that doesn't surprise me in the least. Surely, it just acts like any other conductor, with a slightly higher number of charges of one polarity relative to charges of the other polarity (e.g. slightly more electrons)? The excess charge is balanced by a shortage on the opposite plate of the capacitor. When the plasma is turned off, the excess charges attempt to reach one another via the only path available to them, which is via ground, resulting in a high voltage on the external spherical capacitor, which now has a much smaller capacitance. (However I am lead to wonder why a bolt of "lightning" doesn't simply pass through the glass envelope as the voltage rises). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
fznidar...@aol.com wrote: > I have applied this vibrating Bose condensate thing to the hydrogen > atom. Many things come out of the analysis, such as; It explains why > the electron does not spiral into the nucleus. Can you explain why? I would like to read the preprint of your paper, if possible.
RE: [Vo]:Smoke Ring?
Don't know Steven, I watched the other video link you supplied and surely one is inclined to take the word of those that say they saw it rise from the volcano... This is what's frustrating... SO many questions that need to be asked. If it was a common occurrence then whoever saw a ring rising from the volcano probably did not watch it ascent all the way up to cloudbase... More interesting things to look at. And its way too dark; more like smoke from a petroleum fire. Also, one can't tell how long the video clip was since the news probably just plays it in a loop. HOWEVER, the ring was obviously right at 'lifting condensation level' (cloudbase) since part of it was obscured inside the cloud, and if the ring maintained the near perfect circular shape with well defined edges for 10 minutes, I'd have to see it myself to feel comfortable with the smoke ring explanation, and so I could make some reasonable judgement as to why the turbulence wouldn't have at least partially distorted it... BTW, if I was in my ufo I'd probably hang around above that volcano too so people would think that my 'ride' was a smoke ring, while I was watching the human behavior down below! ;-) -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Smoke Ring? From: Mark Iverson > Steven: > I did watch the video clip and would disagree with your above > statement for the following reason... > > As a graduate student in the late 80's, I worked at the Atmospheric > Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute: > > http://www.dri.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&It > emid=127 (now called the Division of Atmospheric Sciences) which is > the research branch of the University of Nevada system. I worked > under Dr. James Telford who was an expert in cloud microphysics (over > 100 peer-reviewed publications). Clouds are NOT uniform stable > structures; in fact, they are quite turbulent, with regions (turrets) > of rising air columns (due to the fact that moist air is LESS dense > than dry air) surrounded by descending (drier) air columns. > If the diameter of the ring was much smaller than the dimension of > the immediate cloud structure, I'd say you might be right and the ring > was simply the boundary of one of the inherent structures of the > cloud; but from what I saw in the video, the dimensions of the ring > were quite substantial compared to the cloud, and therefore I think it > unlikely to be so SHARPLY defined and consistent over the time of the > video... i.e., the turbulence would have blurred the boundaries, if > not disrupted them completely. > > -Mark Your description is highly detailed as to why my conjecture was probably incorrect. I must confess that I'm not a meteorologist. Ok, so, what do you think the UFO "ring" was? BTW, here is another interview where they tracked down the individual who recorded the phenomenon. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2009/06/18/dcl.irpt.knowles.ufo.cnn?iref=videosearch What is revealing was the video recorders' comment that the "smoke ring" was observed to have originated above the volcano ride. "Smoke rings" originating from the volcano ride are a very common observance at the amusement park. The "rings" tend to dissipate more quickly, except when there is no wind. When there is no wind they tend to hang around a tad longer allowing them to be videotaped and subsequently transformed into religious signs. Of course "Vince" Dinglelint, reporter at large, and from some undetermined future reference point, gave his explanation: "Regarding the recent "smoke ring" phenomenon... Someone forgot to kick in their inertial dampers a few microseconds prior to folding space." But as always, "Vince" never leaves a return address. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2189 - Release Date: 06/20/09 06:15:00 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.81/2189 - Release Date: 06/20/09 06:15:00
Re: [Vo]:Plasma capacitor
