Re: [Vo]:Rare earths

[Kyle Mcallister]

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Late reply... sorry. Had to repair a family member's car. Unbelievably simple 
problem, a real bear to track down.

> The only reason we stopped is because the Chinese do it so
> cheaply. This is also why the U.S. stopped manufacturing so
> many goods. That may not be a good reason, but it is the
> reason -- not because we ran out or because they do it more
> efficiently.

Its interesting. The US economy is in a mess. It would be nice if something 
came along to cause business to pick up.
Oh hell, China won't sell rare earths. We need rare earths...
Some US company picks up on this, and starts hiring Americans to produce the 
stuff. Hmm. This could be a good thing in the long run.
 
> These bulbs produce light with 1/8th as much electricity as
> incandescent bulbs [making them at least twice as efficient
> as CFL, and probably 3 or 4 times] and they now cost $30,
> versus about $5 for this kind of bulb [indicating a CFL].
> And they last 40 times longer than a conventional bulb. But
> the question remains, can the average family afford them?
>
> What an idiotic comment that is! Japanese people are the
> second richest on earth. Family income averages $67,000.

I make nowhere NEAR $67k per year. Combined, me and my wife come nowhere close 
to this. And we CAN afford this. Not all at once, to be sure. But one or two 
here and there, and not have to replace bulbs constantly?*** Reduce my power 
bill? Fine by me. Why are people complaining about this?

***Volts at my wall socket can reach 125VAC. Normal bulbs do not seem to like 
this. Long life bulbs can handle it, but in my experience, they look sickly 
yellow.

I do NOT like CFLs. But LED's are very welcome here. I also wonder at the 
possibility of combining RGB LED's to control the color of the light produced. 
Have a diffuser or something around the LED cluster, so the light is relatively 
uniform, and have a dozen or so 'pixels' of LEDs in RGB trios. One wonders if 
you could tune the light, so to speak, to help people with seasonal affective 
disorder.

OR: think of this. Make a programmed one to vary hue and intensity so as to 
simulate a sunrise as you are waking up. What effect might this have on 
people's ability to become alert in a refreshed manner upon waking? I know, 
this would add cost. The basic 'cool white' LED light should be cheap, so 
people can afford it. But the more 'luxurious' aspects of this should be 
investigated, especially if it helps people feel better. With an incandescent 
filament, variation on color is very limited. With 'pixel' LED combos, the 
possibilities seem endless.

> Can people who earn $67,000 per year afford to invest $30
> in something that will return ~10% per annum for 20 years?
> 
> - Jed

I don't know what the cost of living is in Japan. I would guess you are more 
qualified to say. But from where I am, living here in Buffalo, NY, and making 
less than half that with both salaries combined, yeah, we can afford that. 
Again, not all at once. But over time, sure.

Damn it Jed, now I have to start combining LED's in RGB combinations and see 
how they affect my mood. Winter is coming, after all. Look what you done 
started! :)

--Kyle



  

Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:28:25 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>> ...however I think that CF will eventually prevail, hence the  
>> Manhattan style
>> project you have in mind could turn out to be a huge white elephant  
>> within just
>> a few years. IOW It might pay to wait a little while before  
>> investing trillions
>> in such an undertaking. A better investment might be millions  
>> (billions) in CF,
>> then if it doesn't pan out the project you have in mind can be  
>> undertaken.\
>
>I agree that such funding (millions) should be given for CF research,  
>though that is unlikely, but it should not hold up the advance of  
>solar.  Two options are of course better than none, but it is  
>nonsensical to lose time on obtaining a sure thing in order to chase  
>a very iffy thing.  Right now solar is a sure bet, except for the  
>political will to make it happen.  CF is nowhere near being proven as  
>a practical source of energy for world needs at this point, while  
>solar is a clear solution.  Time is of the essence in solving this  
>problem.  To delay is to fail.  Global warming will cause trillions  
>of dollars in damage, deaths, and the relocation of even nations. It  
>is immoral to dally.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[snip]
One thing that could be done now, and probably wouldn't be a waste would be
algoil. This could make a significant dent in fossil fuel consumption, and
because it targets cars and trucks, isn't likely to be quickly replaced by CF,
even if that does pan out.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:00 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:35:06  
-0800:

Hi,
[snip]

Given no
other major energy development, like cold fusion, an all out
international effort should be waged to develop a solar  
infrastructure.


