Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: RC Macaulay Thanks for the link on the Cooper River Bridge.. a work of art and engineering.Presume you had a hand in design hopefully. Being in communications my participation is usually limited to CCTV and other systems. My friend said that although the CRB cost two years worth of SCDOT's highway funds, it met their criteria that it be better looking than the Savannah River Bridge: http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US17_Savannah_River_Br1.jpg I have been saving every scrap of info on Grimer and Jones post regarding the big B as I name the file. awesome stuff, including the vortex ring that blew my mind. I must admit, I never could fathom the Hutchison Effect before Grimer's vortex ring analogy. One of my favorite toys as a kid was the Air Blaster, a gun that shot vortex rings.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Terry Blanton Sorry for the double posts. Itchy trigger finger.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Grimer wrote.. I've been puzzling over how Hutchison manages to get such spectacular effects from his claimed relatively small energy input. It occurs to me that a vortex ring (VR) is a combination of a B-atm. expansion strain energy (negative energy)and a B-atm. contraction strain energy (positive energy). Come to think of it, the formation of a vortex ring is very reminiscent of what's going on in the Hilsch Tube (HT). The HT separates the Quick and the Dead 8-) The VR separates the Linear and the Transverse. Frank, On a grander scale the tidal action of the seas and the four winds of earth describe the available energy for use should we be fortunate in devising a harness for applying the differential as Hutchinson so described his spectacular results. Surely forces at work are so in order to maintain a balance and a harmony in our know universe. Attempts to unbalance these forces are met with resistance. Scripture states [ all things are held together by the power of His word]. To me, this means that order has been established. However, it does not mean we cannot put the wind energy to practical use to sail rather than row, Surely or Maker has made everything in His creation for our use. Please continue to expand on the big B theme. Richard
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Frank Grimer wrote: The same criticism could apply to your notions of negative and positive mass. Absolutely 8-). You are so right. 8-) I am using a conventional datum cos there is only so much cognitive dissonance that people can cope with at one sitting. As I have pointed out in a previous post, both Ing.Saviour and I have independently realised that mass has the dimensions of an inverse velocity so when mass goes to infinity the mass temperature drops to zero. The velocity of light it the correct datum for measuring the inverse of mass (which is an internal velocity just like temperature but on a finer scale). I am in the process of copying the internal BRS note which deals with this aspect from Saviour's blazelabs Yahoo site to the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site where you will soon be able to read it. So far Yahoo has only allowed me to download a few pages from your paper. This is just a suggestion, but it seems to me the focus of your theory should be the nature of charge instead of mass. In other words charge is an inverse velocity and not mass. I say this for two reasons. First you are concerned with the strength of materials which is an electromagnetic phenomena and secondly by choosing the velocity of light as a datum you have chosen another electromagnetic phenomena. Harry
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 01:50 pm 25/08/2005 -0500, Harry wrote: So far Yahoo has only allowed me to download a few pages from your paper. I must confess I never had any problems downloading stuff from Yahoo sites. Perhaps someone was downloading stuff at the same time. If you keep having problems let me know and I will send you the relevant stuff as attachments to e-mails. This is what I did for Beene and though my line is only a 56 Jones has a fast one so it downloaded at his end like lightning. This is just a suggestion, but it seems to me the focus of your theory should be the nature of charge instead of mass. In other words charge is an inverse velocity and not mass. Maybe they are both functions of velocity at different scales, eh! 8-) I say this for two reasons. First you are concerned with the strength of materials which is an electromagnetic phenomena and secondly by choosing the velocity of light as a datum you have chosen another electromagnetic phenomena. Fair point. Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
The following excerpt suggest that the Vort member, George Hathaway, personally witnessed some of the Hutchison Effect phenomena. It will be interesting to see precisely what it was that he witnessed and what he believes the underlying cause to be - if he is willing to testify, that is - and doesn't plead the fifth amendment. g === John Kenneth Hutchison of Vancouver, Canada, tinkered with an array of simultaneously interactive fields; a combination of electrostatic, magnetic, microwave and Tesla Coil fields. Without predictable warning and with some randomness, these fields interacted with objects. Levitations, thrusted weights, glowing, apparent softening and bending of hard metal alloys, and strange alloy separations were some of the phenomena reported. Some events were witnessed and reported by George Hathaway. Additional details of the experiments are related in the Electric Spacecraft journal. One series of experiments was performed while observers from Los Alamos Laboratory, U. S. aircraft firms, and military personnel observed and made video camera recordings. There is no doubt that things happened which were dffficult to explain. However, the experimental procedures were such that John Kenneth Hutchison would try various combinations of pulsed power, microwaves, etc., without records to correlate what caused what. The best that could be done at the time was to observe. There is no claim of electrogravitic forces here, but massive objects were said to have moved, presumably as a result of the externally applied fields. Mr. Hutchison claimed that the presence of heavy masses was important in his levitation experiments. The phenomenon generated by Mr. Hutchison requires more investigation. === That last sentence is the understatement of the century. Cheers Frank Grimer
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Michael Huffman wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke Assuming negative pressure is possible, what would that imply? Harry
