From owner-vortex-l Sat Jun 3 00:02:31 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00634; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:02:26 -0700 Received: from eskimo.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00617; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:02:19 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA16671; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:02:17 -0700 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:02:16 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: Entropy reductions...energy gains In-Reply-To: <199506030519.AAA01073@matrix.eden.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Scott Little wrote: > Bill, I guess I answered a little too quickly. Are you talking about > entropy reducing situations, such as crystallization? Nope. I was wondering about Self Organizing Systems, and Emergent Properties, which come under Complexity theory and Chaotic Dynamics, I think. Things like the ZB chemical oscillator, which organizes itself into colored spiral patterns in the petri dish. Or Fractal patterns that arise in many systems. In Self Organization, complex patterns emerge from nothing, caused (if 'caused' is the word) by interactions between many small parts. Without the proper theory, you'd expect random white-noise patterns to exist, but instead the microscopic elements somehow agree among themselves to become organized into a macroscopic form. I'd expect the microscopic interactions to conserve energy. But does the spontaneous emergence of complexity ever represent a decrease in energy? I'm not that familiar with this field, and I was wondering if the small parts in any of these 'emergent' patterns were thermal vibrations. If so, the large scale pattern would be a cohering of thermal vibrations, and the growth of the pattern would be a genuine entropy reversal. The microscopic parts would be cooled as the macroscopic pattern was created, and the macroscopic pattern might be something like sound, and work could be extracted. Or maybe this would take the form of some nonlinear effect which would allow thermal vibrations to directly power IR flourescence, allowing the construction of a Laser powered by reverse entropy. But in describing this, I can see that the existance of such an effect would be as earthshaking as the discovery of a real Maxwell's Demon effect, and we'd have heard about it. But since everyone assumes energy conservation and thermo laws are correct, I wonder if something like this could have been overlooked. And if it involved the spontaneous organization of ZPE, it probably would be discoverable only by accident or lucky observation. I have the impression that it's hard to predict whether or not a self-organizing pattern will arise, and they are usually explained after the fact rather than predicted in advance. Are you familiar with Conway's Life, or other Cellular Automata computer programs? If something similar existed in nature at the atomic level, it would represent an entropy reversal as microscopic motion was cooled and used to drive macroscopic patterns. > Now here's your > assignment, Bill: Build a practical energy converter that operates on this > principle and draws enough power from the zero-point field to run itself and > provide 1 watt of surplus power, thus satisfying Puthoff's "1 watt > challenge". If you need any diodes or resistors, let me know :) If I use photons way up in the cosmic ray gammas, so each one has the mass-energy of a small rabbit dropping, and use oppositely charged singularities in close orbit instead of atoms, as the photons bounce around in the system they strike mirrors connected to little rachet arms which would drive wooden gears. It would be hard to keep running, because every once in a while the photon would tunnel through a mirror and you'd have to go chase it down and put it back. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From owner-vortex-l Fri Jun 2 14:20:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA11898; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:06:35 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA10921; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:00:55 -0700 Received: from d114.aa.net (d114.aa.net [204.157.220.114]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA12208 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:00:38 -0700 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:00:38 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199506022100.OAA12208@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Inventor's potluck Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Gary, maybe we should try to get Mike H. out to the Inventor's potluck >(which I've not heard back from yet) since Mike is very interested in >carving plastic parts with CAM devices. > If it would mean that I have to cook anything besides water, it might not be a good idea:-) What is the Inventor's Potluck? Is it local? Does it involve food? I'm interested. BTW, I just wrote a rather lengthy letter to Mitch Schwartz regarding the latest developments on my machine. I've asked him if I can post the letter to this group so that I don't have to type it all out again. I also invited him to check out Vortex-l, so I expect that he will. -Knuke From owner-vortex-l Sat May 20 17:53:31 1995 Return-Path: Received: by eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA18358; Sat, 20 May 1995 17:52:28 -0700 Received: by eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA18345; Sat, 20 May 1995 17:52:21 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: s.p.f archive Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I finally managed to make the sci.phys.fusion news archive work off of my web page. If you haven't seen this before, try it out. Type in your login name as a keyword, and it will (I think) give you every message you ever posted there. Immortality of a sort, and if CF proves to be sucessful, it will be a very interesting historical document. It's at http://amasci.com/weird.html, down in the Cold Fusion heading. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From ghawk@eskimo.com Tue May 23 20:03:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: from 204.122.16.4 by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA18281; Tue, 23 May 1995 20:03:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199505240303.AA18281@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 20:08:19 -0700 To: William Beaty From: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) Subject: Re: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: >On Tue, 23 May 1995, Gary Hawkins wrote: > >> This is excellent. I told Reed Huish about the mailing list, because he is >> head of >> a company that is looking to invest in energy saving farout science >> projects. Also >> finally faxed the info about the company, to Michael H. This warm welcome from >> you, and where he can find more, couldn't have been better. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I just moved some messages there. I killed lots, like things from Jed >about tracking down the Popatov device. Quite a bit I could put back... > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 >EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ >Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page > > > > Your call. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HORIZON TECHNOLOGY -- Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk From owner-vortex-l Wed May 24 15:12:23 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA13451; Wed, 24 May 1995 15:12:18 -0700 Received: from ios.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA13345; Wed, 24 May 1995 15:11:37 -0700 Received: from 198.4.70.83 ([198.4.70.83]) by ios.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA01610 for ; Wed, 24 May 1995 18:11:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 18:11:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199505242211.SAA01610@ios.com> From: reedh@styx.ios.com Subject: Re: vortex-l To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: AIR Mail 3.X (SPRY, Inc.) Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Thanks for the tip Bill. I see that you are a EE. Do you know anything about homopolar generators (n-machines)? If so, lets talk. Reed From billbeskimo.com Wed May 24 20:19:42 1995 Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:19:39 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: homopolar generators In-Reply-To: <199505250207.VAA15826@matrix.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 24 May 1995, Scott Little wrote: > Hi Reed, Scott Little here. > > I have spent some time considering homopolar generators. I have studied > Faraday's paradox (the one he reportedly resolved himself some 20 years > after first confronting it) and even performed the famous experiment > ("cemented" magnet vs stationary magnet) and, at present, I don't feel that > there is anything "unusual" or "magic" about these devices...of course, I'm > always on the lookout :-) They're damn peculiar, however, and require a > bunch of clear-headed thinking not to get confused over...which is why, I > believe, that many investigators have thought them to be "magic". The stationary/rotating magnet effect is pretty much a nonissue. The drive and reaction forces are expressed relative to the static parts of the circuit, and the magnet never experiences forces, whether it rotates or not. Yet people keep encountering these devices anew and getting all excited... But there still is some 'magic' of the physics kind involved. Why should an electric current, when deflected, take a conductor along with it instead of just changing paths within the conductor? I don't think this case is covered under Maxwell's eqn's. It involves an interaction between moving charges and the matrix in which they move. The problem isn't very straightforward, at least I don't THINK so, because in closed circuits there is no nonmagnetic reaction force applied in parallel with a single conductor when a pulse of current is applied. Why doesn't a ring of wire get jerked ahead when the current suddenly starts and stops flowing? Because the current doesn't drag the metal matrix along with it? But then, when a current flowing radially in a disk is forced to flow in a spiral (by the application of the axial field), I wouldn't expect the current to drag the metal and cause it to rotate. Yet it does. I'm confused. This is not helped by the usual spoked-wagon-wheel model of these devices. I WOULD expect a spoked wheel to be propelled into rotation by magnetic effects. But a contiguous disk I would expect to remain still, even if the current was flowing in a spiral. On another note: I noticed a general rule with homopolar motors and generators: A magnet makes the radial current in the disk flow in a spiral pattern, which drags the disk along, and if curved slots are cut in the disk to FORCE a spiral flow, the generator becomes self-regenerative and the axial-field permanent magnet may be removed. The classic regenerative homopolar machine has a disk with spiral slots and no field- magnets. I was thinking about cylindrical homopolar designs and realized that the same rule can be applied: trace the path that the current takes under the influence of the magnetic field, cut slots in the rotor to force this flow pattern, and then remove the magnet. The result is a cylinder with a 'chevron' pattern of slots, and the cylinder should rotate when current is applied to the edges, even if there is no applied magnetic field at all. The current in the chevron creates both the "permanent magnet" field, and the field in the metal rotor. Will this really work? I want to try this out someday, when I figure out how to be several people! .