...however I think that CF will eventually prevail, hence the  
Manhattan style
project you have in mind could turn out to be a huge white elephant  
within just
a few years. IOW It might pay to wait a little while before  
investing trillions
in such an undertaking. A better investment might be millions  
(billions) in CF,
then if it doesn't pan out the project you have in mind can be  
undertaken.\


I agree that such funding (millions) should be given for CF research,  
though that is unlikely, but it should not hold up the advance of  
solar.  Two options are of course better than none, but it is  
nonsensical to lose time on obtaining a sure thing in order to chase  
a very iffy thing.  Right now solar is a sure bet, except for the  
political will to make it happen.  CF is nowhere near being proven as  
a practical source of energy for world needs at this point, while  
solar is a clear solution.  Time is of the essence in solving this  
problem.  To delay is to fail.  Global warming will cause trillions  
of dollars in damage, deaths, and the relocation of even nations. It  
is immoral to dally.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:35:06 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Given no  
>other major energy development, like cold fusion, an all out  
>international effort should be waged to develop a solar infrastructure.

...however I think that CF will eventually prevail, hence the Manhattan style
project you have in mind could turn out to be a huge white elephant within just
a few years. IOW It might pay to wait a little while before investing trillions
in such an undertaking. A better investment might be millions (billions) in CF,
then if it doesn't pan out the project you have in mind can be undertaken.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 27, 2009, at 6:43 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


Horace


You may be highly disappointed running at 1.4 volts/cell.


But - a few months ago - were you not promoting Nocera's half-cell  
advance?

He claims a 90% reduction on the anode.

If incorporated, and even if less than 90% that should reduce the  
overall

potential significantly - perhaps to near this range of 1.4



There was no mention of attempting to use Nocera's catalysts, which  
might be a very good idea. The focus appeared to be on using a  
generator. In any case, the approach of picking 1.4 V a priori is  
flawed. A need to change that voltage should be expected.


I think "promote" is too strong a word for my postings on this to  
date.  I post news in regards to the effort by Nocera and MIT to  
solve the energy problem using solar, which I think is clearly  
feasible and noteworthy.  OTOH, I do indeed have some strong opinions  
in this regard. I think the ordinary pace at which the development is  
occurring is wrong headed.  Solar in general, including Nocera's  
catalysts, which could be a key part, should have trillions behind it  
and a Manhattan Project type of management. Consider:


http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/better-cheap-than-good- 
renewable-power-for-developing-world.ars


http://tinyurl.com/y975cs2

"Nocera figures one kilowatt systems using the catalyst will be ready  
for production within two years."


This is a nominal advance. Instead of picking at all sides of the  
Gordian Knot it should be vaporized with a laser.   There should be a  
no holds barred no red tape government coordinated effort to *build*  
hundreds of square miles of solar facilities and a HVDC power  
infrastructure and eventually a hydrogen distribution infrastructure  
in the US.


We know the land will be required.  We know infrastructure is  
required.  We know red tape must be cut.  Movement on this can begin  
now because we know that some existing technologies and anticipated  
technologies will work adequately, and there are existing companies  
ready to move on this that have their hands tied.  The local  
regulatory and environmental problems should be quickly dispatched,  
NOW.  As in WWII, the unused manufacturing capacity of the auto  
industries, including the factories, equipment, an labor pool, should  
be tapped for an all out effort, NOW.  We own the companies, so lets  
put them to work, NOW. Federal money banks were given to loan and  
which is being hoarded should be released to these kinds of efforts NOW.


A true hydrogen economy will not come easy or quickly.  See:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf

Work on this needs to start NOW.

Conversion to plug-in hybrid vehicles for personal transportation has  
already begun. An interim alternative for some transportation fuel  
needs, for aircraft and trucking, given efficient solar hydrogen  
generation, is hydrocarbon formation using hydrogen and CO2 as the  
feed stock.  Engineering and siting of large plants for hydrogen feed  
stack driven synthesis should begin NOW.


The lobbyists against these kinds of major undertakings must be  
finding their efforts relatively easy these days. All that has to  
happen for their success is delay and diversion. This happens  
invisibly, especially in the midst of the health care debate, which  
should be no debate at all.  Congress could just look at the numerous  
successful systems already proven in other countries and pick one  
instead of building a bastardized system that is maliciously  
compromised by amendment into a system with the greatest possible set  
of flaws.  Similarly, the energy effort has been or is likely to be  
watered down into a diluted effort with the greatest possible set of  
flaws.