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 12:47 pm 24/08/2005 -0500, you wrote: Michael Huffman wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke Assuming negative pressure is possible, what would that imply? Harry It would imply you are working from the wrong datum for zero pressure - something analogous to working from the wrong datum for the motion of the sun and planets or the wrong datum for temperature. Historically, people have always started from an anthropomorphic datum. It is the natural thing to do. For example, they set the datum for temperature at O degrees Centigrade. Eventually the maths of the relation between temperature and volume for gases showed them what datum they should start from. This is exactly what happened to Hewitt and I in relation to stress on concrete, water, etc., as you will see if you care to read == GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Southampton 1969 Civil Engineering Conference. (M.Te'eni, Ed.), Wiley Interscience, pp 681 - 691, 1972. === ..which you will find in the Files section at the following location. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/ Frank Grimer
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Frank Grimer, Last week I tried a new setting on my spam filter which had the undesirable effect of blocking email from the vortex list. I have now read your Aug. 19 post in the vortex archives on the meaning of neutral mass. Grimer wrote: At 12:47 pm 24/08/2005 -0500, you wrote: Michael Huffman wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke Assuming negative pressure is possible, what would that imply? Harry It would imply you are working from the wrong datum for zero pressure - something analogous to working from the wrong datum for the motion of the sun and planets or the wrong datum for temperature. The same criticism could apply to your notions of negative and positive mass. Historically, people have always started from an anthropomorphic datum. It is the natural thing to do. For example, they set the datum for temperature at O degrees Centigrade. Eventually the maths of the relation between temperature and volume for gases showed them what datum they should start from. This is exactly what happened to Hewitt and I in relation to stress on concrete, water, etc., as you will see if you care to read == GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Southampton 1969 Civil Engineering Conference. (M.Te'eni, Ed.), Wiley Interscience, pp 681 - 691, 1972. === ..which you will find in the Files section at the following location. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/ Frank Grimer Ok, I will have a look. Harry
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer == GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. My Civil Engineer coworker said that the formulas for post stress concrete changed around this time. Did you have something to do with that?
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 02:39 pm 24/08/2005 -0500, you wrote: Frank Grimer, Last week I tried a new setting on my spam filter which had the undesirable effect of blocking email from the vortex list. I have now read your Aug. 19 post in the vortex archives on the meaning of neutral mass. Grimer wrote: At 12:47 pm 24/08/2005 -0500, you wrote: Michael Huffman wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke Assuming negative pressure is possible, what would that imply? Harry It would imply you are working from the wrong datum for zero pressure - something analogous to working from the wrong datum for the motion of the sun and planets or the wrong datum for temperature. The same criticism could apply to your notions of negative and positive mass. Absolutely 8-). You are so right. 8-) I am using a conventional datum cos there is only so much cognitive dissonance that people can cope with at one sitting. As I have pointed out in a previous post, both Ing.Saviour and I have independently realised that mass has the dimensions of an inverse velocity so when mass goes to infinity the mass temperature drops to zero. The velocity of light it the correct datum for measuring the inverse of mass (which is an internal velocity just like temperature but on a finer scale). I am in the process of copying the internal BRS note which deals with this aspect from Saviour's blazelabs Yahoo site to the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site where you will soon be able to read it. Cheers Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer I would be the last person they would tell as you will understand if you real the Files section on the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site. Yes, I am doing so. 280 kBytes per page is a bit big. You should convert them to .pdf files. And you're exactly right about the safety factor. That is the formulae which were altered.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 03:42 pm 24/08/2005 -0400, you wrote: From: Grimer == GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. My Civil Engineer coworker said that the formulas for post stress concrete changed around this time. Did you have something to do with that? Who knows. Perhaps my later warnings about the AGRs put the wind up someone somewhere and they thought they had better screw the safety factors up a notch or two. I would be the last person they would tell as you will understand if you real the Files section on the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site. FG
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 05:25 pm 24/08/2005 -0400, Terry wrote: From: Grimer I would be the last person they would tell as you will understand if you read the Files section on the Beta-atmosphere Yahoo site. Yes, I am doing so. 280 kBytes per page is a bit big. You should convert them to .pdf files. I intend to OCR them as a simple text file or .pdf at some point - but in view of the very controversial nature of the arguments a scan of the original documents has the advantage of showing that they were actually accepted for publication and that I'm not trying to perpetrate some elaborate troll. grin And you're exactly right about the safety factor. That is the formulae which were altered. It's nice to guess exactly right. 