hmmm, that seems reasonable. I wonder if a metal-metal version would have a similar capacitance? I might get a multimeter, play with some foil and wire and try to see if that capacitance is any below the metal-metal version. At any rate that it has capacitance is good and means that IMO it's only a question of how to get the effect not if you can. On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: > > John, and all interested, > > In an experiment to determine whether or not a lit fluorescent tube can act > as a capacitor when surrounded with a conductive material, I did the > following experiment. > > A relaxation oscillator was constructed; +V of about 110VDC from a > 'bandolier' of 9V batteries put together was supplied through a 1 Megohm > resistor to an NE-2 bulb and capacitor in parallel. The free ends of the > capacitor and NE-2 went to the batteries' minus terminal. On the > oscilloscope, a nice relaxation oscillation was observed, varying of course > as the capacitor's value was changed. > > A fluorescent light bulb, GE type F15T8-CW, cool white, was used in the > test setup which I will now describe. A 12" wide band of aluminum foil was > wrapped around the glass of the tube, forming a capacitor plate. The idea is > that the ionized gas within the tube would form the second capacitor plate, > with the tube's glass envelope acting as the dielectric. > > One end of the 18" long tube was connected to a 6V lantern battery. This > caused the filament at the tube's end to reach a warm orange glow. Half-wave > rectified mains 120VAC was smoothed by a 330uF 250VDC electrolytic > capacitor, and the resulting ~170VDC was applied across the tube via a > 15kohm limiting resistor. When a piezo striker from a barbecue was struck > next to the tube, the tube would glow to moderate brightness. Disconnecting > either the rectified mains voltage or the filament would kill the plasma, > extinguishing the tube. > > With the tube glowing and the NE-2 relaxation oscillator running, > displaying a clear oscillation on the scope screen, I switched out the > capacitor, connecting the leads that led to it to the tube; one lead to the > plasma, the 'grounded' lead to the foil wrapping. Relaxation oscillation > then restarted immediately, giving a period of 1div @ 2mSec/div, or 500cps. > To test whether this was a spurious effect, I disconnected the mains supply > to 15kohm limiter connection, extinguishing the tube; the relaxation > oscillator stopped immediately. Once restarted, the oscillation returned, > same period. > > I will try using different current limiters to see if the amount of > excitation of the plasma has any effect on the tube's capacitance. > > Judging by substituting known values of capacitors, the fluorescent tube + > foil had an "on-capacitance" of approximately 0.0015uF > > --Kyle > > > > >
[Vo]:Milking for oil
http://www.physorg.com/news164635266.html interesting article on algoil, speaks of engineering diatoms to actively secrete oil, so less processing neccesary.
Re: [Vo]:Plasma capacitor
John, and all interested, In an experiment to determine whether or not a lit fluorescent tube can act as a capacitor when surrounded with a conductive material, I did the following experiment. A relaxation oscillator was constructed; +V of about 110VDC from a 'bandolier' of 9V batteries put together was supplied through a 1 Megohm resistor to an NE-2 bulb and capacitor in parallel. The free ends of the capacitor and NE-2 went to the batteries' minus terminal. On the oscilloscope, a nice relaxation oscillation was observed, varying of course as the capacitor's value was changed. A fluorescent light bulb, GE type F15T8-CW, cool white, was used in the test setup which I will now describe. A 12" wide band of aluminum foil was wrapped around the glass of the tube, forming a capacitor plate. The idea is that the ionized gas within the tube would form the second capacitor plate, with the tube's glass envelope acting as the dielectric. One end of the 18" long tube was connected to a 6V lantern battery. This caused the filament at the tube's end to reach a warm orange glow. Half-wave rectified mains 120VAC was smoothed by a 330uF 250VDC electrolytic capacitor, and the resulting ~170VDC was applied across the tube via a 15kohm limiting resistor. When a piezo striker from a barbecue was struck next to the tube, the tube would glow to moderate brightness. Disconnecting either the rectified mains voltage or the filament would kill the plasma, extinguishing the tube. With the tube glowing and the NE-2 relaxation oscillator running, displaying a clear oscillation on the scope screen, I switched out the capacitor, connecting the leads that led to it to the tube; one lead to the plasma, the 'grounded' lead to the foil wrapping. Relaxation oscillation then restarted immediately, giving a period of 1div @ 2mSec/div, or 500cps. To test whether this was a spurious effect, I disconnected the mains supply to 15kohm limiter connection, extinguishing the tube; the relaxation oscillator stopped immediately. Once restarted, the oscillation returned, same period. I will try using different current limiters to see if the amount of excitation of the plasma has any effect on the tube's capacitance. Judging by substituting known values of capacitors, the fluorescent tube + foil had an "on-capacitance" of approximately 0.0015uF --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Smoke Ring?
