RE: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
The hot (1800+ degF) and warm (1450+ degF) glass I've worked with always stays clear. Glass from a furnace is extremely clear, you can look at the bottom of the pot and it looks like there's nothing in there. The really weird thing is when gold metal gets translucent. Noticed it for years but never believed my eyes were telling me the truth. R. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Question about hot glass I ran across an explanation of a blackbody which I actually understood a week or so back (totally unexpected, it was in the introductory chapter to a QM book), and since then I've been fiddling around with gedanken experiments involving black boxes with little holes in them and the second law of thermodynamics. And it appears to me that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, if glass is heated red-hot or orange-hot, and it's actually seen to be glowing orange, it should also turn *opaque* to visible light while it's at that temperature.
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Molten glass at red stage is generally crystal clear. you can find videos of glass blowing demenstrations on youtube and see for yourself. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: I ran across an explanation of a blackbody which I actually understood a week or so back (totally unexpected, it was in the introductory chapter to a QM book), and since then I've been fiddling around with gedanken experiments involving black boxes with little holes in them and the second law of thermodynamics. And it appears to me that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, if glass is heated red-hot or orange-hot, and it's actually seen to be glowing orange, it should also turn *opaque* to visible light while it's at that temperature. (If its glow is weaker than, say, steel at the same temp then it should be semitransparent rather than totally opaque but none the less it shouldn't be water-clear, as it is at room temperature.) I've seen lead-crystal (very clear) glass being worked at high temperatures, at Corning many years ago, and as far as I can recall it did indeed glow bright orange. Does anyone here happen to know if glass also turns opaque (or semi-opaque) when it's heated to high temperature? (If it is I'll be amused; if it's not I'll have to go figure out where my reasoning went off the tracks.) I know for a fact candle flames are transparent, but I don't have the facilities to heat a pane of glass until it produces a cheery glow while shining a bright beam of light through it (don't even own a propane torch at this point, and in any case hitting a windowpane with a propane torch would probably shatter it).
[Vo]:unsubscribe
unsubscribe
RE: [Vo]:inertial thruster with casimir cavity
Horace, As a secondary test after Argon I would also try hydrogen, Mills' results and Haisch Moddel patent seem to indicate a preference for small monatomic atoms, As far as trying to intensify your field I agree with your plan to downsize assuming success with Argon but should it turn out the field is preferential and you need to initiate plasma to set up mechanical linkage between the gas and the plates then the larger size cells may be better to dissipate the excess heat (Haisch-Moddel using .1 micron diameter holes)- This gets into a can of worms to initially disassociate the gas and then throttle it back once it starts to cascade or you will get a brief strong pulse of momentum transfer analogous to the Rowan confirmation spike in Rayney nickel and then find your cells shorted closed or with nickel cat whiskers across the cavity just like a battery(nature wants to satisfy those plates closing). Anyway my point is that your theory is fine assuming plasma doesn't need to be present but if it does all bets are off and it becomes an exercise in thermodynamics. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 1:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:inertial thruster with casimir cavity On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Frank wrote: OK, I follow your math now and it seems like a sound theory with the only assumption that an inertial mass change occurs. Regards Francis X roarty I'm glad you understand the calculation. Unfortunately, it has some errors, and it is for much too large cells to produce much Casimir effect. The scale needs to be more on the scale of 10-7 m to have an effect. Here is a re-do of the calculation with approximate flow and pressure information: Input pressure: 100 atm Flow velocity: 0.0001 m/s Equivalent pipe diameter: 1E-7 m Path length: 1 m length Density of argon at 100 atm: 0.167 kg/l = 167 kg/m^3 Viscosity of Argon: 0.02099 cP (centipoise) Reynolds Number, R: 7.96 x 10^-5 Friction Factor, f: 8.04 x 10^5 Pressure at outlet: 495 psi Pressure Drop: 974 psi Volume Flowrate: 7.85 x 10^-16 l/s Mass Flowrate: 1.31 x 10-16 kg/s If we use r=10^-7 m, and v= 10^-4 m/s, we get a centrifugal force F = m*(V^2)/r of about 0.1 N/kg. The gas flows through an orifice of about 7.85x10^-15 m^2, at the flow rate of 10^-16 kg/s. With an effective r of 10^-7 m, the mass of gas accelerating is the volume (7.85x10^-15 m^2)*(0.5x10-7 m)/2 = 1.963x10^-22 m^3 times the density, or (1.963x10^-22 m^3) (167 kg/m^3) = 3.28x10^-20 kg. This gives a very rough thrust per cell of about (0.1 N/kg)(3.28x10^20 kg) = 3.28x10^-21 N = 3.34x10^-22 kgf. The cell size is about 2x10^-7 m, or about 5x10^6 per meter, or about 10^20 per m^3. Given 10^20 cells/ m^3, we have (3.34x10^-22 kgf/cell)(10^20 cells/m^3) = 0.0334 kgf or 33.4 grams of thrust per cubic meter of cells. However, if the inertial mass reduction is only 0.01 percent, then the thrust is only 0.00334 grams of thrust per cubic meter of cells. Not very practical! I'll update: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf with the bad news. Hopefully I got everything right. It's all rough approximation, but close enough to see the potential value or lack thereof. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Well written essay. Of all the researchers, John Mack, Budd Hopkins, Whitley Streiber, it is David Jacobs' view that frightens me the most. Have you read The Threat? Anyway, he has a web site: http://www.ufoabduction.com/ Terry On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter.