8-) Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer I intend to OCR them as a simple text file or .pdf at some point - but in view of the very controversial nature of the arguments a scan of the original documents has the advantage of showing that they were actually accepted for publication and that I'm not trying to perpetrate some elaborate troll. grin Well, I didn't quite get all the pages downloaded before I peaked the group's bandwidth limit. What *is* a group's limit on Yahoo? I'll finish tomorrow because I want the CE department head to give me his comments. The comment regarding the 1968 safety factor change on post stressed concrete came from one of his employees. It led us to a discussion on how concrete is treated as a liquid. I introduced him to the B-atm concept and we wound up wasting two hours of company time on the discussion (4 man hours :-). He loved the vortex ring idea and overloaded on the images of the Hutchison Effect. He worked on the Cooper River Bridge project. If ever a bridge was beautiful: http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Terry, Thanks for the link on the Cooper River Bridge.. a work of art and engineering.Presume you had a hand in design hopefully. I have been saving every scrap of info on Grimer and Jones post regarding the big B as I name the file. awesome stuff, including the vortex ring that blew my mind. Richard - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron From: Grimer I intend to OCR them as a simple text file or .pdf at some point - but in view of the very controversial nature of the arguments a scan of the original documents has the advantage of showing that they were actually accepted for publication and that I'm not trying to perpetrate some elaborate troll. grin Well, I didn't quite get all the pages downloaded before I peaked the group's bandwidth limit. What *is* a group's limit on Yahoo? I'll finish tomorrow because I want the CE department head to give me his comments. The comment regarding the 1968 safety factor change on post stressed concrete came from one of his employees. It led us to a discussion on how concrete is treated as a liquid. I introduced him to the B-atm concept and we wound up wasting two hours of company time on the discussion (4 man hours :-). He loved the vortex ring idea and overloaded on the images of the Hutchison Effect. He worked on the Cooper River Bridge project. If ever a bridge was beautiful: http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 08:13 pm 24/08/2005 -0400, you wrote: Well, I didn't quite get all the pages downloaded before I peaked the group's bandwidth limit. What *is* a group's limit on Yahoo? Dunno - It's never worried me - I'm a patient man. One has to be when one pioneers new concepts. grin I'll finish tomorrow because I want the CE department head to give me his comments. The comment regarding the 1968 safety factor change on post stressed concrete came from one of his employees. It led us to a discussion on how concrete is treated as a liquid. I introduced him to the B-atm concept and we wound up wasting two hours of company time on the discussion (4 man hours :-). He loved the vortex ring idea and overloaded on the images of the Hutchison Effect. He worked on the Cooper River Bridge project. If ever a bridge was beautiful. I agree. I like the shear leg diamond design. More sensible from an engineering point of view, than the twin towers cable stay bridge over the Thames. http://www.colinfparsons.btinternet.co.uk/twinp/colhome/Waverley/default.htm The Thames QE2 bridge is reminiscent of the spindly Tay bridge - the original one that fell down. == Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay! Alas! I am very sorry to say That ninety lives have been taken away On the last Sabbath day of 1879, Which will be remember'd for a very long time. 'Twas about seven o'clock at night, etc., == http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/poems/pgdisaster.htm Cheers, Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Well, Vorts, I have been revisiting the Hutchinson Effect and have been very chuffed over what I have found. The phenomena described below - the lift - the lateral propulsion - twisting spiral movement the looping arc are all exactly the motions one might expect from objects hit by a Beta-atmosphere vortex ring. And the fact that they are so obviously consistent is evidence the phenomena are real. If Hutchison had be faking the results he would not have been so stupid as to fake such a weird collection since he obviously hasn't got a clue as to the cause. In fact, if I had wanted to fake experimental results to demonstrate the generation of Beta- atmosphere Vortex ring, I couldn't have done better than organise the results Hutchison actually obtained. = http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/LiarLiarPants.htm - THE HUTCHISON EFFECT: A LIFT, DISRUPTION AND LUMINOUS ENERGY SYSTEM The original way that Hutchison set out his range of apparatus was, by industrial standards, primitive and crowded, with poor connections and hand-wound coils. But it was with this layout with its erratic standards that he obtained most of the best examples of objects levitating, despite the fact that the maximum power drawn was 1.5 kilowatts, and this from the ordinary power sockets of the house mains. The Hutchison device produces effects which can basically be divided into two categories, propulsive and energetic. It can induce lift in objects made of any material and also propel them laterally. It has been noted that there are four types of trajectory that affect objects weighing a few pounds, and all of these upward movements begin with a twisting spiral movement. Also, there has to be a particular geometry in relation to the direction of gravity, i.e., downwards of these objects, for them to be affected in this way. Some objects will not take off if you turn them on their sides, but will if you stand them on their ends. It is evident, therefore, that the relationship of their physical forms to the fields which swirl invisibly around them is important. Returning to the four modes of trajectory, first, there is the looping arc, where objects take off relatively slowly over a period of seconds, loop in the air and fall back to earth; then there is the ballistic take-off where objects shoot upwards suddenly, hit the ceiling and fall back down. A third type of trajectory is a powered one where there appears to be a continuous lifting force; and the fourth is where an object moves upwards and just hovers for some time. As mentioned, these objects can be of any material whatsoever, wood, plastics, copper, zinc, Styrofoam, etc. = Funnily enough, when I first read accounts of Hutchison's work some years ago I could see that the material phenomena were consistent with disturbances in Beta-atmosphere pressure but the weird dynamic effects seemed more like the operations of poltergeists than the results of kosher scientific experimentation. And no doubt that is why it attracted the interest of poltergeist hunters as you can see from the following excerpt. = http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/LiarLiarPants.htm - Liar Liar, Pants on Fire Brian Allan 2001 Foreword This article began as an investigation into a possible mechanism behind poltergeist activity and related phenomena, but as the investigation proceeded, it became inexorably enmeshed within a completely unexpected area, namely the covert world of military intelligence, 'black' projects and superscience. While there may indeed be a separate, discarnate, spiritual explanation for the creation of anomalous sounds and the spontaneous, random movement of objects, there are other equally bizarre and worrying causes. = Since the military authorities seemed to be involved one might have thought they would have got to the bottom of things. Evidently not. They must have assumed that it was trickery or something and they would have plenty of Dr.Porks to assure them that such things were completely impossible and that they must be weak minded to be taken in by such conjuring tricks. Cold Fusion is a doddle by comparison. Mind you I haven't got a very high opinion of people involved with military research. I always remember the time I went down to the Military Experimental Establishment at Christchurch to observer the final experiments in a large soil-stabilization trial. I asked the officer in charge if I could have copy of the previous