From: Mark Iverson > Steven: > I did watch the video clip and would disagree with your above > statement for the following reason... > > As a graduate student in the late 80's, I worked at the > Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute: > > http://www.dri.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&Itemid=127 > (now called the Division of Atmospheric Sciences) which is the research > branch of the University of Nevada system. I worked under > Dr. James Telford who was an expert in cloud microphysics (over 100 > peer-reviewed publications). Clouds are NOT uniform stable > structures; in fact, they are quite turbulent, with regions (turrets) > of rising air columns (due to the fact that moist air is LESS > dense than dry air) surrounded by descending (drier) air columns. > If the diameter of the ring was much smaller than the dimension of > the immediate cloud structure, I'd say you might be right and the > ring was simply the boundary of one of the inherent structures of > the cloud; but from what I saw in the video, the dimensions of the > ring were quite substantial compared to the cloud, and therefore I > think it unlikely to be so SHARPLY defined and consistent over > the time of the video... i.e., the turbulence would have blurred the > boundaries, if not disrupted them completely. > > -Mark Your description is highly detailed as to why my conjecture was probably incorrect. I must confess that I'm not a meteorologist. Ok, so, what do you think the UFO "ring" was? BTW, here is another interview where they tracked down the individual who recorded the phenomenon. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2009/06/18/dcl.irpt.knowles.ufo.cnn?iref=videosearch What is revealing was the video recorders' comment that the "smoke ring" was observed to have originated above the volcano ride. "Smoke rings" originating from the volcano ride are a very common observance at the amusement park. The "rings" tend to dissipate more quickly, except when there is no wind. When there is no wind they tend to hang around a tad longer allowing them to be videotaped and subsequently transformed into religious signs. Of course "Vince" Dinglelint, reporter at large, and from some undetermined future reference point, gave his explanation: "Regarding the recent "smoke ring" phenomenon... Someone forgot to kick in their inertial dampers a few microseconds prior to folding space." But as always, "Vince" never leaves a return address. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:More Kite Power
>From Terry: > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2822/kites-could-power-world-100-times-over > > excerpt: > > "Archer and Caldeira looked at both wind speed and air density at > different altitudes, concluding that extraordinary amounts of energy > exist above Japan, eastern China, the eastern coast of the U.S., > southern Australia and north-eastern Africa. > > Kite-driven generators > > Average wind power densities in these locales "are greater than 10 > kilowatts per square metre. This is unthinkable near the ground, where > even the best locations have usually less than one kilowatt per square > metre," said Archer. New York clocked up a whopping wind power density > of 16 kilowatts per square metre, the study found." > > I wish there was more information on how they expect to maintain these contraptions day in and day out. Personally, I think it's an intriguing idea, certainly worth researching because of the huge amount wind energy available at high altitude. Of course it's not surprising that many express legitimate concerns that creating high altitude wind farms could be potentially dangerous, such as the concern that the cables could get tangled up with each other. But such dangers may be imaginary. It's my understanding that high altitude wind tend to blow predictably in a particular direction. This would suggest it is highly unlikely that multiple cables extending up into the sky to numerous kites would interfere with each others operations. Obviously, a certain amount of spacing would be necessary to ensure adequate safety standards. I would also think a good size 100 – 300 megawatt wind farm would consume a large 3D volume of real estate. I think someone also expressed the concern that having wind kites in the sky is just asking for trouble because they could potentially interfere with private and commercial air traffic. I'm not sure I buy this concern. With adequate lighting and flashing beacons, similar to what are placed on broadcasting towers, I suspect wind farms might not be any more of a danger. I now expect to hear from the "This is a bad idea!" camp! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:More Kite Power
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2822/kites-could-power-world-100-times-over excerpt: "Archer and Caldeira looked at both wind speed and air density at different altitudes, concluding that extraordinary amounts of energy exist above Japan, eastern China, the eastern coast of the U.S., southern Australia and north-eastern Africa. Kite-driven generators Average wind power densities in these locales "are greater than 10 kilowatts per square metre. This is unthinkable near the ground, where even the best locations have usually less than one kilowatt per square metre," said Archer. New York clocked up a whopping wind power density of 16 kilowatts per square metre, the study found."
Re: [Vo]:A bit more, from Hiddink...