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From billbeskimo.com Thu May 25 07:45:45 1995 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 07:45:43 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: homopolar generators In-Reply-To: <199505250551.AAA02985@matrix.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 25 May 1995, Scott Little wrote: > >On another note: I noticed a general rule with homopolar motors and > >generators: A magnet makes the radial current in the disk flow in a > >spiral pattern, which drags the disk along, > > Bill, I'm not sure I understand this spiral current business. Are you > suggesting that this is WHY the disk rotates? Surely the primary impetus > for rotation comes simply from purely radial current "crossed into" the > axial B, which results in tangential force. Am I missing something? But doesn't it result in a tangential force on the mobile *carriers*? I can see why a b-field makes the radial electron flow become a spiral electron flow. But why should it drag the metal along? Now that you have me thinking, I guess the same can be said of the motor principle: a current in a wire in a b-field will be deflected, and will drag the wire along with it, rather than just causing a Hall effect charge separation along the sides of the wire. However, current in a wire is in a closed loop, and it is energetically favorable for the loop to reorient itself in the b-field, hence the force felt by each segment of the loop. But I can't see how this applies to the disk. How can the turning of the disk represent a move to a lower energy state? And besides, it doesn't represent a lower state, since it never changes energy. Maybe its actually the MOTION of the disk that is the lower energy state, rather than any particular POSITION, and so the disk wants to be continuously accelerating whenever current exists within? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From billbeskimo.com Thu May 25 08:02:19 1995 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 08:02:18 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: homopolar generators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 25 May 1995, William Beaty wrote: > But I can't see how this applies to the disk. How can the > turning of the disk represent a move to a lower energy state? And > besides, it doesn't represent a lower state, since it never changes > energy. Maybe its actually the MOTION of the disk that is the lower > energy state, rather than any particular POSITION, and so the disk wants > to be continuously accelerating whenever current exists within? By the way, I'm visualizing a radially symmetric machine with continuous liquid metal contacts on the entire edge, and disk/cylinder geometry for the external circuit rather than wires. The usual "textbook" variety has a contact brush only at one point on the edge, and charges flow in the disk only between the disk center and this brush. Forces MAY be applied to the external circuit wires relative to the disk in the "textbook" version, but this isnt true of the radially symmetric version, yet it still turns. I think. At least it is SAID to turn. Things like this you almost have to try yourself, because the books say many incorrect things about these machines. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From billbeskimo.com Thu May 25 19:28:46 1995 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 19:28:44 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: homopolar generators In-Reply-To: <199505252052.PAA00271@matrix.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 25 May 1995, Scott Little wrote: > I must say, your energy approach is confusing me. You're right, in order > for it to exert a force to move, it must be moving toward lower energies (by > definition)....but the whole thing is perfectly symmertrical, nothing is > moving in or out of the magnetic field!? Damn, I thought I had this all > figured out. Ha! I'm still wondering how an electron beam can be deflected by a magnetic field, since by what measurement does empty space full of uniform b-field have position? Every bit of the field must have position relative to the electrons, yet the field is smooth, so how can it have features which can be compared to the electron position, and velocity be detected thereby? Don't tell me that field lines are real after all! With the homopolar motor, I was supposing that the back-emf of a rotating disk, in combination with the fields around it, might represent a lower energy state, and so the disk would start moving, but then a HIGHER speed would represent a lower energy state for it, and so the disk would attain a particular value of increasing RPMs, rather than behaving like a coil and attaining a particular position. But I haven't thought about this in depth, so the idea might be off the wall. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From billbeskimo.com Wed May 31 14:00:51 1995 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:00:49 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Subject: Re: New Developments in Homopolar Generators In-Reply-To: <199505311644.MAA23727@ios.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: There are some Homopolar files in my WWW pages. You can go directly to them at http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html Look down the list for "N-machine.' Do you have WWW access? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-762-3818 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://amasci.com/ Seattle, WA 98117 billbeskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From owner-vortex-l Thu May 25 13:54:42 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA04733; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:54:39 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA04450; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:53:06 -0700 Received: from net-1-199.eden.com (net-1-199.eden.com [199.171.21.199]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA00271 for ; Thu, 25 May 1995 15:52:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:52:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199505252052.PAA00271@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: homopolar generators X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >By the way, I'm visualizing a radially symmetric machine with continuous >liquid metal contacts on the entire edge, and disk/cylinder geometry for >the external circuit rather than wires. Yeah, me too. I must say, your energy approach is confusing me. You're right, in order for it to exert a force to move, it must be moving toward lower energies (by definition)....but the whole thing is perfectly symmertrical, nothing is moving in or out of the magnetic field!? Damn, I thought I had this all figured out. Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From owner-vortex-l Fri May 26 21:18:34 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA02043; Fri, 26 May 1995 21:18:30 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01986; Fri, 26 May 1995 21:18:08 -0700 Received: from net-1-192.eden.com (net-1-192.eden.com [199.171.21.192]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14475 for ; Fri, 26 May 1995 23:18:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 23:18:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199505270418.XAA14475@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: homopolar generators X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 25 May 1995, Scott Little wrote: > >> I must say, your energy approach is confusing me. You're right, in order >> for it to exert a force to move, it must be moving toward lower energies (by >> definition)... WRONG! Puthoff's clear thinking to the rescue: True, in a situation involving motion of bodies subject to conservative fields (e.g. gravity, or magnetism) forces are a direct result of dE/dx...but, in the completely different situation where external POWER is available in the form of, say, an electric current passing through a conductor, one can develop forces that act steadily as long as the power is applied. Consider a small conductor immersed in a homogenous magnetic field of infinite extent. If you passed a current thru that conductor, you WOULD INDEED observe a force exerted on it equal to i*L X B. So at least that part of the homopolar generator does not appear to violate any laws of Physics. Faraday's famous cemented disk paradox: He built a homopolar generator consisting of a rotating copper disc positioned near a circular magnet that created an axial field thru the disk. When he connected a brush to the periphery of the disk and another brush to the disk's shaft, he observed a voltage generated presumably by the motion of the disk (i.e. radial elements thereof) "thru" the magnetic field. So far so good, right? Now he "cemented" the magnet to the disk so it rotated with it. Everything else stayed the same. He observed exactly the same voltage generated as before! As I understand it, for some number of years (perhaps 20) Faraday thought that this experiment proved that the magnetic field created by the magnet was always stationary, regardless of whether the magnetic material itself was rotating. This is a pretty far-reaching conclusion and Faraday must have wrestled with its ramifications the most intriguing of which is the possibility of applying forces directly to "the vacuum" via magnetic fields. If the field itself is stationary and this state is not dependant upon the magnetic material being stationary, then the field must somehow be attached to the fabric of space and thus, since one can easily exert forces against a maganetic field (via i*L X B), one should therefore be able to exert forces against the fabric of space...i.e. a reactionless space drive would be possible! Apparently Faraday finally realized what is generally accepted as the real reason that the voltage is exactly the same in the cemented case. The field DOES rotate with the magnet and since every "line of flux" that exits one pole of the magnet and cuts through the disk MUST loop around enter the other pole of the magnet, every such line must (once per revolution) ALSO cut the external circuit containing the voltmeter. Thus the induction for the two cases is precisely identical but the "seat of induction" is quite different. Despite this clear understanding, I once tried an experiment to see if I could detect any evidence of forces (in this case, torques) being applied to the vacuum (fabric of space). At one point I was sure I was seeing some weak interaction but it turned out to be simply my apparatus reacting to the Earth's field. I had only constructed a crude electromagnetic compass! It was fun, though. From owner-vortex-l Mon May 29 07:20:42 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA20991; Mon, 29 May 1995 07:20:39 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA20963; Mon, 29 May 1995 07:20:30 -0700 Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA018377027; Mon, 29 May 1995 10:17:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 10:17:07 -0400 From: Puthoff@aol.com Message-Id: <950529101705_16457310@aol.com> To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Cc: little@eden.com Subject: Re: n-machines Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In the latest issue of New Energy News (May 1995) there is a letter from a group who supported DePalma's work for the last seven years and have come to the conclusion after extensive testing by sympathetic but rigorous engineers that the device simply does not live up to its claim, no over-unity performance. The test rig is now for sale by them if you're interested. Hal Puthoff From owner-vortex-l Wed May 31 09:47:46 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA19359; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:46:43 -0700 Received: from ios.