It is a numerical fact that solar can do the job of satisfying world  
energy needs, and with a fairly small global footprint.  The missing  
ingredient for solar has been energy storage, and efficient hydrogen  
generation using solar energy clearly solves that problem.  Given no  
other major energy development, like cold fusion, an all out  
international effort should be waged to develop a solar infrastructure.


End unexpected editorial.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess

[Ron Wormus]

Here is a German professor's website  who is currently doing Tesla like 
experiments.



I haven't had a chance to give it a through read.
Ron

--On Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:25 PM -0800 Horace Heffner 
 wrote:


Note - URLS below have spaces and asterisks inserted because my ISP blocks my 
sending references
to them, assuming I am sending spam. The tinyurls work.


On Sep 26, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Jack O Suileabhain wrote:


  John Hutchison of British Columbia approached fractionally
Tesla's results and was immediately shut-down and relieved of his
research data & equipment by a joint contingent of Canadian &
United States goverment's 'officials.'  This is simple factual
history.


John Hutchison is an amateur extraordinaire. It is easy to see why he might be 
evicted given the
extent of the equipment he kept and used in his *apartment*.  See:

http://gu * ns.con *  nect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/John/

http://tinyurl.com/mrfzub


Must have made the neighbors uneasy!  That said, the response by authorities 
was wholly
inappropriate, to say the least.  And his stuff was taken on more than one 
occasion. For more on
the latest invasion see:


http://www.g * eocit *  ies.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html

http://tinyurl.com/yefmpb8


This has been a topic of discussion here.  Consider:


On Mar 18, 2000, at 7:21 PM, William Beaty wrote:

( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) 
)
William J. Beaty  SCIENCE HOBBYIST
website
bi...@eskimo.com  http://
www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits  science projects, tesla, weird
science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320  freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L
webhead-L


http://www.g * eocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html

John Hutchison Raided At Gunpoint
By Canadian Police

Reporting From Shreveport, Louisiana
UNITED STATES

 Word has been received this morning, Saturday, 18 March 2000,
that
John Hutchison has been raided at gunpoint by Canadian Police.

 John's apartment in New Westminster, British Columbia, was
raided at
2 PM Friday, 17 March 2000, by gun-wielding police searching for
firearms.
An antique gun collection owned by Hutchison was confiscated in its
entireity.

 According to Hutchison, a phone call was received at about 2 PM
Friday, stating that it was the police, and asking John to answer his
door.  Hutchison states that there were 8 to 10 individuals pointing
weapons at him, only two or three of whom were in uniform. The rest
were
dressed in dark clothing.

 Hutchison was handcuffed and placed on the outside steps while
police
searched the apartment.  No warrant was claimed or shown at any time.
Police stated only that there had been an anonymous complaint that
firearms were being brought into the apartment.

 Police also called in an "electrical inspector" to examine
John's lab
equipment.  This is the famous "Hutchison apparatus" with which John
produces the renowned "Hutchison Effect."

 Additional individuals dressed in suits were brought in who took
extensive photographs of the Hutchison apparatus.  Hutchison indicates
that these persons had an "official air" about them, and that they
might
be Government agents, especially given the confiscation of the
original
Hutchison lab, which took place while John was out of the country
in 1990.
None of these persons showed any identification.

 Those who have followed John's career of invention and innovation
will recall that his first laboratory was forcibly seized by the
Canadian
Government on 24 February 1990 by the direct order of former Canadian
Prime Minister Brian Mulruney.  The Government has retained the lab in
spite of a court order by Judge Paris of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia to return it.

 A previous raid on John Hutchison's apartment involving his
collection of antique firearms occured in 1978, and processing took
two
years.  The confiscated antiques were returned at the order of Judge
Paris.  These events occured under the administration of former PM Joe
Clark.

 The present raid follows close on the heels of a recent
successful
levitation performed 11 October 1999 which was videotaped by John.
The
effect was achieved after six days worth of attempts.

 However, neighbors called local police to complain about
Hutchison's
experiment.  It is unclear whether something in their apartment
levitated,
although there is no other way known at this time that they could have
been aware of the levitation experiment that was in progress.  The
neighbors in question live across the street from Hutchison.