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: > The newspaper story is probably real, whether it is related to his > invention is another question :) > Do ask for a demonstration of a lightning strike on demand out of blue > sky before investing more time or money in this scheme. He is not that I know of seeking investors. Incidentally he is at this point decently old. > > > BTW, if you want to learn more about capacitors, VDGs etc, I remember > seing a good textbook online explaining electrostatics without too > much maths. If you're interested I'll see if I can retrieve it for > you. > > Good luck, > > Michel > > PS I know a little about plasmas, I see no reason why its collapsing > should provide any kinetic energy to the charges it was supporting. Well perhaps the charges existed as clusters and once the motion stopped they exploded. Actually while I know nothing about the charge cluster effect (other than having heard of it) I am vaguely aware of a pinch effect (in plasma or vacuum or both) which I suppose may be the same thing, perhaps the mutual attraction of currents overcomes the coolumbic repulsion until the motion stops the magnetic field stops pinching the plasma together and the charges explode outwards. I also however am of the belief that aether, which is to say the medium of which everything is just a vortex, a wave an eddy including matter, is radially released in an impulse like shockwave from wires where current is suddenly abruptly established or disestablished and has the ability to carry away heat and electrons and create inertial/gravitational like effects. (Podkletnov, Morton, Telos) However it occurs it does occur. > > Even if the orphaned charges manage to traverse the grid which is > indeed quite possible, the farther they can get (if they experience no > collision) is the mirror image of their initial rest position. You totally lost me ion the last 9 words of that sentence. > > > PPS I still don't see how a plasma can support charge on its surface, > anyone can enlighten me on this? I can't, infact that is the only objection I find at all of interest. > > > > 2009/6/20 John Berry > > > > Note: I replied to this initially believing I was replying to a list I > joined for the Gray conversion tube, so it's slanted in that direction. > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Michel Jullian > wrote: > >> > >> Looks like a load of BS to me. Ask him to demonstrate his on-demand > >> lightning strike routine to you, but don't hold your breath until he > >> does :) > > > > Well, that part may be provable. > > > > You see he reported telling some branch of local government about his > invention and he wrote so many letters they finally built it and then there > was some incredible number of lightening strikes reported to hit the > building in the newspaper. > > > > I believe this could be reasonably confirmed, I think it was in Canada? > > > > But Stiffler did replicate the experiment on a small scale and got the > other reported effects. > > > > And in the patent on which JLN appears as co-inventor they claimed > success. > > > > And There is the Pavel patent with the same concept the claims minus > lightening strike. > > > > And then it would make more sense of Edwins conversion tube than any > other theory as argued above, any theory that has the grid acting as a > collector which is the popular theory fails to make any sense of the wide > spacing of the "collector" wires or the capacitor and transformer in series > with the grid. > > > > And finally while it isn't enough to be sure but it would make a lot of > sense of the "Swiss ML" device and quotes that Paul Baumann gives than any > other theory I have heard. > > > > That and it is well known that the arcs from Tesla coils and various > other disruptive discharges project electrons around the area in a radiative > fashion that can't be explained by ion wind, that fact alone should be > enough to come to the same conclusion even if you had not come across > Hiddink's claim. > > > > With the Edwin's tube for instance it isn't worth questioning that > electrons are leaving the center electrode/carbon/arc as all the theories so > far say they do, merely whether energy is made by the electrons leaving and > therefore changing the capacity of the grid, or by the grid collecting the > charges. It would without question be possible to recover energy either way > (or both) but IMO it seems to be designed to do the former and avoid the > latter. > > > >> > >> > >> Removal of the outside sphere in a spherical capacitor is not > >> complicated BTW, just do it by bits. Only beware it takes work > >> (energy) to pull the opposite charges of a capacitor apart. > > > > Indeed, but the work in this case is provided for by the collapsing > plasma which appears to be a free effect that we don't need to pay for. > > > > > >> > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> 2009/6/16 John Berry > >> > > >> > The invention is based on Faraday
Re: [Vo]:A bit more, from Hiddink...