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA18971; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:44:59 -0700 Received: from 198.4.70.83 ([198.4.70.83]) by ios.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA23727 for ; Wed, 31 May 1995 12:44:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 12:44:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199505311644.MAA23727@ios.com> From: reedh@styx.ios.com Subject: New Developments in Homopolar Generators To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: AIR Mail 3.X (SPRY, Inc.) Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A I appreciate several of you responding to my e-mail, particularly Bill Beaty and Scott Little, even though I haven't been quick in responding to your messages of this group. And its a group of some very intelligent people, by the way. My interest in homopolar generators comes from the fact that I have invested money in the development of a prototype based on a new design. The inventor has kept a very low profile and has had very little written about him in the publications such as New Energy News and Space Energy Journal (he wanted it that way -- don't attract attention until you have something that works) I am not a technical person, but a businessman. I started an energy management company in Phoenix Arizona which has been successful in reducing commercial & industrial facilities energy costs through methods such as lighting retrofits, hvac upgrades, and cogeneration. However, my interest in the energy industry is not in conservation projects, which are simply "band-aid" fixes to the energy problems we face (limited fossil fuels, environmental destruction, and high power costs). My interest is the quiet energy revolution I see occuring, which is led by the emergence of new energy technologies. If you review all the reports written about N-machines & homopolar generators, you will find a few hints of secrets divulged or at least alluded to, which no one has tried before in the design of a homopolar generator. Once we obtain our patent pending status, I will be much more comfortable with releasing any details. I obviously can't release anything now. But suffice it to say, we are building a generator based on a completely new design. Preliminary reports look very encouraging. Our prototype should be completed within 45-60 days and then we'll know if all the time and money was worth it. The reason I am posting this message is for a couple of reasons: 1. Once our prototype is completed, I want to contract with an independent company (such as EarthTech Intl.) to validate over-unity output. My concern is how do we keep our design protected while undergoing testing? Patents only offer one very thin level of protection. I would prefer to keep our design confidential until we are large enough to handle the legal costs to defend it. In the near future, I plan to use what I call the "picket fence" approach for our design, and in effect build a barrier around the original patent by submitting variations of the original patent. This is how the Japanese are able to circumvent our patents. 2. Once overunity is validated, I am looking for engineering talent that wants to join my company to help refine and improve this prototype for manufacturing. Our first product will be a home power unit (expected 10-15 Kw output). Our goal is to be marketing these home units by the end of this year. I am not looking for outside contract engineers, but people who want to get involved with this company on a full time basis. Once we have a working generator, we need the talent to engineer different size generators for different applications. Any comments on the above would be appreciated. By the way, Bill asked about the status of Tewari. He is working on a new design of his N-machine, which he plans to build and test for any overunity. I do not have any details of his new design. Thanks, Reed Huish The Energy Group From ghawk@eskimo.com Mon Jun 5 21:20:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: from 204.122.16.4 by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA21291; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:19:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199506060419.AA21291@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 21:24:36 -0700 To: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) From: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) Subject: Re: Glad you made it Cc: billbeskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I'm sure that at some level you must realize that your sonic experiments >are extremely important. I think you were right there when that fellow asked me why I was doing it. I was tongue tied, and more or less wanted to slap him around and ask him what the heck is the matter with him, doesn't he appreciate the discovery of nature, and have a fascination with how ordered it is, and doesn't he realize how interesting it is that when resonance plays a part, order results, and doesn't he see how it could have implications of what might be going on at a microscopic level, and why doesn't he get a life, ha. Words eluded me. I don't know if E-mail is the best way to discuss >this, but I have heard of people that are doing this kind of work in the >medical profession, and have gotten results that have driven them >underground. Wow. I was racking my brains trying to figure out what the >mechanisms could be, with nothing more to go on but rumour and a few >snippets of information. After seeing your experiments, however, I think I >have some Ideas. In fact, I'm so excited by the possibilities, that I almost >wish that I could shitcan the stuff that I'm working on now, and throw all >my time and money into what you are doing. I've had that problem many times. But don't let that happen. I'm way too diversified, not able to finish anything. Today, I bought a video from Laura Lee by some people who are doing this, and dammit, it was recorded by the company wrong, had a Nova program on ants. I sit huddled in a corner mumbling about how the universe is conspiring against me. All of her other videos were fine. When I get it swapped, you guys have just gotta come over for another movie. Maybe this time it will be more than just a few seconds long. > If you are comfortable with talking about these things through E-mail, I'd >be happy to share my thoughts with you. I like E-mail for its' convenience, >and the simple act of typing things out forces a structure that helps >organize an otherwise loosely connected thought train. Some people are a bit >paranoid about the security of the E-mail system, and perhaps rightly so. >I've never felt comfortable with secrets, so for the most part, I don't >really care if people read my mail. If it suits you, I could just start >typing. If not, we could discuss it on the phone or in person. It's up to >you. I'd like to run the ideas past Bill as well. He's nothing short of a >genius, and I haven't met anyone like him in years. This could be BIG fun. >-Knuke > > > Go for it. Unless something absolutely phenomenal crops up, I've become very non-protective along this line. Tomorrow I'll be showing one of the guys who were at that meeting, the capacitor bank, and how that works. I figure, heck, it isn't going anywhere toward an income anyway, so if somebody else develops it, I'll just work on something else. We can just carbon copy our messages if that's alright with you. In fact, I'm sure enough that it's alright with you, that I'm cc'ing this one to Bill as well. Gary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology -- Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk From little@eden.com Mon Jun 5 22:38:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA02523; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:38:34 -0700 Received: from net-1-168.eden.com (net-1-168.eden.com [199.171.21.168]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29286 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:38:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:38:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199506060538.AAA29286@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: William Beaty From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Hilsch vortex tubes X-Mailer: Status: RO X-Status: A Do you know anything about the thermodynamics of these things? I've been looking at the literature from Vortec and it doesn't seem to add up. For example, the biggest one they make produces 6000 BTU/hr of cooling and, according to the formulas given, all this heat shows up in the hot air exhaust stream. In fact, they point to a "heat balance" equation and they say that "all vortex tubes obey this equation". What doesn't add up is the input energy. The 6000 BTU/hr tube requires 100 SCFM at 100 psi, which I make out to be around 16,000 BTU/hr in air flow power. Where does that power go? If I believe their numbers, it just disappears! Maybe a vortex tube is somehow NOT a heat engine and thus subject to different rules... Any ideas? From little@eden.com Tue Jun 6 08:49:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA06024; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:49:21 -0700 Received: from net-1-161.eden.com (net-1-161.eden.com [199.171.21.161]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28317 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:49:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:49:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199506061549.KAA28317@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: William Beaty From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: Hilsch vortex tubes X-Mailer: Status: RO X-Status: A >I never heard any numbers quoted for these. I assumed that the input >energy appeared as heat at the exit tube, and the heat extracted from the >cold stream ALSO appeared as heat at the exit tube.