Re: [Vo]:inertial thruster with casimir cavity
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:06 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Horace, As a secondary test after Argon I would also try hydrogen, Mills' results and Haisch Moddel patent seem to indicate a preference for small monatomic atoms, As far as trying to intensify your field I agree with your plan to downsize assuming success with Argon but should it turn out the field is preferential and you need to initiate plasma to set up mechanical linkage between the gas and the plates then the larger size cells may be better to dissipate the excess heat (Haisch-Moddel using .1 micron diameter holes)- This gets into a can of worms to initially disassociate the gas and then throttle it back once it starts to cascade or you will get a brief strong pulse of momentum transfer analogous to the Rowan confirmation spike in Rayney nickel and then find your cells shorted closed or with nickel cat whiskers across the cavity just like a battery(nature wants to satisfy those plates closing). Anyway my point is that your theory is fine assuming plasma doesn't need to be present but if it does all bets are off and it becomes an exercise in thermodynamics. Regards Fran A device based on cavity inertial mass change should work many orders of magnitude better using the spinning disk nano-technology approach mentioned earlier, or possibly a using a superfluid, as mentioned earlier. Both increase the density and velocity by orders of magnitude, and thus the mass flow by orders of magnitude and the centrifugal force by orders of magnitude cubed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
We have discussed this here before. See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/27/ocean.turbines/index.html Important points are that power density is higher than wind or solar and the energy is continuous, not intermittent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: We have discussed this here before. See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/27/ocean.turbines/index.html Important points are that power density is higher than wind or solar and the energy is continuous, not intermittent. - Jed It may also permanently disappear too fast to avoid the loss of power by other means. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
Horace Heffner wrote: It may also permanently disappear too fast to avoid the loss of power by other means. What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the Gulf Stream may stop or shift locations? I have never heard that before. It has been in the same location at the same strength since 1500 as far as anyone knows. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to Build a UFO
Terry Blanton wrote: Speaking of UFOs on a slow Sunday, this guy has a very interesting interpretation of the lyrics to Hotel California: http://www.inthe70s.com/generated/lyricsmeaning.shtml The Eagles's Hotel California Although I think many of you have hit upon some very interesting ideas about the lyrics here (and justifiable ones at that -- especially the in limbo entries, as that is my 2nd choice regarding the meaning), nobody as yet has suggested that the song is about an alien abduction (yes, I believe in UFOs). [* Note well - the aliens' UFO/planet/people have apparently recreated the look of earth and earthlings to gain confidence and complicity by the abductees.] Here are arguments regarding my theory. 1) First off, the very opening lines certainly point to an abduction -- On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair; Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air. Up ahead in the distance I saw a shimmering light -- My head grew heavy, and my sight grew dim; I had to stop for the night. Dissecting these lines, we find the following: 2) 'On a dark desert highway' = aliens nearly always take and perform their experiments at night, and pick remote areas to do so. 3) 'UP' (ahead...) suggests he saw something 'ABOVE' another thing (his car)-- i.e., in this case, the something being the spacecraft. 4) smell of colitas = some abductees report a strange odor emanating from the aliens or in the craft itself (possibly a formaldehyde-like substance??). Nah, all wrong. It's actually all a big mondegreen. Here's the straight skinny, taken straight off a web page so you know it's got to be true: There was this fireworks factory just three blocks from the Hotel California . . . and it blew up! Big tragedy. One of the workers was named Wurn Snell and he was from the town of Colitas in Greece. One of the workers who escaped the explosion talked to another guy . . . I think it was probably Don Henley . . . and Don asked what the guy saw. The worker said, Wurn Snell of Colitas . . . rising up through the air.