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 05:13 am 22/08/2005 +0100, Frank wrote: Once one realises that one is dealing with a real atmosphere then all sorts of interesting possibilities arise - like creating closed vortices - Beta-atmosphere smoke rings in other words. There is a wonderful Royal Institution demonstration of a smoke ring blowing generated at one end of the lecturers bench blowing out a candle at the other. The smoke ring box is first filled with smoke so that the ring is visible as it travels slowly the dozen or so feet towards the candle. Then the demonstration is repeated without smoke and the lectures starts a countdown. When he reaches zero the candle is blown out as though by magic. Before WWII there was a lot of interest in the possibility of a death ray knocking down enemy aircraft. The idea was researched and considered a non starter. But the investigation did give rise to something only a little less valuable, viz. radio location and radar. Had the authorities recognised the possibility of firing Beta-atmosphere closed vortices the death ray might have come to fruition. Who was it who made a great hoo-ha about something like this? I think it was Shoulders with his EVOs. I'll have to google it. Cheers, Frank Grimer Ain't Google wonderful 8-). I put - Shoulders EVO - in and straight away the article I was thinking of came up as the first of 18,500. The URL is, http://www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Bad%20And%20The%20Ugly.pdf THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is dated last August so it's pretty up to date as regards Shoulder's view of things. Interestingly enough, his first paragraph of The Bad section of his article could well be applied to Cold Fusion research. = In the experimental world there is a truism: If it has not happened, it probably will not happen. The thrust here is that it is very dangerous to predict too far into the future. Doing so usually brings bad news. Still, it is the life of the experimenter to go on into such darkness moving as deftly as possible but with caution. In the business of containing such eager particles, capable of fantastic energetic feats in the micro world, scaling to progressively larger samples is necessarily accompanied with caution. Many things can be learned using micro samples, but eventually, there comes a time when large samples are necessary. That time has arrived. = The first sentence of The Ugly section reads, = I think Hell has not a clue as to the fury of a bunch of electrons suddenly unleashed. = Could an Alpha-atmosphere smoke ring (closed vortex) be seen as furious; more furious that is than simply blowing out a candle? Very definitely if the vortex is big enough. There have been instances where vortices shed by large airliners, such as the 747 have tipped over smaller airliners following in their wake. To be continued Frank Grimer
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 06:58 am 22/08/2005 +0100, Frank wrote: At 05:13 am 22/08/2005 +0100, Frank wrote: Ain't Google wonderful 8-). I put - Shoulders EVO - in and straight away the article I was thinking of came up as the first of 18,500. The URL is, http://www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Bad%20And%20The%20Ugly.pdf THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is dated last August so it's pretty up to date as regards Shoulder's view of things. Interestingly enough, his first paragraph of The Bad section of his article could well be applied to Cold Fusion research. = In the experimental world there is a truism: If it has not happened, it probably will not happen. The thrust here is that it is very dangerous to predict too far into the future. Doing so usually brings bad news. Still, it is the life of the experimenter to go on into such darkness moving as deftly as possible but with caution. In the business of containing such eager particles, capable of fantastic energetic feats in the micro world, scaling to progressively larger samples is necessarily accompanied with caution. Many things can be learned using micro samples, but eventually, there comes a time when large samples are necessary. That time has arrived. = The first sentence of The Ugly section reads, = I think Hell has not a clue as to the fury of a bunch of electrons suddenly unleashed. = Could an Alpha-atmosphere smoke ring (closed vortex) be seen as furious; more furious that is than simply blowing out a candle? Very definitely if the vortex is big enough. There have been instances where vortices shed by large airliners, such as the 747 have tipped over smaller airliners following in their wake. To be continued Frank Grimer Well I've had a good look at Shoulders's stuff but there's not really enough detail to make a judgment on the possibility of his EVOs being closed vortices or not. There are one or two tempting hints, like the fact that EVOs move around slowly, cf. smoke rings. Also, the fact he seems to collect them from the surface of glass plates is suggestive since surfaces are involved with virtual particles which are presumably some kind of *materon* polarization. Surfaces are the region where there must be interaction between neutral mass, neutral charge particles and electrons. One could easily build up a speculative mountain out of an experimental molehill but I think it is best to file the idea away in the useful junk box until some better piece of the jigsaw turns up. 8-) I was interested to note that Shoulders co-authored a paper with Jack Sarfatti. Mmm.A way out thinker if ever there was one, if my google search on him is anything to go by. grin Frank Grimer
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Frank, are you working towards saying that the active areas in good samples of cold fusion cathodes may be beta atmosphere cavities in the lattice that use ambient heat or sound vibration to generate colossal beta pressure and thereby fuse the entrained deuterium? I hadn't understood much what you were on about before but this organ pipe/magnetron/perfume spray analogy has just opened my eyes a little (I think)...