\ Yeah, this is what I'd expect, too. >So the device in >effect is a turbine-powered refridgerator, with the turbine and the >working fluid being one in the same. But adibatic expansion causes >cooling. They mention this (called Joule-Thompson cooling) but it is almost negligible. Their numbers don't add up. BTW, I called their tech support and I knew more about how it worked than that guy did! Scott Little EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From little@eden.com Wed Jun 7 04:55:41 1995 Return-Path: Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA28181; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 04:55:39 -0700 Received: from net-1-141.eden.com (net-1-141.eden.com [199.171.21.141]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17448 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 06:55:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 06:55:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199506071155.GAA17448@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: William Beaty From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Re: Hilsch vortex tubes X-Mailer: Status: RO X-Status: >than visualizing a spinning flow, I vizualize the entire tube as rotating, >like the artificial gravity of an 'L5' colony, and with strong enough >gravity that the atmosphere near the surface is at much higher pressure >than that at the center. The flow probably stays laminar so different >layers don't mix. Interesting that you should say this. They go on quite a bit in the lit. about how the rotation in the tube is different from an ordinary whirlpool where the inner portion rotates must faster than the outer portion. In the tube, they say, all the air is in "lockstep" due to turbulence between layers or something and it all rotates with the same angular velocity! But it's not a mysterious energy source...it's a sink! From knuke@aa.net Wed Jun 7 14:28:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01570; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:25:50 -0700 Received: from d205.aa.net (d205.aa.net [204.157.220.205]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA00463; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:24:21 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:24:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199506072124.OAA00463@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Glad you made it Cc: billbeskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary, > >I think you were right there when that fellow asked me why I was doing it. Yeah, I was there. I thought that he had asked "What are you guys trying to DOOOO with that thing, anyway?" About 2 million synapses in my brain suddenly misfired, and all I could think was "Well, we're not trying to DOOOO ANYTHING!! We're JUST LOOKING at it." I knew that wasn't a very good answer, and I thought "What ARE we doing? We're trying to observe - learn - understand." Then I looked to you for some help in answering this guy and saw the same shock on your face. I just had to laugh. >>have some Ideas. In fact, I'm so excited by the possibilities, that I almost >>wish that I could shitcan the stuff that I'm working on now, and throw all >>my time and money into what you are doing. > >I've had that problem many times. But don't let that happen. I'm way too >diversified, not able to finish anything. Don't worry, I'm not going to stop work on my device. There are still too many unanswered questions, and design approaches that I would like to try. I still feel very strongly about its' importance. > >Today, I bought a video from Laura Lee by some people who are doing this, >and dammit, it was recorded by the company wrong, had a Nova program on >ants. I sit huddled in a corner mumbling about how the universe is conspiring >against me. All of her other videos were fine. When I get it swapped, you >guys have just gotta come over for another movie. Maybe this time it will be >more than just a few seconds long. > I'd definitely like to see it. >We can just carbon copy our messages if that's alright with you. In fact, >I'm sure >enough that it's alright with you, that I'm cc'ing this one to Bill as well. > >Gary Cool! Well here goes. If you'll remember, when Bill switched from the salt crystals to the glass beads, you started getting little mountains of beads to form. These were about 1" in diameter, and about 1/2" - 3/4" tall, if I remember correctly. Then on one try, a larger mass formed ( about 2 1/2" - 3" in diameter), and the center of it collapsed. The beads then appeared to be cycling around an invisible center core. Bill picked up a palmful of dirt, picked out the twigs and big chunks, and threw it into the mass of beads. I think he stirred them up, and the mass reformed exactly as it was before, but you could see the cycling of the beads a little better, because of the increase in contrast achieved by adding the dirt. As if this wasn't cool enough, the dirt particles started standing at attention, like polarized iron filings do when placed in a magnetic flux field. They cycled as well, along with the glass beads. I'm describing what I observed, just to get a consensus with the both of you. It wasn't until later that night that this revelation came to me, but it finally occurred to me that those dirt particles were shaped like rods when they were cycling. In fact, they were very uniformly shaped like rods about 1/16" long, and about 1/64" in diameter. It finally dawned on me that Bill didn't throw rods into the mass, he threw a bunch of randomly shaped, little dirt clods into it. The vibration/cycling of the glass beads had broken up the clods into fine particles which should have fallen down between the spaces between the beads. The mass of the dirt particles being much less than that of the beads. Instead, they were picked up, carried along with the beads, and RESHAPED into rods with a diameter/length ratio of roughly 1/3.14. Now this in itself is way cool enough, but there is more. I've read over the years about work being done with sound to accomplish various tasks. A few years ago, I read about a guy that had patented a process for strengthening glass with sound waves. Dow Corning bought the patent, and that's the last I heard of it. In the article that I read, the guy said that he was able to "line up" the glass molecules in the liquid state, so that when they cooled they had this extra strength. The article didn't report the frequency that gave the best results, but I would think that it would be in the patent spec. It would probably work on polycarbonates as well. In fact, I'm thinking that it would work on any carbon chain, but more on that later. I've also read that potters do the same thing with clay by hand, because it results in a stronger piece of clay after it is fired. I've also read that water, if it is allowed to flow down a shallow, rocky riverbed is supposed to be better for you, because the the water molecules are supposedly forced to "line up" as a result of the vortex actions that occurr as the water flows over the rocks in the riverbed. I also know a woman in her middle sixties that told me a pretty incredible story about a year ago. She said that she had moved to a new area, and didn't have a personal doctor. She came down with a severe viral infection, and asked someone if they could recommend a good doctor. This person told her about an acupuncturist that they said got excellent results. The woman had never been to an acupuncturist before, and was skeptical, but the person that recommended him was so insistent that she thought she would give him a try. She was a bit averse to drug therapies, and was interested in trying an alternative. She said that this acupuncturist treated her with a sonic device, and sent her home. She said that when she first went in, she was absolutely miserable, and could barely even move. One half hour after the treatment, she said she felt like she had never been sick, and if fact, felt ten years younger. She was so shocked by the completeness and speed of her recovery, that she went back to the acupuncturist to find out what this sonic device was. The doctor told her that there were only two machines in the world, and that he was getting consistant, incredible results in treating viral illnesses. This woman asked if he had ever had the opportunity to treat an AIDS patient with this, and the doctor just smiled. He said that she must NEVER tell anyone about this, because the inventor had been jailed for just that. The woman didn't have the technical sense to find out what the frequencies were that were applied, but I think she could find out if I asked her to. I also read just recently on the Internet that cancer was being treated experimentally with a sonic device, and that the frequencies were between 400 - 500 Hz. Again, this was someone that was not a physician, that had treated and CURED himself of terminal cancer, and then shared the information on the NET. He's bound to encounter legal difficulties, and he knows it, but he's doing it anyway. At any rate, it occurred to me that the way a virus attacks a healthy cell could be more mechanical in nature than chemical. Consider the fact that a virus is a very small entity compared to it's target cell. The virus itself is basically a protein chain like about the same size as the DNA molecule of the healthy cell. This smallness, and the fact that it is shaped like a coiled arrow or spring, gives it the mechanical ability to penetrate the tough outer skin of the larger, more organized cell structure. Once it is inside the cell, it replaces the DNA instruction mechanism for replicating another healthy cell, and the cell replicates according to the instruction of the virus. These new cells would be termed by "modern medicine" to be cancerous. With AIDS, the virus attacks the immune system cells themselves as a specialty, with especially disasterous collateral results. If you were to sonically create the vibration necessary to either induce the kind of cycling that we saw with the glass beads, only with the larger, rounder cells in the bloodstream, it is conceiveable that you could break down and reshape the virus before it had a chance to enter the cell wall. In tissue that was already invaded, perhaps the vibration would prevent the replication of that tissue, and it would eventually just die. This is just a bare outline of a theory, but I think that it must be checked out. If it proved to be correct, it could usher in a whole new way of treating diseases without chemicals. It is a mechanical/shape approach. I was thinking that if you glue a small, piezoelectric speaker to the bottom of a pyrex container or something similar, and used that aluminum metal flake as a visual enhancer, you could find the frequencies that make water cycle in a flux or vortex pattern. Then you could "infect" the water with a common bacteria such giardia, and see if the treatment would kill it. You would need a microscope to do before and after bacteria counts. My machine might be able to do the same thing, but I'd be more interested in the ability to generate precise wavelengths with just a speaker and a signal generator. You could then sneak it past the PTO as a water purification method. Are you guys