RE: [Vo]:How to Build a UFO
LOL!!! That was hilarious! Thx Stephen... -Mark -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to Build a UFO Terry Blanton wrote: Speaking of UFOs on a slow Sunday, this guy has a very interesting interpretation of the lyrics to Hotel California: http://www.inthe70s.com/generated/lyricsmeaning.shtml The Eagles's Hotel California Although I think many of you have hit upon some very interesting ideas about the lyrics here (and justifiable ones at that -- especially the in limbo entries, as that is my 2nd choice regarding the meaning), nobody as yet has suggested that the song is about an alien abduction (yes, I believe in UFOs). [* Note well - the aliens' UFO/planet/people have apparently recreated the look of earth and earthlings to gain confidence and complicity by the abductees.] Here are arguments regarding my theory. 1) First off, the very opening lines certainly point to an abduction -- On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair; Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air. Up ahead in the distance I saw a shimmering light -- My head grew heavy, and my sight grew dim; I had to stop for the night. Dissecting these lines, we find the following: 2) 'On a dark desert highway' = aliens nearly always take and perform their experiments at night, and pick remote areas to do so. 3) 'UP' (ahead...) suggests he saw something 'ABOVE' another thing (his car)-- i.e., in this case, the something being the spacecraft. 4) smell of colitas = some abductees report a strange odor emanating from the aliens or in the craft itself (possibly a formaldehyde-like substance??). Nah, all wrong. It's actually all a big mondegreen. Here's the straight skinny, taken straight off a web page so you know it's got to be true: There was this fireworks factory just three blocks from the Hotel California . . . and it blew up! Big tragedy. One of the workers was named Wurn Snell and he was from the town of Colitas in Greece. One of the workers who escaped the explosion talked to another guy . . . I think it was probably Don Henley . . . and Don asked what the guy saw. The worker said, Wurn Snell of Colitas . . . rising up through the air. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.32/2266 - Release Date: 07/27/09 05:58:00
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it swamp gas, or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the experiencer phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of encounters may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to catch and release programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of abductions, are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill catch and release program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the abduction experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational – grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed throughout the entire human population. The result of such randomness would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to be naturally smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much support an experiencer receives when they first begin the often difficult and all-too-often psychologically harrowing journey of consciously acknowledging their experiences, the better equipped they are likely to be in handling and ultimately integrating it into the intimate fabric of their lives. Of course, everyone wants to know the $64,000 question: Is the phenomenon really real? Are people *really*, physically being abducted, or is it all just fantasy? All that most of us non-abductees, us mundanes can conclude is the fact that it feels real, terrifying real and acutely physical to those who experience it. I personally think far too much emphasis has been put on attempts to either legitimize or debunk the experience. Just as debunkers attempt to ridicule and marginalize the experience as nothing more than weird clinically diagnosable psychological aberrations possibly pertaining the brain chemistry (or perhaps the result of bad upbringing), some experiencers try just as valiantly to prove with equal ferocity that their experiences are physically happening. I've personally come to the tentative conclusion that attempts to either prove or disprove its legitimacy will fail. The continuing struggle also distracts us from the real work at hand. Continued confrontations, I fear, miss the mark, and badly I
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a window. This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it swamp gas, or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the experiencer phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of encounters may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to catch and release programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of abductions, are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill catch and release program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the abduction experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational - grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed throughout the entire human population. The result of such randomness would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to be naturally smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much support an experiencer receives when they
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a window. This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it swamp gas, or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the experiencer phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of encounters may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to catch and release programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of abductions, are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill catch and release program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the abduction experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational - grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Rick Monteverde wrote: The hot (1800+ degF) and warm (1450+ degF) glass I've worked with always stays clear. Glass from a furnace is extremely clear, you can look at the bottom of the pot and it looks like there's nothing in there. In this case it's presumably also not glowing, or at least not much, and that would seem to fit with the claim that it absorbs just as it radiates. The really weird thing is when gold metal gets translucent. Noticed it for years but never believed my eyes were telling me the truth. Say what?? Could you please provide more info on this? This teaser is a killer! R. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Question about hot glass I ran across an explanation of a blackbody which I actually understood a week or so back (totally unexpected, it was in the introductory chapter to a QM book), and since then I've been fiddling around with gedanken experiments involving black boxes with little holes in them and the second law of thermodynamics. And it appears to me that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, if glass is heated red-hot or orange-hot, and it's actually seen to be glowing orange, it should also turn *opaque* to visible light while it's at that temperature.