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer I was interested to note that Shoulders co-authored a paper with Jack Sarfatti. Mmm.A way out thinker if ever there was one, if my google search on him is anything to go by. grin He was normal until he got the phone call from Valis: http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle2024.html
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 06:58 am 22/08/2005 +0100, Frank wrote: snip The first sentence of Shoulders The Ugly section reads, = I think Hell has not a clue as to the fury of a bunch of electrons suddenly unleashed. = Could an Alpha-atmosphere smoke ring (closed vortex) be seen as furious; more furious that is than simply blowing out a candle? Very definitely if the vortex is big enough. There have been instances where vortices shed by large airliners, such as the 747 have tipped over smaller airliners following in their wake. To be continued Frank Grimer Having mentioned Hutchison previously in this thread I thought I had better revisit his stuff though not with any great enthusiasm since when I first investigated it I was appalled by his hopelessly disorganised approach. Fortunately, the first reference I came across was a concise summary of the work - NOT written by Hutchison. 8-) == The Hutchison Effect -- An Explanation by Mark A. Solis People often ask, What exactly is the Hutchison Effect? This brief essay is an attempt to answer that question to the satisfaction of the majority. First of all, the Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena which were discovered accidentally by John Hutchison during attempts to study the longitudinal waves of Tesla back in 1979. In other words, the Hutchison Effect is not simply a singular effect. It is many. The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils. The effects produced include levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (exactly as portrayed in the movie, The Philadelphia Experiment), the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals. The levitation of heavy objects by the Hutchison Effect is not---repeat not---the result of simple electrostatic or electromagnetic levitation. Claims that these forces alone can explain the phenomenon are patently ridiculous, and easily disproved by merely trying to use such methods to duplicate what the Hutchison Effect has achieved, which has been well documented both on film and videotape, and has been witnessed many times by numerous credentialed scientists and engineers. Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as that is all that is used by Hutchison's apparatus to levitate a 60-pound cannon ball. The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a powerful influence on Van der Waals forces. In a striking and baffling contradiction, dissimilar substances can simply come together, yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A block of wood can simply sink into a metal bar, yet neither the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart. Also, there is no evidence of displacement, such as would occur if, for example, one were to sink a stone into a bowl of water. The anomalous heating of metal without any evidence of burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood) is a clear indication that possibly the nature of heat may not be completely understood. This has far-reaching implications for thermodynamics, which hinges entirely on the presumption of such knowledge. It should be noted that the entirety of thermodynamics is represented by the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is insignificant in a context of 0 Hz to infinite Hz. The anomalous heating exhibited by the Hutchison Effect shows plainly that we have much to learn, especially where thermodynamics and electromagnetism meet. The spontaneous fracturing of metals, as occurs with the Hutchison Effect, is unique for two reasons: (1) there is no evidence of an external force causing the fracturing, and (2) the method by which the metal separates involves a sliding motion in a sideways direction, horizontally. The metal simply comes apart. Some temporary changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals are somewhat reminiscent of the spoon bending of Uri Geller, except that there is no one near the metal samples when the changes take place. One video shows a spoon flapping up and down like a limp rag in a stiff breeze. In the case of permanent changes, a metal bar will be hard at one end, like steel, and soft at the other end, like powdered lead. Again, this is evidence of strong influence on Van der Waals forces. The radio wave
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Hi Frank Back in the 70's I used to fly Gliders (sailplanes) out of Gawler in South Australia under the flightpath of the Edinborough Airforce Base. It used to get quite exciting when one was at the 1900ft ceiling and the caribou's came through with supposedly a 2000 ft floor but felt more like a beat up. I think its a fairly long stretch though to compare what can happen when a vortice destroys the lift over one wing of an aircraft and flips it to suggesting the same can happen to a 60 lb round cannonball. Even the vortice off the tips of the small tow plane (usually a Piper Cub in those days) could give you a hard time when going from low tow below the tug to High tow above the tug if one was careless. I am not suggesting the effect is not real - but I would suggest caution in using this analogy. One suprising thing was how long the vortices lasted after they where generated - I have flown into them at least 10Km behind the generating aircraft. Regards JohnH - Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron At 06:58 am 22/08/2005 +0100, Frank wrote: snip The first sentence of Shoulders The Ugly section reads, = I think Hell has not a clue as to the fury of a bunch of electrons suddenly unleashed. = Could an Alpha-atmosphere smoke ring (closed vortex) be seen as furious; more furious that is than simply blowing out a candle? Very definitely if the vortex is big enough. There have been instances where vortices shed by large airliners, such as the 747 have tipped over smaller airliners following in their wake. To be continued Frank Grimer Having mentioned Hutchison previously in this thread I thought I had better revisit his stuff though not with any great enthusiasm since when I first investigated it I was appalled by his hopelessly disorganised approach. Fortunately, the first reference I came across was a concise summary of the work - NOT written by Hutchison. 