The newspaper story is probably real, whether it is related to his invention is another question :) Do ask for a demonstration of a lightning strike on demand out of blue sky before investing more time or money in this scheme. BTW, if you want to learn more about capacitors, VDGs etc, I remember seing a good textbook online explaining electrostatics without too much maths. If you're interested I'll see if I can retrieve it for you. Good luck, Michel PS I know a little about plasmas, I see no reason why its collapsing should provide any kinetic energy to the charges it was supporting. Even if the orphaned charges manage to traverse the grid which is indeed quite possible, the farther they can get (if they experience no collision) is the mirror image of their initial rest position. PPS I still don't see how a plasma can support charge on its surface, anyone can enlighten me on this? 2009/6/20 John Berry > > Note: I replied to this initially believing I was replying to a list I joined > for the Gray conversion tube, so it's slanted in that direction. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: >> >> Looks like a load of BS to me. Ask him to demonstrate his on-demand >> lightning strike routine to you, but don't hold your breath until he >> does :) > > Well, that part may be provable. > > You see he reported telling some branch of local government about his > invention and he wrote so many letters they finally built it and then there > was some incredible number of lightening strikes reported to hit the building > in the newspaper. > > I believe this could be reasonably confirmed, I think it was in Canada? > > But Stiffler did replicate the experiment on a small scale and got the other > reported effects. > > And in the patent on which JLN appears as co-inventor they claimed success. > > And There is the Pavel patent with the same concept the claims minus > lightening strike. > > And then it would make more sense of Edwins conversion tube than any other > theory as argued above, any theory that has the grid acting as a collector > which is the popular theory fails to make any sense of the wide spacing of > the "collector" wires or the capacitor and transformer in series with the > grid. > > And finally while it isn't enough to be sure but it would make a lot of sense > of the "Swiss ML" device and quotes that Paul Baumann gives than any other > theory I have heard. > > That and it is well known that the arcs from Tesla coils and various other > disruptive discharges project electrons around the area in a radiative > fashion that can't be explained by ion wind, that fact alone should be enough > to come to the same conclusion even if you had not come across Hiddink's > claim. > > With the Edwin's tube for instance it isn't worth questioning that electrons > are leaving the center electrode/carbon/arc as all the theories so far say > they do, merely whether energy is made by the electrons leaving and therefore > changing the capacity of the grid, or by the grid collecting the charges. It > would without question be possible to recover energy either way (or both) but > IMO it seems to be designed to do the former and avoid the latter. > >> >> >> Removal of the outside sphere in a spherical capacitor is not >> complicated BTW, just do it by bits. Only beware it takes work >> (energy) to pull the opposite charges of a capacitor apart. > > Indeed, but the work in this case is provided for by the collapsing plasma > which appears to be a free effect that we don't need to pay for. > > >> >> >> Michel >> >> 2009/6/16 John Berry >> > >> > The invention is based on Faraday's problem: >> > Two concentric metal spheres do not touch and form a capcitor C. >> > That one is charged up to a potential V. >> > Then the outside sphere is removed. >> > The remaining sphere is a 1-terminal Capacitor c. >> > The potential on that sphere is momentarily C/c x V. >> > >> > It is stated in the physics Books that it is virtually impossible to do in >> > practice, so when I offered the Invention to Canada in 1967 as a Birthday >> > Present, I was told that I was not a Patriot, I was an Idiot. It could >> > never, ever be done in practice. >> > The "Scientists" kept the denial, accompanied with ridicule and insults, >> > up to four months after the patents were granted. >> > Then, as they had lost "face", they called it a Minor Invention. >> > My US Patent Lawyer predicted the Nobel Prize. >> > >> > I read that you have a large fluorescent tubw. That may not work. >> > That powder that is pasted to the glass will hinder the proper working in >> > thia circuit. >> > Maybe you can get a UV tube and wrap some Aluminum foil on the outside. >> > When that tube is fired you have a 2-terminal Capacitor, which you can >> > charge up to an higher DC Voltage. >> > Now you can use "Momentarily On" type Toggle switches but you cannot >> > activate them using your bare hands. You must use plasti
Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier
In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:48:21 +0200: Hi David, [snip] >> > The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. This is not the only reason it is hot. There is also *at least* radioactive decay. (And perhaps also some CF considering the small amount of Tritium that is occasionally also detected - though this could also be a byproduct of spontaneous fission). >>> When you pick >> it >> >up to earth it will expand and cool. >> [snip] >> Volcano. >> > >OK, I have to admit I haven't studied the magma but only the crust. And it >surprises me much that the magma has an adiabatic gradient of only 0.3 K/km. >How was that calculated? You did the calculation. AFAIK others just measure it. > >Admit that the crust will cool if picked up. Certainly something will cool (the energy to fight gravity has to come from somewhere), but what comes to the surface may not be the same thing that cools. I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I did the following simple calculation, which assumes that the gravitational energy of a falling body is all converted into heat. For stone, the specific heat is about 2 cal/gm*K. If we divide g (gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) by this, we get 11.7 K/km. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