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Alexander Hollins wrote: Molten glass at red stage is generally crystal clear. you can find videos of glass blowing demenstrations on youtube and see for yourself. Thanks -- I'll have to look them up. Issue is that if it's radiating, say, 10% as much as molten platinum would (with roughly the same melting point), then it would produce a visible glow *and* appear transparent, particularly in thin section. This is squishier than I expected, so to speak (and candle flames turn out not to be *fully* transparent BTW but that's another story). Sigh I may have to get hold of a torch and do my own experiments here -- or find a good thermo textbook (ugh, I hated thermo in college, which is one reason I still don't understand it)... One interesting sidelight: Bill Beatty has posted at least one video in the past showing that hot glass turns opaque to microwaves. That was glass heated well below the glow point (until the microwaves hit it, of course) but that would make sense as microwaves are much lower frequency than light (obviously). On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: I ran across an explanation of a blackbody which I actually understood a week or so back (totally unexpected, it was in the introductory chapter to a QM book), and since then I've been fiddling around with gedanken experiments involving black boxes with little holes in them and the second law of thermodynamics. And it appears to me that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, if glass is heated red-hot or orange-hot, and it's actually seen to be glowing orange, it should also turn *opaque* to visible light while it's at that temperature. (If its glow is weaker than, say, steel at the same temp then it should be semitransparent rather than totally opaque but none the less it shouldn't be water-clear, as it is at room temperature.) I've seen lead-crystal (very clear) glass being worked at high temperatures, at Corning many years ago, and as far as I can recall it did indeed glow bright orange. Does anyone here happen to know if glass also turns opaque (or semi-opaque) when it's heated to high temperature? (If it is I'll be amused; if it's not I'll have to go figure out where my reasoning went off the tracks.) I know for a fact candle flames are transparent, but I don't have the facilities to heat a pane of glass until it produces a cheery glow while shining a bright beam of light through it (don't even own a propane torch at this point, and in any case hitting a windowpane with a propane torch would probably shatter it).
Re: [Vo]:How to unscribe to this list , pls ?
How? How?!? There is no unsubscribing from this list. It is like the Roach Motel. Seriously, the message heading tells you: List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
MUFON has their 40th anniversary symposium in Denver in August: http://www.mufon.com/ I used to be the MUFON moderator on a CompuServe forum (so many years ago!) Terry On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Edmund Stormsstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested.
RE: [Vo]:How to unscribe to this list , pls ?