interested in doing any of this? -Knuke PS. I just re-read this and realized that this might be a lot to digest in one reading. Read it a few times and sleep on it, you might see it better. As usual my explainations aren't the best. From knuke@aa.net Wed Jun 7 14:29:09 1995 Return-Path: Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01662; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:26:34 -0700 Received: from d205.aa.net (d205.aa.net [204.157.220.205]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA00635; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:26:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:26:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199506072126.OAA00635@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ghawk@eskimo.com From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Glad you made it Cc: billbeskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) >From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) >Subject: Re: Glad you made it >Cc: billbeskimo.com >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Gary, >> >>I think you were right there when that fellow asked me why I was doing it. > >Yeah, I was there. I thought that he had asked "What are you guys trying to DOOOO with that thing, anyway?" About 2 million synapses in my brain suddenly misfired, and all I could think was "Well, we're not trying to DOOOO ANYTHING!! We're JUST LOOKING at it." I knew that wasn't a very good answer, and I thought "What ARE we doing? We're trying to observe - learn - understand." Then I looked to you for some help in answering this guy and saw the same shock on your face. I just had to laugh. > >>>have some Ideas. In fact, I'm so excited by the possibilities, that I almost >>>wish that I could shitcan the stuff that I'm working on now, and throw all >>>my time and money into what you are doing. >> >>I've had that problem many times. But don't let that happen. I'm way too >>diversified, not able to finish anything. > >Don't worry, I'm not going to stop work on my device. There are still too many unanswered questions, and design approaches that I would like to try. I still feel very strongly about its' importance. > >> >>Today, I bought a video from Laura Lee by some people who are doing this, >>and dammit, it was recorded by the company wrong, had a Nova program on >>ants. I sit huddled in a corner mumbling about how the universe is conspiring >>against me. All of her other videos were fine. When I get it swapped, you >>guys have just gotta come over for another movie. Maybe this time it will be >>more than just a few seconds long. >> > >I'd definitely like to see it. > >>We can just carbon copy our messages if that's alright with you. In fact, >>I'm sure >>enough that it's alright with you, that I'm cc'ing this one to Bill as well. >> >>Gary >Cool! > >Well here goes. If you'll remember, when Bill switched from the salt crystals to the glass beads, you started getting little mountains of beads to form. These were about 1" in diameter, and about 1/2" - 3/4" tall, if I remember correctly. Then on one try, a larger mass formed ( about 2 1/2" - 3" in diameter), and the center of it collapsed. The beads then appeared to be cycling around an invisible center core. Bill picked up a palmful of dirt, picked out the twigs and big chunks, and threw it into the mass of beads. I think he stirred them up, and the mass reformed exactly as it was before, but you could see the cycling of the beads a little better, because of the increase in contrast achieved by adding the dirt. As if this wasn't cool enough, the dirt particles started standing at attention, like polarized iron filings do when placed in a magnetic flux field. They cycled as well, along with the glass beads. I'm describing what I observed, just to get a consensus with the both of you. > It wasn't until later that night that this revelation came to me, but it finally occurred to me that those dirt particles were shaped like rods when they were cycling. In fact, they were very uniformly shaped like rods about 1/16" long, and about 1/64" in diameter. It finally dawned on me that Bill didn't throw rods into the mass, he threw a bunch of randomly shaped, little dirt clods into it. The vibration/cycling of the glass beads had broken up the clods into fine particles which should have fallen down between the spaces between the beads. The mass of the dirt particles being much less than that of the beads. Instead, they were picked up, carried along with the beads, and RESHAPED into rods with a diameter/length ratio of roughly 1/3.14. Now this in itself is way cool enough, but there is more. > I've read over the years about work being done with sound to accomplish various tasks. A few years ago, I read about a guy that had patented a process for strengthening glass with sound waves. Dow Corning bought the patent, and that's the last I heard of it. In the article that I read, the guy said that he was able to "line up" the glass molecules in the liquid state, so that when they cooled they had this extra strength. The article didn't report the frequency that gave the best results, but I would think that it would be in the patent spec. It would probably work on polycarbonates as well. In fact, I'm thinking that it would work on any carbon chain, but more on that later. I've also read that potters do the same thing with clay by hand, because it results in a stronger piece of clay after it is fired. I've also read that water, if it is allowed to flow down a shallow, rocky riverbed is supposed to be better for you, because the the water molecules are supposedly forced to "line up" as a result of the vortex actions that occurr as the water flows over the rocks in the riverbed. > I also know a woman in her middle sixties that told me a pretty incredible story about a year ago. She said that she had moved to a new area, and didn't have a personal doctor. She came down with a severe viral infection, and asked someone if they could recommend a good doctor. This person told her about an acupuncturist that they said got excellent results. The woman had never been to an acupuncturist before, and was skeptical, but the person that recommended him was so insistent that she thought she would give him a try. She was a bit averse to drug therapies, and was interested in trying an alternative. She said that this acupuncturist treated her with a sonic device, and sent her home. She said that when she first went in, she was absolutely miserable, and could barely even move. One half hour after the treatment, she said she felt like she had never been sick, and if fact, felt ten years younger. She was so shocked by the completeness and speed of her recovery, that she went back to the acupuncturist to find out what this sonic device was. The doctor told her that there were only two machines in the world, and that he was getting consistant, incredible results in treating viral illnesses. This woman asked if he had ever had the opportunity to treat an AIDS patient with this, and the doctor just smiled. He said that she must NEVER tell anyone about this, because the inventor had been jailed for just that. The woman didn't have the technical sense to find out what the frequencies were that were applied, but I think she could find out if I asked her to. > I also read just recently on the Internet that cancer was being treated experimentally with a sonic device, and that the frequencies were between 400 - 500 Hz. Again, this was someone that was not a physician, that had treated and CURED himself of terminal cancer, and then shared the information on the NET. He's bound to encounter legal difficulties, and he knows it, but he's doing it anyway. > At any rate, it occurred to me that the way a virus attacks a healthy cell could be more mechanical in nature than chemical. Consider the fact that a virus is a very small entity compared to it's target cell. The virus itself is basically a protein chain like about the same size as the DNA molecule of the healthy cell. This smallness, and the fact that it is shaped like a coiled arrow or spring, gives it the mechanical ability to penetrate the tough outer skin of the larger, more organized cell structure. Once it is inside the cell, it replaces the DNA instruction mechanism for replicating another healthy cell, and the cell replicates according to the instruction of the virus. These new cells would be termed by "modern medicine" to be cancerous. With AIDS, the virus attacks the immune system cells themselves as a specialty, with especially disasterous collateral results. If you were to sonically create the vibration necessary to either induce the kind of cycling that we saw with the glass beads, only with the larger, rounder cells in the bloodstream, it is conceiveable that you could break down and reshape the virus before it had a chance to enter the cell wall. In tissue that was already invaded, perhaps the vibration would prevent the replication of that tissue, and it would eventually just die. > This is just a bare outline of a theory, but I think that it must be checked out. If it proved to be correct, it could usher in a whole new way of treating diseases without chemicals. It is a mechanical/shape approach. I was thinking that if you glue a small, piezoelectric speaker to the bottom of a pyrex container or something similar, and used that aluminum metal flake as a visual enhancer, you could find the frequencies that make water cycle in a flux or vortex pattern. Then you could "infect" the water with a common bacteria such giardia, and see if the treatment would kill it. You would need a microscope to do before and after bacteria counts. My machine might be able to do the same thing, but I'd be more interested in the ability to generate precise wavelengths with just a speaker and a signal generator. You could then sneak it past the PTO as a water purification method. Are you guys interested in doing any of this? -Knuke > >PS. I just re-read this and realized that this might be a lot to digest in one reading. Read it a few times and sleep on it, you might see it better. As usual my explainations aren't the best. > From ghawk@eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 19:13:59 1995 Return-Path: Received: from 204.122.16.4 by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA18855; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:13:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199506080213.AA18855@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 19:18:40 -0700 To: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) From: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) Subject: Re: Glad you made it Cc: billbeskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Note: Cyberquest has gone out of business apparently. >understand." Then I looked to you for some help in answering this guy and >saw the same shock on your face. I just had to laugh. That's hilarious. I've gotten a good laugh from this. > >Well here goes. If you'll remember, when Bill switched from the salt >crystals to the glass beads, you started getting little mountains of beads >to form. These were about 1" in diameter, and about 1/2" - 3/4" tall, if I >remember