 The sound of approaching sirens was recorded on the video
soundtrack
of Hutchison's camcorder during the experiment, and video of some
emergency vehicles and personnel was obtained.

 Further updates on the situation will be posted promptly on this
websi

RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?

[Jack O Suileabhain]

?No Repulsion?-as relates to planetary-formation & geotectonic/electro-magnetic 
evolution: 



This is getting there:  *The patent asserts that space charge in a tube is a 
quantum effect of virtual particles setting up a semi-stable cloud of charge.  
I wonder if any physicists agree?*


 

*an alternative answer:  Simply stated:  Lighten bolts 'arise' from the ground 
into the outer atmosphere etc. and 'not' the other way around from the outer 
atmospheric EM-flux-line field to the ground.  And the atmospheric ion-pathways 
align themselves in the 'flux-presence' of the (hard-strata)geotectonic 
charge/field build-up as a symptom/result-end of the equation and 'not' from 
the causal side of the charge-flow equation

 

 
How/a contrasting view: Collective-Marco-charge as a 'unitary charge system:'  
Ion-clustered 'unit/unitary phenomenon' versus ions-particles acting as 
micro-units is the heart of this theory.  Tubular(more or less) up-drafting via 
planetary-spin --->virtually-constantly-'calving' EM-gravionic-spin atmospheric 
vorticesGeoTechtonic Mag-field 
Electro-plasmic flow goes south as in 'S'outh Magnetic pole.  
Meteorologic/atmospheric/spacial Magna-flux flow dominates all 
meteorologic-phenomenon but electro-magnetically it'sall flowing 'N'orth as 
in 'N' magnetic pole.
 
Updraft vorticular ion-conduits create a 'short-circuiting' ion pathway acting 
as a 'whole-systems-mono-directional-charge superconductor of 
quantum-electro-plasmic wave-string flow.'
 
The entire planet is much more than a 'large spinning-core-bar-magnet system;'
it is also 'Tesla Toroid ZPE electro-plasma bleed-through' reactor.  The 
planet's-'energetic core'-
is receiving a constant influx of quantum-electro-plasma from the 
'cross-spectrum/parallel-dimension'
and at the global-centre axial-nexus of mass the planet is thusly *building 
atomic mass* and growing larger

through said influx of parallel-spectrum super-dense electro-plasma.
 
Some astute geologists have noted that 'Pangea' reassembled makes a perfectly 
spheroid; but 
much smaller earth.  The above is how a new planet congealed from star-stuff 
'evolves.' from
smaller to larger.  Yes the Planet is a 'Reactor' and radiates far more 
electro-plasma/gyro-gravionic energy
that it absorbs from our parent star 'Sol.'
 
The meteorologic endless toroidal-eddying atmospheric ion square-dance forms 
the the 'vorticular/tubal-conduit quantum-electro-plasma charge conductor 
bridges' for
the constant earth-'over charge'>growing and 
electro-magneticallypowering<---the planet from it' centre-outward. Thus 
the earth's geo-tectonic 'S'outh charge flow tends to short-discharge across 
the atmospheric-ion-vortis whole-charge pathways into the Atmospheric/spacial 
EM-flux 'N'orth charge flow.  Separate ion-charge interaction at the 
micro-level is 'not' determinate and 'not' worth considering as a causel factor 
of lightening etc.  
 
*Simply stated:  Lighten bolts 'arise' from the ground into the outer 
atmosphere etc. and 'not' the other way around from the outer atmospheric 
EM-flux-line field to the ground.  And the atmospheric ion-pathways align 
themselves in the 'flux-presence' of the geotectonic charge/field build-up as a 
symptom/result-end of the equation and 'not' from the causal side of the 
charge-flow equation-JO-






Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:39:43 -0700
From: chrisrz...@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com








I appreciate the answers but find that they generate more questions in the same 
direction. 
 
As of 1998, cloud electrification was still generally termed a mystery.  It's 
difficult to see how small charges over large distances still cooperate to 
create a lightning bolt as a focused phenomena , either between clouds or 
sometimes repeating to ground without dissipating the generating cloud.  Swirls 
of air that create the huge charge should push things apart and prevent 
concentration of charge.and the discharge of huge narrow currents. It's hard to 
overcome the image of putting a charge into a small cloud chamber filled with 
smoke or other particles and seeing it all vanish instantly.
 