Well, it's kinda like the aforementioned Hotel California, isn't it ;-) You can check-out, but you can never leave ... Come to think of it, if I can remember that far back in time, both the Hotel and the State (of mind) are a metaphor for a kind of seductive addiction ... You know - in pop-lingo: what were once vices are now habits and those who suggest otherwise, may not appreciate what the warm smell of colitas refers to ... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=COLITA not to mention, methinks that more than a few of the UFO-abduction-crowd had to be flying high, so to speak, prior to their close encounter of the third kind ... -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell How? How?!? There is no unsubscribing from this list. It is like the Roach Motel. Seriously, the message heading tells you: List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe
RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Ed, I have no issue with long observations or even radar returns but the argument for physical evidence would require some sort of temporal paradox preventing these artifacts from being revealed. The observations have been frequent, widespread and stretch too far into the past for normal security to conceal a proportionally smaller amount of physical evidence. If you are correct then there is another mystery of how the security for these events was so well maintained for so long. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a window. This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it swamp gas, or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the experiencer phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of encounters may very well
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Rick Monteverde wrote: The hot (1800+ degF) and warm (1450+ degF) glass I've worked with always stays clear. Glass from a furnace is extremely clear, you can look at the bottom of the pot and it looks like there's nothing in there. In this case it's presumably also not glowing, or at least not much, and that would seem to fit with the claim that it absorbs just as it radiates. I don't think I explained the reasoning here, and perhaps I should. Suppose you took a lump of glass and placed it in an (evacuated) oven. Suppose further that the walls of the oven are dead black, absorbing (nearly) all radiation which falls on them, and assume that they radiate about as you'd expect a blackbody to radiate. Suppose further that the oven and the lump of glass are at the same orange-hot temperature (and let's ignore the fact that the glass has melted all over the bottom of the oven because that adds unnecessary complexity to the experiment -- maybe we put the whole thing in free-fall, or whatever). Now the walls of the oven are giving off a cheery orange glow. Assume the glass is glowing orange, too, and assume further that it's glowing just as brightly as the walls of the oven. (This is an assumption; we know glass glows *some* but we haven't confirmed that glass glows as brightly as something which starts out black.) If the glass is still FULLY TRANSPARENT, so that the radiation from the walls is passing through the glass without being absorbed, then the glass must also be COOLING OFF, because it's radiating more than it's absorbing, and the oven walls must be WARMING UP, because they're receiving (and absorbing) all their own radiation *plus* the glow from the glass. Now, let's run heat pipes to the walls of the oven and to the lump of hot glass, and lead the other ends of the pipes to a Stirling motor. As the glass cools, the Stirling motor finds itself with a warm source and a cool source and so it runs, and heat flows from the oven walls through the Stirling motor and on to the lump of glass through the heat pipes, thus keeping the glass hot enough to continue to radiate. Now we enclose the whole rig in a perfectly mirrored box so no radiation gets in or out, and we run the shaft of the Stirling motor out through a hole in the box (with careful friction-free seals around the shaft). Voila, we have a permanent energy source, which consumes nothing and produces mechanical energy until the motor wears out. That's what the second law of thermodynamics says you can't do. What's worse, if the motor's bearings aren't perfect, the inside of the box will actually get warmer due to friction in the bearings, and that violates the first law as well as the second law (and there isn't any ZPE running around in this scenario to let us explain that violation away). This is clearly a very evil box.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, The government may be lousy at keeping secrets but they are very good at protecting physical objects, especially the military. For example, when a military airplane crashes, it is immediately isolated and every piece is cleaned up and taken away. They do the same careful cleanup when a UFO crashes. People who claim to find an occasional unusual object are labeled as crackpots or fakers. This approach is so routine, people accept it as normal behavior on the part of the government, all in the interest of national security. Of course, all governments have a huge self interest in keeping evidence for alien invasion secret, as long as the aliens play along with the effort, which they apparently are doing. Nevertheless, the details of their technology are not discoverable at this time and are pointless to discuss. Their existence and their goals are the only important thing we need to understand right now. The human race believed for a long time that we we created in the image of God and were the only life in the universe. Gradually we realized we were not likely to be unique and started looking for evidence for other life forms. We search the radio waves and now look for life on other planets in the solar system. Yet, we actively ignore evidence for intelligent life from beyond of the solar system that is right here on earth. Of course, a growing number of people accept this reality, but since we can't do anything about their presence, they are ignored but not forgotten. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Ed, I have no issue with long observations or even radar returns but the argument for physical evidence would require some sort of temporal paradox preventing these artifacts from being revealed. The observations have been frequent, widespread and stretch too far into the past for normal security to conceal a proportionally smaller amount of physical evidence. If you are correct then there is another mystery of how the security for these events was so well maintained for so long. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a window. This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Rick Monteverde wrote: The hot (1800+ degF) and warm (1450+ degF) glass I've worked with always stays clear. Glass from a furnace is extremely clear, you can look at the bottom of the pot and it looks like there's nothing in there. In this case it's presumably also not glowing, or at least not much, and that would seem to fit with the claim that it absorbs just as it radiates. I don't think I explained the reasoning here, and perhaps I should. Suppose you took a lump of glass and placed it in an (evacuated) oven. Suppose further that the walls of the oven are dead black, absorbing (nearly) all radiation which falls on them, and assume that they radiate about as you'd expect a blackbody to radiate. Suppose further that the oven and the lump of glass are at the same orange-hot temperature (and let's ignore the fact that the glass has melted all over the bottom of the oven because that adds unnecessary complexity to the experiment -- maybe we put the whole thing in free-fall, or whatever). Now the walls of the oven are giving off a cheery orange glow. Assume the glass is glowing orange, too, and assume further that it's glowing just as brightly as the walls of the oven. (This is an assumption; we know glass glows *some* but we haven't confirmed that glass glows as brightly as something which starts out black.) If the glass is still FULLY TRANSPARENT, so that the radiation from the walls is passing through the glass without being absorbed, then the glass must also be COOLING OFF, because it's radiating more than it's absorbing, and the oven walls must be WARMING UP, because they're receiving (and absorbing) all their own radiation *plus* the glow from the glass. Now, let's run heat pipes to the walls of the oven and to the lump of hot glass, and lead the other ends of the pipes to a Stirling motor. As the glass cools, the Stirling motor finds itself with a warm source and a cool source and so it runs, and heat flows from the oven walls through the Stirling motor and on to the lump of glass through the heat pipes, thus keeping the glass hot enough to continue to radiate. Now we enclose the whole rig in a perfectly mirrored box so no radiation gets in or out, and we run the shaft of the Stirling motor out through a hole in the box (with careful friction-free seals around the shaft). Voila, we have a permanent energy source, which consumes nothing and produces mechanical energy until the motor wears out. Or ... err ... until the whole thing cools off so much it stops running... You can't use this arrangement to violate conservation of energy; I'm clearly wrong about that. Mechanical energy extracted from the system will show up as a loss of total heat inside the box. Anyhow the second law says you can't do that, either. That's what the second law of thermodynamics says you can't do. Indeed.
Re: [Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
On Jul 27, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: It may also permanently disappear too fast to avoid the loss of power by other means. What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the Gulf Stream may stop or shift locations? Yes. Disruption of the thermohaline circulation may have already happened somewhat in the past, making for cold weather year round in the Northern Hemisphere. Melting of the polar ice could produce a new (but probably short!) ice age, even though global temperatures increase. I have never heard that before. It has been in the same location at the same strength since 1500 as far as anyone knows. - Jed All that can change very rapidly if polar ice, and thus freshwater melt, disappear. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:How to unscribe to this list , pls ?
Well, harumph, that's much nicer than the colonitis to which I thought it referred. Terry On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well, it's kinda like the aforementioned Hotel California, isn't it ;-) You can check-out, but you can never leave ... Come to think of it, if I can remember that far back in time, both the Hotel and the State (of mind) are a metaphor for a kind of seductive addiction ... You know - in pop-lingo: what were once vices are now habits and those who suggest otherwise, may not appreciate what the warm smell of colitas refers to ... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=COLITA not to mention, methinks that more than a few of the UFO-abduction-crowd had to be flying high, so to speak, prior to their close encounter of the third kind ... -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell How? How?!? There is no unsubscribing from this list. It is like the Roach Motel. Seriously, the message heading tells you: List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
Some reference material on abrupt climate change caused by thermohaline circulation disruption follows. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarParadox/ http://tinyurl.com/ldbh8v ... sea ice transported into the Greenland Sea has the ability to cap mixing of fresh and saline water by putting in a freshened surface layer which acts like an inversion on the ocean. It keeps some of the ocean water from rising up and exchanging its heat with the atmosphere ... Based on ideas generated by Richard Alley, Wallace Broeker, and others, it is suggested that an extreme melt event might be capable of capping off the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. The freshened upper surface waters would also increase sea ice formation. If the condition persisted over a few years, climate feedbacks due to increased albedo and increased ice cover would cause a major cooling of the high northern latitudes, potentially creating the beginning of a glacial epoch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation Large influxes of low density meltwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America are thought to have led to a disruption of deep water formation and subsidence in the extreme North Atlantic and caused the climate period in Europe known as the Younger Dryas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP)[5] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. The transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so.[6] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15°C colder during the Younger Dryas[6] than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5°C,[7] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[8] Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since.[5] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon
How about circulating a radioactive gas through fine metal powder, assuming it doesn't become pyrophoric it would create through channel cavities between the grains instead of dead end cavities inside the metal. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon Jones Beene wrote: However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap would be difficult Akshully How about, forget the massive bit, just substitute tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops. Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.