correctly. Then on one try, a larger mass formed ( about 2 1/2" - >3" in diameter), and the center of it collapsed. The beads then appeared to >be cycling around an invisible center core. Bill picked up a palmful of >dirt, picked out the twigs and big chunks, and threw it into the mass of >beads. I think he stirred them up, and the mass reformed exactly as it was >before, but you could see the cycling of the beads a little better, because >of the increase in contrast achieved by adding the dirt. As if this wasn't >cool enough, the dirt particles started standing at attention, like >polarized iron filings do when placed in a magnetic flux field. They cycled >as well, along with the glass beads. I'm describing what I observed, just to >get a consensus with the both of you. Close enough, by my memory. What if a magnetic field is merely a virtual effect, caused by micro vibrations, causing atoms to align because of their geometry, and when those vibrations (which have a certain form or structure) come close to another 'field' (vibrations) with its own structure, the two either are in phase, and attract, or out of phase, and repel, or, etc. > It wasn't until later that night that this revelation came to me, but it >finally occurred to me that those dirt particles were shaped like rods when >they were cycling. In fact, they were very uniformly shaped like rods about >1/16" long, and about 1/64" in diameter. It finally dawned on me that Bill >didn't throw rods into the mass, he threw a bunch of randomly shaped, little >dirt clods into it. The vibration/cycling of the glass beads had broken up >the clods into fine particles which should have fallen down between the >spaces between the beads. The mass of the dirt particles being much less >than that of the beads. Instead, they were picked up, carried along with the >beads, and RESHAPED into rods with a diameter/length ratio of roughly >1/3.14. Now this in itself is way cool enough, but there is more. Very observant. I noticed this too, vaguely, but I suppose I concluded that I didn't look closely enough at them originally. Now that you mention it, I think you are right. > I've read over the years about work being done with sound to accomplish >various tasks. A few years ago, I read about a guy that had patented a >process for strengthening glass with sound waves. Dow Corning bought the >patent, and that's the last I heard of it. In the article that I read, the >guy said that he was able to "line up" the glass molecules in the liquid >state, so that when they cooled they had this extra strength. The article >didn't report the frequency that gave the best results, but I would think >that it would be in the patent spec. It would probably work on >polycarbonates as well. In fact, I'm thinking that it would work on any >carbon chain, but more on that later. When copper work hardens, I'm told that the crystaline structure aligns in a certain way. It should be possible to work-harden copper without pounding on it, but with a relatively gentle vibration of the right frequency. I've also read that potters do the >same thing with clay by hand, because it results in a stronger piece of clay >after it is fired. I've also read that water, if it is allowed to flow down >a shallow, rocky riverbed is supposed to be better for you, because the the >water molecules are supposedly forced to "line up" as a result of the vortex >actions that occurr as the water flows over the rocks in the riverbed. > I also know a woman in her middle sixties that told me a pretty incredible >story about a year ago. She said that she had moved to a new area, and >didn't have a personal doctor. She came down with a severe viral infection, >and asked someone if they could recommend a good doctor. This person told >her about an acupuncturist that they said got excellent results. The woman >had never been to an acupuncturist before, and was skeptical, but the person >that recommended him was so insistent that she thought she would give him a >try. She was a bit averse to drug therapies, and was interested in trying an >alternative. She said that this acupuncturist treated her with a sonic >device, and sent her home. She said that when she first went in, she was >absolutely miserable, and could barely even move. One half hour after the >treatment, she said she felt like she had never been sick, and if fact, felt >ten years younger. She was so shocked by the completeness and speed of her >recovery, that she went back to the acupuncturist to find out what this >sonic device was. The doctor told her that there were only two machines in >the world, and that he was getting consistant, incredible results in >treating viral illnesses. This woman asked if he had ever had the >opportunity to treat an AIDS patient with this, and the doctor just smiled. >He said that she must NEVER tell anyone about this, because the inventor had >been jailed for just that. The woman didn't have the technical sense to find >out what the frequencies were that were applied, but I think she could find >out if I asked her to. > I also read just recently on the Internet that cancer was being treated >experimentally with a sonic device, and that the frequencies were between >400 - 500 Hz. Again, this was someone that was not a physician, that had >treated and CURED himself of terminal cancer, and then shared the >information on the NET. He's bound to encounter legal difficulties, and he >knows it, but he's doing it anyway. If you find it again, please let me know. > At any rate, it occurred to me that the way a virus attacks a healthy cell >could be more mechanical in nature than chemical. Consider the fact that a >virus is a very small entity compared to it's target cell. The virus itself >is basically a protein chain like about the same size as the DNA molecule of >the healthy cell. This smallness, and the fact that it is shaped like a >coiled arrow or spring, gives it the mechanical ability to penetrate the >tough outer skin of the larger, more organized cell structure. Lyme is spiral like a spring, and spins to drill its way in. Doug saw this under the microscope. Once it is >inside the cell, it replaces the DNA instruction mechanism for replicating >another healthy cell, and the cell replicates according to the instruction >of the virus. These new cells would be termed by "modern medicine" to be >cancerous. With AIDS, the virus attacks the immune system cells themselves >as a specialty, with especially disasterous collateral results. If you were >to sonically create the vibration necessary to either induce the kind of >cycling that we saw with the glass beads, only with the larger, rounder >cells in the bloodstream, it is conceiveable that you could break down and >reshape the virus before it had a chance to enter the cell wall. Doug saw the Lyme bacteria either straighten or break apart when he hit the right frequency. In tissue >that was already invaded, perhaps the vibration would prevent the >replication of that tissue, and it would eventually just die. > This is just a bare outline of a theory, but I think that it must be >checked out. If it proved to be correct, it could usher in a whole new way >of treating diseases without chemicals. Vaguely reminiscent of some of the stories I've heard about alien abductions where a disease was cured. It is a mechanical/shape approach. I >was thinking that if you glue a small, piezoelectric speaker to the bottom >of a pyrex container or something similar, and used that aluminum metal >flake as a visual enhancer, you could find the frequencies that make water >cycle in a flux or vortex pattern. Great idea, to try it with a container of water. Then you could "infect" the water with a >common bacteria such giardia, and see if the treatment would kill it. You >would need a microscope to do before and after bacteria counts. My machine >might be able to do the same thing, but I'd be more interested in the >ability to generate precise wavelengths with just a speaker and a signal >generator. Bill showed how bubbles can be trapped under water with an ultrasonic transducer, clearly showing that the standing wave pattern in the water from this small transducer was strong enough to establish pockets. You could then sneak it past the PTO as a water purification >method. Are you guys interested in doing any of this? -Knuke > >PS. I just re-read this and realized that this might be a lot to digest in >one reading. Read it a few times and sleep on it, you might see it better. >As usual my explainations aren't the best. > To the contrary, you're a very good writer. Please give some thought to a book, when you eventually have time. --Gary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology -- Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk From ghawk@eskimo.com Wed Jun 7 20:39:21 1995 Return-Path: Received: from 204.122.16.4 by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01149; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 20:39:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199506080339.AA01149@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 20:44:09 -0700 To: billbeskimo.com, knuke@aa.net From: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins) Subject: Setting up a new frequency device Status: RO X-Status: I found some latex sheet material at Gardico on Elliott Ave. Dan Y suggested a way to build a device that doesn't require inputing a huge amount of energy into a speaker. The amount of energy I would like to apply to this thing is more than that speaker can handle. Need to either come up with a concert type, or go with this design that Dan suggested, and would welcome any input on how to best make it. Basically, picture a plexiglass cylinder, or a drum, with latex over both ends. A motor with an offset (from center of rotation) shaft (like a steam engine) drives in a piston fashion, a rod that is attached to one of the latex ends. The air inside, acts to transfer the motion to the other end, which is the top end. If another cylinder were around the first one, with holes so that rotating the outside cylinder would either match up holes, so that air could escape, or close them up, so that most all of the energy of the driving end makes it to the driven end, then it would be like changing the amplitude on a speaker. But how to best build that. Changing the speed of the motor, changes the frequency, but this solves the problem of otherwise having to stop the motor, adjust the shaft, and restart to change the amplitude of vibrations. Should the top be round, or maybe rectangular with rounded corners? Seems that the cylinder would have to be well secured to try to prevent vibrations from travelling along the sides and messing things up. Anyway, thought just possibly someone might have a shortcut. Gary ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology -- Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk From knuke@aa.net Thu Jun 8 01:15:19 1995 Return-Path: Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA05896; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 01:15:17 -0700 Received: from d109.aa.net (d109.aa.net [204.157.220.109]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA01494; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 