8-) == The Hutchison Effect -- An Explanation by Mark A. Solis People often ask, What exactly is the Hutchison Effect? This brief essay is an attempt to answer that question to the satisfaction of the majority. First of all, the Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena which were discovered accidentally by John Hutchison during attempts to study the longitudinal waves of Tesla back in 1979. In other words, the Hutchison Effect is not simply a singular effect. It is many. The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a zone of spatial volume encompassed by high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils. The effects produced include levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (exactly as portrayed in the movie, The Philadelphia Experiment), the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals. The levitation of heavy objects by the Hutchison Effect is not---repeat not---the result of simple electrostatic or electromagnetic levitation. Claims that these forces alone can explain the phenomenon are patently ridiculous, and easily disproved by merely trying to use such methods to duplicate what the Hutchison Effect has achieved, which has been well documented both on film and videotape, and has been witnessed many times by numerous credentialed scientists and engineers. Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as that is all that is used by Hutchison's apparatus to levitate a 60-pound cannon ball. The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a powerful influence on Van der Waals forces. In a striking and baffling contradiction, dissimilar substances can simply come together, yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A block of wood can simply sink into a metal bar, yet neither the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart. Also, there is no evidence of displacement, such as would occur if, for example, one were to sink a stone into a bowl of water. The anomalous heating of metal without any evidence of burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood) is a clear indication that possibly the nature of heat may not be completely understood. This has far-reaching implications for thermodynamics, which hinges entirely on the presumption
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 08:49 am 22/08/2005 -0400, you wrote: From: Grimer I was interested to note that Shoulders co-authored a paper with Jack Sarfatti. Mmm.A way out thinker if ever there was one, if my google search on him is anything to go by. grin He was normal until he got the phone call from Valis: http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle2024.html == CAUSALITY-VIOLATING QUANTUM ACTION AT A DISTANCE? by Dr. Jack Sarfatti ... the universe is created by intelligent design but the Designer lives in our far future and has evolved from us. = Yes - I see what you mean. grin
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 07:31:44 on 22 Aug 2005 07:31:44 John Harris wrote:- Hi Frank, Back in the 70's I used to fly Gliders (sailplanes) out of Gawler in South Australia under the flightpath of the Edinborough Airforce Base. It used to get quite exciting when one was at the 1900ft ceiling and the caribou's came through with supposedly a 2000 ft floor but felt more like a beat up. I think its a fairly long stretch though to compare what can happen when a vortice destroys the lift over one wing of an aircraft and flips it to suggesting the same can happen to a 60 lb round cannonball. Even the vortice off the tips of the small tow plane (usually a Piper Cub in those days) could give you a hard time when going from low tow below the tug to High tow above the tug if one was careless. I am not suggesting the effect is not real - but I would suggest caution in using this analogy. One sup rising thing was how long the vortices lasted after they where generated - I have flown into them at least 10Km behind the generating aircraft. Regards JohnH Many thanks for your most interesting first hand account, of the effect of vortex rings on small aircraft. There is nothing like hearing these things from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I only wish we had one of the Hutchison Effect witnesses on the list With regard to the cannon ball, I think you are extremely restrained in your comment that it is a fairly long stretch. It is an enormously long stretch because the forces involved in the Beta-atmosphere (that which transmits light) are an enormously long way from the forces involved in the Alpha-atmosphere (that which transmits sound). Believe you me, I completely sympathise with your shock horror just as much as I would sympathise with a man who had never heard of meteorites and returned home to find that one had demolished his house. The cognitive dissonance must be awful. As for caution, I am long past the age when I need to worry about the effect of my words on teachers/professors/division heads/directors/editors/peer reviewers. That, dear boy, is the beauty of our little Vortex discussion group. We can say it as it is. (excluding libel, pornography, sarcasm, religion and politics - and anything else our esteemed moderator might deem unfitting). Cheers, Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
I've found a rather spectacular example of a vortex crash. http://www.avweb.com/other/us427vue.html USAir 427: One Accident, Three Views On September 8, 1994, USAir Flight 427, a Boeing 737-300 on a scheduled flight from Chicago to Pittsburgh, crashed while maneuvering to land at Pittsburgh International Airport. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and all 132 persons on board were fatally injured. Three years of investigation has failed to yield conclusive proof of why the aircraft crashed. What is known is that the aircraft encountered wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft while at 6,000 feet and 190 knots. The effects of the wake should have been easily recoverable. However, a few seconds after encountering the wake vortex, the 737's rudder deflected full-left and remained in that position for 23 seconds until the aircraft impacted the ground in a near-vertical position. = I seem to remember there was a case where the plane flipped upside down but I haven't been able to find that one.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer I seem to remember there was a case where the plane flipped upside down but I haven't been able to find that one. There was one in Chicago. But it wasn't a vortex - the engine fell off on one side.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Didn't used to have that problem in a sailplane ;-) - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:55 AM Subject: Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron There was one in Chicago. But it wasn't a vortex - the engine fell off on one side.