Re: [Vo]:Gulf Stream energy
Jed wrote: What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the Gulf Stream may stop or shift locations? It's regarded as a long term possibility depending on how far and fast Greenland melts. The film The Day after Tomorrow was based on this change in ocean circulation. At the time, the film was criticised for making the slowing and halt of the current very rapid (instead of taking the hundreds of years it was expected to take). While still not an immediate danger, observations show that the ice sheets seem to be melting/breaking up much faster than the IPCC predictions at the time (and even those of the 2007 IPCC report)... Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon
Given that tritium is expensive, toxic, and tightly controlled and that there is no requirement for a gas - and given that you are interested in Mills work and that potassium is a BLP catalyst, and that 40K is mildly radioactive and available in enriched form and has a low melting point. Get hold of a potassium-40 isotope enriched sample, GM meters with datalogging - some Raney Nickel, and measure the counts before and after impregnating the sample into the Raney Nickel using heat and vacuum and exercising due caution. Best to datalog both measurement over several days or even weeks. -Original Message- From: Frank Roarty How about circulating a radioactive gas through fine metal powder, assuming it doesn't become pyrophoric it would create through channel cavities between the grains instead of dead end cavities inside the metal. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones Beene wrote: However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap would be difficult Akshully How about, forget the massive bit, just substitute tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops. Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.
Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon
On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Given that tritium is expensive, toxic, and tightly controlled and that there is no requirement for a gas - and given that you are interested in Mills work and that potassium is a BLP catalyst, and that 40K is mildly radioactive and available in enriched form and has a low melting point. Get hold of a potassium-40 isotope enriched sample, GM meters with datalogging - some Raney Nickel, and measure the counts before and after impregnating the sample into the Raney Nickel using heat and vacuum and exercising due caution. Best to datalog both measurement over several days or even weeks. The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years. Such an experiment would be much easier to run with technetium, which has a half life of 66 hours. Technetium is manufactured on a daily basis for hospital radiology clinics for various kids of uptake scans. I had a heart scan based on positron emission from technetium. I was shocked to see the reading on my geiger counter when I got home and placed it near me. The radioactivity went away after a while. It is not logical to expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in the amount of 40K. It is only the *disintegration rate* that should be affected while in the cavity. It is not easy to measure that rate in-situ. Once out of the cavity, no difference would be detectable because so little of 40K is eliminated in a matter of days, even if the half-life is cut by a 1000 to 1 while in the cavity. By using a short half-life isotope, the disintegration rate post-cavity will be measurably affected if the in-cavity disintegration rate is affected significantly. Technetium can be chemically separated from whatever apparatus in which it is used, and the before and after counts easily compared to expected values. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon
Technetium would also be a handy element to use to see if Barker's method of enhancing alpha decay also works for positron emission decay. See United States Patent 5,076,971 Barker Dec. 31, 1991, Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials,Inventors: Barker; William A. (Los Altos, CA). Assignee: Altran Corporation (Sunnyvale, CA). Appl. No.: 400,180, Filed: Aug. 28, 1989. That patent doesn't have much life left, even if it was maintained. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I've seen lead-crystal (very clear) glass being worked at high temperatures, at Corning many years ago, and as far as I can recall it did indeed glow bright orange. After the conversation here I searched through my old slides and found a photo of what I remembered. Turns out my memory was wrong -- the end of the metal rod, clearly visible through the (transparent!) hot glass, was glowing *bright* red. The glass itself was glowing *dim* orange (dim by comparison with the rod's glow). The rod and the glass must have been at about the same temp, or more likely, the glass was hotter than the rod, as the glass had been in direct contact with the environment of the furnace while the rod was protected from it by the glass. Guessing the rod is steel but I don't know for sure. Anyhow a blowup of a small piece of the original picture is attached. It's a scan from a slide, which was shot in dim light and wasn't super sharp, unfortunately; it's been despeckled and unsharp-masked heavily but still looks a bit fuzzy. So it looks like hot glass doesn't go particularly opaque, but also doesn't glow very brightly at all in comparison with metal. The double image is due to a reflection: the glass knob, on the end of the rod, is being rolled along a very smooth, shiny surface to give the shape the glass worker wants. This was the Steuben workshop, where they mostly made blobby animals and things like that, so rounded knobby shapes were kind of the order of the day. inline: 1983-may-roll-7-33-b.knob-annotated.lowres.