01:15:11 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 01:15:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199506080815.BAA01494@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ghawk@eskimo.com (Gary Hawkins), billbeskimo.com, knuke@aa.net From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Setting up a new frequency device Status: RO X-Status: Gary, Have you ever torn apart a diaphragm pump? I've got one if you'd like to give it a go. Just put it back together. I've seen several types. The air driven kind use a reciprocating air valve that pushes the plunger back and forth. The electric kind come in two flavors, the motor driven wheel and offset piston type that you mentioned, or a springloaded, adjustable thrust solenoid. The latter is your best bet, I think for what you want to do. With some solenoids, you can adjust the throw of the shaft from the bottom of the solenoid, while the thing is running. I've seen these kinds of solenoids in some banders that I've had to work on. This would obviate the need for the outside cylinder with the holes. It would also, in my opinion, give you more precise control over the amplitude. The frequency could be controlled with a general purpose relay that was PC controlled. This would also give you more precise control than a variable speed motor, and it would cost less, I think. BTW, whadda ya tryin ta DOOO with this thing, anyway? -Knuke From 72240.1256@compuserve.com Wed Jun 28 12:00:29 1995 Return-Path: <72240.1256@compuserve.com> Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA17757; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 12:00:26 -0700 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA04305; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 15:00:20 -0400 Date: 28 Jun 95 14:55:31 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Have I got this right? Message-Id: <950628185531_72240.1256_EHB164-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: A To: >INTERNET:billbeskimo.com You are in charge of vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com, aren't you? Gene and the others working on our Potapov experiment are having a lively discussion. As you see I have moved to move that discussion to the Vortex-1. Have I described it correctly? I presume that if someone showed and started flaming people, you could kick them off, couldn't you? I don't think that will happen. You might even consider advertising it on sci.physics.fusion, the way we advertise "Infinite Energy." I don't care who reads my postings, but I do object to having to wade through disruptive comments discussions of politics, hot fusion and other irrelevant topics. I hope Vortex-1 remains narrowly focussed on the Vortex Water Energy (VWE) -- whatever the hell that is. Does it cost you money to expand the subscriber list? - Jed T: Gene [76570,2270]; Chris [100433,1541]; Jeff [74063,3546]; Don Bullock >INTERNET:DBULLX@aol.com; Mark Hugo >INTERNET:MHugo@epri.epri.com; Dr. Peter Gluck >INTERNET:itimc@utcluj.ro S: Closed loop test I concur with Gene. With 20-20 hindsight, I think the open loop test was a bad idea. I wonder why Potapov suggested it. Mike Huffman pointed another advantage of a closed loop: you preserve the inertia of the moving water, so the pump does less work. He explained this in a complicated fashion, but that is what his message boils down to. Also, as I pointed out in the Vortex forum, with a closed loop you don't need to heat up the whole barrel full of water to 60 C before starting. I suggest we do one or two more tests with the open loop. If they don't work, add a radiator (perhaps just a length of copper pipe) in a closed loop. Submerge the radiator in the bath. Perhaps, as Gene says, the air insulation around the Yusmar is necessary. In that case, in the final configuration you would have the pump and radiator submerged, and the Yusmar in the air above the tank. I do not think the air insulation is needed. The water flowing on the inside of Yusmar will remove far more heat than the outside bath. Question: Should we move this conversation to the Vortex forum (>INTERNET:vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com)? That is a redistribution list maintained by Beaty. There are some good people over there like Logajan, Beaty and Huffman. It is not like sci.physics.fusion. Flames are not allowed. Anyone can sign up but I presume that if they act like jerks they will be locked out. I think we should move the technical discussion there, and we should tell Bruce Klein and Mike Schaffer to join up. We plan to tell the whole world everything anyway, in the next issue of "Infinite Energy." Naturally, business and finance messages should be kept private. Note to people unfamiliar with the Vortex forum: to get on the distribution list, you send a message to William Beaty (billbeskimo.com). To post on it, just e-mail the message to "vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com." Then everyone on the list gets a copy. I am not sure who is on the list. Bill Beaty would know. - Jed From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 02:46:45 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01570; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 02:10:18 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00462; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 01:51:30 -0700 Received: from d108.aa.net (d108.aa.net [204.157.220.108]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA05507 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 13:08:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 13:08:35 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199507012008.NAA05507@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Potapov bypass pipe Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To All, After thinking about this a little more, I think the best way to put this is: The Formula for determining the PSI or Head that I gave you, and the one that Mike S. has described is only valid when the Suction Head Pressure is greater than 0 in an open system. It will always be valid in a closed system. If this is not what is being taught to engineers in Universities, then I can see where alot of problems have come from. -Knuke From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 02:50:34 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01448; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 02:08:06 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00507; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 01:51:43 -0700 Received: from d112.aa.net (d112.aa.net [204.157.220.112]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA00366 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 11:29:13 -0700 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 11:29:13 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199507011829.LAA00366@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Potapov bypass pipe Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com >From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) >Subject: Re: Potapov bypass pipe >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >>Thanks for joining us, Mike Schaffer. >> >>>(By the way, my Yusmar does not have the "bypass" loop, and there is >>>not even a hole where one could be installed, just solid metal. >> >>Appears to be standard issue. Chris says it's drilled at installation time. >> We don't know why yet. >> >>>about 3.3 psi or about 7 ft or 2 m of hydraulic head. >> >>This is pretty low. How about it, Knuke? I hadn't done the calcs as >>Schaffer has...his figures would indicate that it is not so bad to have an >>open system. >> >>>The only way I can see that there will be cavitation in the Yusmar is by very >>>strong turbulence, such that local pressures reach zero. >> >>This brings me to the crux of my message: >> >>Do we know which way the water flows in the "bypass" line? Should it, in >>fact, be called a "recirculation" line. If there is a low pressure region >>in the center of the main vortex, then it stands to reason that water would >>flow "backwards" through this line from the bottom of the long tube into the >>center of the main vortex. Perhaps the arrival of this rotationally >>stationary water is what sets up the shear planes for the cavitation. >> >> >>Scott Little >>EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >>512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) >> >> > >Sorry about not getting back to you immediately on this, but I've been working and playing pretty hard this week. After years of encouraging him to do so, my best friend finally bought an 18' Bayliner inboard. It meant widening his driveway, which I gave him a hand with. The physical labor of that, combined with the 90+ degree F weather that we've been blessed with in Seattle, plus the fact that we had to test run the boat for 12 hours almost did me in:-) It was a Blast. > The comments by Mike Schaffer are excellent, I'm happy that he is sharing his experience with us. There are a couple of observations that I'd like to add. First, he has a Yusmar-1, and you have a Yusmar-2. While comparing the numbers on the two isn't exactly like comparing apple to oranges, there will be differences in the numbers, so don't be surpised. Second, he says that hydrodynamically there is no difference in calculating Head from the inlet pipe or the outlet pipe. I simply have to disagree. I have too much respect for you guys to say that your formulas are flat out wrong, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding why you can't see what I am seeing. I suppose that part of the problem is that in the marine industry we spend a great deal of time working with pumps and plumbing, and you guys don't have the opportunity to do that on a regular basis. I've personally rebuilt hundreds of pumps, and fit miles of pipe in my life, and I KNOW the limitations of the formulas. The simple fact is that is harder to suck water than it is to throw it, and that fact will become apparent to you eventually. If you'll notice in the pictures accompanying C. Tinsley's article, Y. Potopov has quite a number of configurations for his devices, but the pumps are always as close to the floor as he can get them. I don't normally advocate a "monkey-see; monkey-do" approach very often, but in this case, since Potapov is reportedly getting 300% efficiency rates, and you are getting 80% rates, maybe you should take a closer look at how he does it. Right now you are just getting the general running characteristics of the device under your belt anyway, so the numbers aren't that important at this stage. Once you get the device operating in the overunity ranges, you can start dissecting the fine details and figure out the conditions that make it run optimally. It's going to be a lot of work for you, and you might as well start off with a configuration that most closely resembles the Potapov configuration just to establish a reference point for further experiment. Potapov has undoubtably made many mistakes and taken years to come up with his current designs. You should take as much of an advantage as you can, short of buying a complete system. > You also had a very good question about the direction of flow in the secondary output pipe. I don't know of any way to test for flow direction without intalling something into the pipe itself. I would like to know if the shape of the inside of the device itself matches the shape of the outside - i.e are there any baffles, flow directors, or flow "lenses" inside the can? Is there a diagram of the inside of the device? -Knuke > From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 02:53:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AB01607; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 02:18:25 -0700 Received: from big.aa.net by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00742; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 01:52:36 -0700 Received: from d112.aa.net (d112.aa.net [204.157.220.112]) by big.aa.