Re: Beta- atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Grimer wrote.. Since the Beta-atmosphere is a doppelganger of the Alpha-atmosphere there is no reason why one should not construct a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-atmosphere using air - or even a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-Beta overlap using water. Immediately one thinks along these lines it becomes bloody obvious what the real secret of the cavity magnetron is. Do you remember the water based vacuum pumps one used in chemistry class - the ones where a constrained jet of water passes though and sucks air out of the connected vacuum apparatus. Obvious Frank has been examining his wife's perfume atomizer grin. Actually one needs to look no further than the pipe organ at church. Should one have an inclination toward the mischevious, one could " re-arrange" the pipes to produce the correct resonance to shatter the faux pax diamond broache worn by Mz Fine. sitting on the 18th pew. Frank mentions an analogy to the pressure that " develops" inside the cavity. A pipe organ fits that analogy. On the subject of socalled " absolute" vacuum. Absolute vacuum is easily demonstrated by the use of a differential pressure gauge disregarding hysteresis. Richard
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 05:22 pm 21/08/2005 -0500, Richard wrote: Grimer wrote.. Do you remember the water based vacuum pumps one used in chemistry class - the ones where a constrained jet of water passes though and sucks air out of the connected vacuum apparatus. Obviously Frank has been examining his wife's perfume atomizer grin. Thanks for that example, Richard. That is a much better device than the one I suggested since it is the essence of simplicity from what I remember of my mother's scent spray. In the case of the old fashioned ones the two tubes are naked and their mutual geometry is obvious. I had looked up the well known Pitot tube as an alternative example but found the explanations confusing and contradictory in the sense that they seemed to adopt different datum pressures. The scent spray is excellent by comparison. What I find very interesting is that when I first encountered the cavity magnetron many years ago its working was a complete mystery to me and I could not see the significance of the cavities at all. Once one looks at it in terms of the Beta-atmosphere being a real atmosphere, just like the Alpha-atmosphere then it's like throwing the switch on a bright lamp. Things become very clear. As regards the Beta-atmosphere pressure drop, I rather jumped the gun there cos the cavities are in resonance which means that the dominant aspect is the oscillating pressure. This takes place so fast that the inertia of the magnetron walls will prevent significant deformations. If one could rectify the sine wave so as to get an RMS pressure drop then it would be a very different ball game. I suspect this is at the root of the Hutchison Effect. Unwittingly he has stumbled upon a way of doing this. A case of an uninhibited amateur rushing in where angels fear to tread. Once one realises that one is dealing with a real atmosphere then all sorts of interesting possibilities arise - like creating closed vortices - Beta-atmosphere smoke rings in other words. There is a wonderful Royal Institution demonstration of a smoke ring blowing generated at one end of the lecturers bench blowing out a candle at the other. The smoke ring box is first filled with smoke so that the ring is visible as it travels slowly the dozen or so feet towards the candle. Then the demonstration is repeated without smoke and the lectures starts a countdown. When he reaches zero the candle is blown out as though by magic. Before WWII there was a lot of interest in the possibility of a death ray knocking down enemy aircraft. The idea was researched and considered a non starter. But the investigation did give rise to something only a little less valuable, viz. radio location and radar. Had the authorities recognised the possibility of firing Beta-atmosphere closed vortices the death ray might have come to fruition. Who was it who made a great hoo-ha about something like this? I think it was Shoulders with his EVOs. I'll have to google it. Cheers, Frank Grimer
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer Interestingly enough the other night I was watching a programme on Michael Faraday (whose house I pass by every Sunday morning). How inspiring that must be! It will be interesting to find out if anyone else can see what I have seen. Bien sûr! But, do you distinguish among the terms: Beta atm Aether Dirac Sea ZPF BTW, here's a nice cutaway of a magnetron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetron2.jpg
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Grimer In February of 1940, the English researchers tested their first working cavity magnetron. They were amazed to find that it produced over 400 watts of power at the extremely short wavelength of 9.8 cm (about 4 inches). This was nearly a hundred times more power than anyone else had ever produced at that wavelength. A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured?