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Suppose you took a lump of glass and placed it in an (evacuated) oven. Suppose further that the walls of the oven are dead black, absorbing (nearly) all radiation which falls on them, and assume that they radiate about as you'd expect a blackbody to radiate. Suppose further that the oven and the lump of glass are at the same orange-hot temperature (and let's ignore the fact that the glass has melted all over the bottom of the oven because that adds unnecessary complexity to the experiment -- maybe we put the whole thing in free-fall, or whatever). Now the walls of the oven are giving off a cheery orange glow. Assume the glass is glowing orange, too, and assume further that it's glowing just as brightly as the walls of the oven. (This is an assumption; we know glass glows *some* but we haven't confirmed that glass glows as brightly as something which starts out black.) I think there might be a misconception here about the difference in behavior between heated surfaces and heated black body cavities. Cavities, at least peep holes into cavities, act as almost perfect black bodies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body In the laboratory, black-body radiation is approximated by the radiation from a small hole entrance to a large cavity, a hohlraum. (This technique leads to the alternative term cavity radiation.) Any light entering the hole would have to reflect off the walls of the cavity multiple times before it escaped, in which process it is nearly certain to be absorbed. This occurs regardless of the wavelength of the radiation entering (as long as it is small compared to the hole). The hole, then, is a close approximation of a theoretical black body and, if the cavity is heated, the spectrum of the hole's radiation (i.e., the amount of light emitted from the hole at each wavelength) will be continuous, and will not depend on the material in the cavity (compare with emission spectrum). I know from personal observation that it goes beyond this. As a cavity and its contents heat up, everything in the cavity eventually disappears from view through the peep-hole. I have personally sat and watched through a gas forge observation port, which I kept open, the cover lifted, as that gas forge, which was about 1' by 2' by 2', heated up. Initially, I could clearly see the far walls of the forge and things in it through the port. When the temperature rose to an orange glow, suddenly nothing was visible inside the forge. There was a pure orange glow coming from the observation port that had nothing to do with the contents of the forge. One moment I could see the other side of the forge, which had some hot spots and dark spots on it, and the next it was replaced by flat orange glow. I could see nothing at all inside the port. It was as if the hole surface itself (which is not a physical thing) was radiating. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Question about hot glass
Some great history of black body radiating cavity hole physics: http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html http://tinyurl.com/mbra5q Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon
Horace The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years... It is not logical to expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in the amount of 40K. Yes, we would be looking for a dramatic change in the decay rate as measured in the average microrem per hour, or whatever, but dramatic or logical is not the problem - it is even less logical to expect the drastic changes which have been claimed in such things as thorium remediation. In either case, if there was pronounced time dilation at the Casimir geomtery - it could be extreme - not gradual. Admittedly, the operative word there for thorium is claimed. But speaking of the Barker patents, which is a situation of high electrostatic voltage containment = a few of those claims were for changes on the order of 10^6 in decay rates ... and I am convinced they are accurate, from personal work I have done. I would not hesitate to give 40K a shot, if I were in Fran's shoes and thought it would help to validate the theory - but sure, if other isotopes with shorter half-lives are available, and can be placed in cavities as easily as by vacuum melting - then go for it ... why not. Then there is always the tactic of cannibalizing your smoke detector ;-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
The 'threat' might be taken more seriously if the number of people abducted each year exceeded the number of people killed in car accidents. Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called abduction matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it swamp gas, or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the experiencer phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of encounters may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to catch and release programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of abductions, are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill catch and release program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the abduction experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational – grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed throughout the entire human population. The result of such randomness would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to be naturally smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much support an experiencer receives when they first begin the often difficult and all-too-often psychologically harrowing journey of consciously acknowledging their experiences, the better equipped they are likely to be in handling and ultimately integrating it into the intimate fabric of their lives. Of course, everyone wants to know the $64,000 question: Is the phenomenon really real? Are people *really*, physically being abducted, or is it all just fantasy? All that most of us non-abductees, us mundanes can conclude is the fact that it feels real, terrifying real and acutely physical to those who experience it. I personally think far too much emphasis has been put on attempts to either legitimize or debunk the experience. Just as debunkers attempt to ridicule and marginalize the experience as nothing more than weird clinically