As for space charges in a vacuum tube,  patent 6465965  makes interesting 
claims

RE: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[Jones Beene]

Horace 

> You may be highly disappointed running at 1.4 volts/cell.  

But - a few months ago - were you not promoting Nocera's half-cell advance?
He claims a 90% reduction on the anode.

If incorporated, and even if less than 90% that should reduce the overall
potential significantly - perhaps to near this range of 1.4

Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> http://www.g * eocit *  ies.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yefmpb8

For those who might not know, Geocities will be closing soon.  If you
have a Geo account, or want to retain information from another
account, you have about a month to act:

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/geocities/close/close-01.html

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?

[David Jonsson]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone knew a thorough answer to the question: How can a
> charged thunderstorm exist? I've asked meterologists this question but no
> one has any answer.
>
> How can a cloud carry any charge at all?  Why doesn't the charge cause the
> cloud to instantly dissipate?  If we can demonstrate electrostatic
> precipitation with a small cloud chamber, how can any thunderstorm exist at
> all?
>
> Another mystery: How can an electron cloud exist in a vacuum tube?  How can
> it hold itself together?
>
> It just seems to me that there are exceptions to the idea that like charges
> always repel - a notion that might guide us to free energy.
>
>
Many questions. Why does the atom nucleus stick together. They just invented
a new force to explain that.

In the atmosphere there is an electrical gradient of 90-150 V/m according to
the Feynman lectures on physics. This causes polirization (or could
equivalently be the result of polirization). A factor mentioned for big gas
planets is that the nucleus is stronger attracted by gravity than the
electron. Convection causes lower gas masses to float upwards causing in its
turn a redistribution of charges.

Meteorology is a relatively ontological science, meaning they do not look
that far in the chain of events leading to what they observe, so you
shouldn't have any higher expectations on meteorologists explaining
lightning.

When collections of charged particles move there will be more forces than
just the electrostatic forces.

David

Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators

[Harvey Norris]

--- On Sun, 9/27/09, Harvey Norris  wrote:

> From: Harvey Norris 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 2:46 AM
>  
> > You may be highly disappointed running at 1.4
> > volts/cell.  
> Well aware of all the limitations involved here, At 1.4 volts very little 
> conduction ensues. However in the (potential) automotive application we are 
> exploring 5 cells are placed in series, and at a 10 volt DC input with even 
> voltage division between the cells, at some point in the voltage input  all 
> the cells will exceed this "theoretical thermoneutral electrolysis voltage 
> said to be 1.4 volts."
Apparently then in our concentric shell design of five in series, with varying 
distance between plates and also more importantly smaller distances between 
plates as those plate areas dramatically decrease with smaller surface areas 
incorporated with the smaller shells going outwards from 1/4 inch OD/ 1/2 in. 
OD/1 in./1.5 in/ 2 in./ 2.5 in OD. The first inner shells are thinner then the 
outer ones. It is virtually guaranteed then that the division of DC cell 
voltages in series will not be linear, and then that the first cell in division 
to exceed the voltage to enable conduction also must govern the conduction of 
the remaining cells in series, although they may not act as the same voltage of 
the triggering cell itself, because of differing plate areas and distances 
between plates brought on by the non-linear concentric shell design itself.

It might be possible to find this weakest link in the series electrolytic 
chain, that should be measurable by the differing voltages between the 
concentric cylinders of decreasing surface areas as the progression inwards 
ensues to it's smallest dimension of 1/4 in.

Perhaps the concentric shell design cannot even work, because it is current 
limited to the dimensions of the smallest plate areas in series. But that one 
part prevents the conduction of the other parts in series.

Now suppose that one part that essentially governs the whole conduction is 
given special privalege. It gets the free energy available from the exhaust 
manifold of the automobile engine, like a turbocharger. That section of the 
series electrolysisor having the least voltage across it; whereby because it 
will not start to conduct until after achieving well in excess of 2 volts or 
so, this guy is holding up the whole parade because until he moves, no one else 
moves. So we prod him a little bit, put him under high pressure and temperature 
available from the exhaust manifold. Then we might find that the weakest cell 
becomes endothermic instead of exothermic. Special measures have been made so 
that the weakest link in the chain becomes strong enough to hold the total 
action.
HDN