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Terry Blanton A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured? I have found several webpages which say that the microwave conversion efficiency is up to 78%. There's no mention of the heat given off.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
--- Terry Blanton wrote from Fran Grimers interesting thoughts on the cavity magnetron A cursory google does not return the COP of a magnetron. Has anyone seen it measured? I have seen the figure of 70% eff for the oven-type units, but do not have a handy reference. The main losses are cathode heating and tube heating. Many tubes are heavily finned to dissipate heat. The magnetron was definitely amazing in comparison to radio tubes (valves to the Brits), because normal tubes in the 1940s were around 20-40% eff. while the magnetron was nearly double that. Some of the higher eff. is due to higher power - as all RF tubes get more eff. in general, as they get larger, since the cathode heating losses are less, percentagewise. I suppose that an electric -- electric COP of .8 is possible with a cold cathode magnetron of a kilowatt RF output. Maybe higher for certain uses - as they have been proposed as a way to get solar energy back to earth from orbiting satellites. The ground antenna would be 95% so the net would be ~75% which doesn't sound that good untill you realize that even if copper wires would stretch that far (~22,000 miles), they would likely not do much better. Jones
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
From: Jones Beene I have seen the figure of 70% eff for the oven-type units, but do not have a handy reference. Never mind, I found plenty. Sure seems to be a lot of heat coming from my microwave oven magnetron. I gues no one has really done the calorimetry. BTW, I am struck by the graphic similarity of these two cross sections: http://www.iter.org/what.htm http://home.cvc.org/microwaves/HowMagnetronWorks.htm a nonsensical relationship; but, somehow jungian.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
At 06:12 pm 20/08/2005 +0200, you wrote: Grimer wrote: You could have added Casimir pressure for good measure. 8-) My preferred term is Beta-atmosphere since I find the analogy with atmospheric pressure useful - and it arises naturally if one starts one's analysis with sands and clays which are held together by Alpha-atmospheric pressure in the case of coarse sands (pF 15 psi) and Beta-atmospheric pressure in the case of clays, say. (pF 15 psi). Moin Frank, So, you are basically changing the baseline for pressure to 15psi, but you do still agree with the majority of the scientific community, that all pressure is positive with relation to no pressure, and that there is no such thing as negative pressure with relation to no pressure. Knuke No, no, no, noo! My fault - I'm afraid I expressed things badly. pF is a log scale of suction, of negative pressure taking atmospheric pressure as datum. Normally people think of -15psi as zero pressure (stress) and anything lower than that they think of in terms of tension. I am saying that tension is only the absence of some unappreciated pressure (the Beta-atmosphere pressure in the case of macro material). Since for me, tension - action at a distance - is a negation the words pressure and stress are interchangeable. In the case of steel for example, tension is a reduction in the EXTERNAL Beta-atmosphere pressure which holds the steel together in an analogous way to air pressure holds an evacuated plastic bag of table-tennis balls together. If you really want to get things straightened out you need to read the three key publications listed below. which are all available as .jpeg page scans on various Yahoo sites. The ideas are very easy to follow, albeit difficult to accept because of their obvious far reaching implications. The ideas are certainly not in danger of straining *your* brain. g Jones and Horace seemed to manage OK. = REFERENCES = GRIMER, F.J. and R.E.HEWITT. The form of the stress-strain curve of concrete interpreted with a di-phase concept of material behaviour. Structure, Solid Mechanics and Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Southampton 1969 Civil Engineering Conference. (M.Te'eni, Ed.), Wiley Interscience, pp 681 - 691, 1972. CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. A General Approach to the Strength of Materials. Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol.1, No.1, pp5 - 13, 1978. CLAYTON, N and F.J.GRIMER. The di-phase concept with particular reference to concrete. Developments in Concrete Technology, Vol.1, F.D.Lydon, ed, Applied Science Publishers, England pp.283-318. Cheers Frank
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Grimer wrote: The ideas are certainly not in danger of straining *your* brain. g Jones and Horace seemed to manage OK. Yeah Ok, I usually strain my noodle about a minute after it comes to a boil, then I recall the exhortations of my parents to use it, and I reluctantly attempt to do so. I think that even though we are both quite fluent in English, we are talking two different languages, but that is OK. I never understood what my parents were telling me either. My background in vacuum technologies comes from my work on large refrigeration systems and desalinization gear. The gauges go down to zero (1 atm), and then start reading in Inches of Mercury. As far as I know, no one has ever achieved a perfect vacuum, nor has anyone managed to suck beyond that point (although Halliburton and the legal department of Microsoft are competing intensely for that honor). I have had some training and practical experience in structural engineering, but not that much. I have done very little work with concrete, but I have done more than a bit with steel. I will root around for your papers, try and shift into your language set, and see if they make any sense to me. Hopefully, visualizing concepts that I have always applied to gas technologies to solid material will not require the use of psychedelics. Knuke PS Jones and Horace are geniuses. So are Fred and Bill. I have to stop several times and start over when counting my toes. Ask anybody.
Re: Beta-atmosphere and the Cavity Magnetron
Since the Beta-atmosphere is a doppelganger of the Alpha-atmosphere there is no reason why one should not construct a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-atmosphere using air - or even a cavity magnetron equivalent for the Alpha-Beta overlap using water. Immediately one thinks along these lines it becomes bloody obvious what the real secret of the cavity magnetron is. Do you remember the water based vacuum pumps one used in chemistry class - the ones where a constrained jet of water passes though and sucks air out of the connected vacuum apparatus. Well, the Beta-atmosphere stream as manifested by the electron swirl passing over the magnetron cavity openings is acting just like that jet of water. The Beta-atmosphere is being sucked out of the cavities which are consequently at a sustained reduced Beta-aether pressure. No wonder Randall Hopkirk (Deceased) got such a shock at the 100fold increase in power. Increasing differential B-a pressure must be analogous, say, to increasing differential temperature in the Carnot Cycle. My goodness me! It's so obvious when you can see it. What a laugh! 8-) Presumably that's why the walls of the cavity have to be so chunky. If they were thin the cavities would be crushed by the difference in Beta-atmosphere pressure. Mmm... And I thought I was going to have to persuade people to investigate the mild steel cup and cone cavity as described in the Infinite Energy paper (Issue 46, pp. 28-33). The cavity magnetron is a much sexier option, eh! Now the interesting question is, what happens if you introduce deuterium into the reduced Beta-atmosphere pressure cavities? Be careful lads - I don't want you blowing yourselves up. g Cheers, Frank Grimer [I wonder if the MIB look at these posts. Nah! they are far too stupid. Mind you, if they do read 'em, they'll soon be coming for you, boys, so make sure all your affairs are in order. 8-) ]