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA00307 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 11:27:22 -0700 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 11:27:22 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199507011827.LAA00307@big.aa.net> X-Sender: knuke@aa.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: knuke@aa.net (Michael T. Huffman) Subject: Re: Potapov bypass pipe Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Thanks for joining us, Mike Schaffer. > >>(By the way, my Yusmar does not have the "bypass" loop, and there is >>not even a hole where one could be installed, just solid metal. > >Appears to be standard issue. Chris says it's drilled at installation time. > We don't know why yet. > >>about 3.3 psi or about 7 ft or 2 m of hydraulic head. > >This is pretty low. How about it, Knuke? I hadn't done the calcs as >Schaffer has...his figures would indicate that it is not so bad to have an >open system. > >>The only way I can see that there will be cavitation in the Yusmar is by very >>strong turbulence, such that local pressures reach zero. > >This brings me to the crux of my message: > >Do we know which way the water flows in the "bypass" line? Should it, in >fact, be called a "recirculation" line. If there is a low pressure region >in the center of the main vortex, then it stands to reason that water would >flow "backwards" through this line from the bottom of the long tube into the >center of the main vortex. Perhaps the arrival of this rotationally >stationary water is what sets up the shear planes for the cavitation. > > >Scott Little >EarthTech International, Inc. 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > Sorry about not getting back to you immediately on this, but I've been working and playing pretty hard this week. After years of encouraging him to do so, my best friend finally bought an 18' Bayliner inboard. It meant widening his driveway, which I gave him a hand with. The physical labor of that, combined with the 90+ degree F weather that we've been blessed with in Seattle, plus the fact that we had to test run the boat for 12 hours almost did me in:-) It was a Blast. The comments by Mike Schaffer are excellent, I'm happy that he is sharing his experience with us. There are a couple of observations that I'd like to add. First, he has a Yusmar-1, and you have a Yusmar-2. While comparing the numbers on the two isn't exactly like comparing apple to oranges, there will be differences in the numbers, so don't be surpised. Second, he says that hydrodynamically there is no difference in calculating Head from the inlet pipe or the outlet pipe. I simply have to disagree. I have too much respect for you guys to say that your formulas are flat out wrong, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding why you can't see what I am seeing. I suppose that part of the problem is that in the marine industry we spend a great deal of time working with pumps and plumbing, and you guys don't have the opportunity to do that on a regular basis. I've personally rebuilt hundreds of pumps, and fit miles of pipe in my life, and I KNOW the limitations of the formulas. The simple fact is that is harder to suck water than it is to throw it, and that fact will become apparent to you eventually. If you'll notice in the pictures accompanying C. Tinsley's article, Y. Potopov has quite a number of configurations for his devices, but the pumps are always as close to the floor as he can get them. I don't normally advocate a "monkey-see; monkey-do" approach very often, but in this case, since Potapov is reportedly getting 300% efficiency rates, and you are getting 80% rates, maybe you should take a closer look at how he does it. Right now you are just getting the general running characteristics of the device under your belt anyway, so the numbers aren't that important at this stage. Once you get the device operating in the overunity ranges, you can start dissecting the fine details and figure out the conditions that make it run optimally. It's going to be a lot of work for you, and you might as well start off with a configuration that most closely resembles the Potapov configuration just to establish a reference point for further experiment. Potapov has undoubtably made many mistakes and taken years to come up with his current designs. You should take as much of an advantage as you can, short of buying a complete system. You also had a very good question about the direction of flow in the secondary output pipe. I don't know of any way to test for flow direction without intalling something into the pipe itself. I would like to know if the shape of the inside of the device itself matches the shape of the outside - i.e are there any baffles, flow directors, or flow "lenses" inside the can? Is there a diagram of the inside of the device? -Knuke From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 05:30:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA13656; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 05:04:52 -0700 Received: from GAV.GAT.COM by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA12588; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 04:35:59 -0700 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 0:05:47 -0700 (PDT) From: SCHAFFER@vaxk.gat.com To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Message-Id: <950701000547.20212194@vaxk.gat.com> Subject: Vortex and "Bypass" tube Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've thought a bit about the Yusmar vortex and the "bypass" or "feedback" tube. I think Scott Little's suggestion is right, and it is a feedback tube. To understand the rough outline ("zeroth order" in physicist language) of the water flow pattern in the device, let us consider the device first without any feedback tube. The inlet water is accelerated by the combined pressure drops of the inlet nozzle and the swirl chamber at the inlet end. The water then flows slowly axially along the long tube while swirling rapidly azimuthally. Provided viscous dissipation of the associated angular momentum is not too great (this is a good approximation near the entrance end, but it might not be so good near the exit), the swirling makes a vortex with zero absolute pressure (except for a low vapor pressure) along the length of the tube. The void is larger than I anticipated; I calculate that it occupies about half of the tube inner diameter. The vortex described above is stable or nearly stable. Viscosity dissipates angular momentum and azimuthal velocity, and this causes the void diameter to shrink toward the outlet end. There is bound to be some turbulence, but basically the flow is orderly. There does not seem to be any way to get cavitation out of this flow. The feedback tube changes the situation. The feedback tube conducts water from the the output end near the wall to the center of the vortex at the entrance end. Because the vortex has almost zero absolute pressure at its center and maximum pressure at the wall, the pressure difference drives water back to the center of the entrance and injects a jet of water axially along the vortex. This situation of rapid axial and azimuthal flows in the long tube has large shear and will be very unstable and will develop strong turbulence. Therefore, the feedback tube would appear to be make an important difference in the fluid flow pattern. Presumeably it also affects excess energy production, if any. The combination of axial and azimuthal flows and their mixing can be influenced by throttling the Yusmar outlet (increases pressure in the tube and decreases the inner diameter of the swirling water) and throttling the feedback tube (less axial flow). Throttling the Yusmar outlet will also affect the flow through the feedback tube. In Infinite Energy, vol. 1, no. 2, the feedback tube connects to the long swirl tube (before the reduction in diameter to the outlet flange) in the photos of p. 34 bottom and p. 37 top, and to the narrowed outlet tube in the photo of p. 34 top. However, there is no provision for connecting a feedback tube in the (finished?) Yusmars of p. 35 top nor in the partially completed Yusmars of p. 35 bottom. My Yusmar-1 has no feedback tube, nor are there any holes or even marks to indicate that there should be one. The Yusmar instruction manual figures 1, 3 and 4 show feedback tubes, but the manual makes no mention of them. The manual makes no mention of the need to drill holes and connect a feedback tube in the field--a glaring omission if indeed the feedback is important. >>>Peter Gluck and Chris Tinsley, do you know if the feedback tube is necessary? Peter, how were the excess heat tests that you witnessed conducted? A final thought--a speculation on the economics of Yusmar heaters in Eastern Europe...If electricity is cheap and other forms of energy are expensive, then a Yusmar even without excess energy might still be cheaper than what the customer had before. And Yusmars might still be sold successfully despite competition from resistance heaters if Vizor has a good advertising campaign, particularly if the campaign claims excess energy. >>>Peter Gluck, do you know the energy situation in the Yusmar market areas? Mike Schaffer fax: 619 455 4156 tel: 619 455 2841 From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 09:36:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA03277; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 08:52:52 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01727; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 08:31:24 -0700 Received: from net-1-143.eden.com (net-1-143.eden.com [199.171.21.143]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA16789 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199507021522.KAA16789@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: While Eskimo was down. #1 X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I sent this out during the outage to Chris, Jed and Gene: Eskimo.com is down (no FTP, no WEB, no Nothing)!...which means that Vortex-L is out of commission for a while. I can't talk to Bill Beaty as a result so I have no idea how long this outage will last. I've been working on the bypass loop and have come up with something I'd like to share...it may not be worth much but its yours to do with as you see fit: My Yusmar's outlet tube is 1.92" ID....this appears to be a Russian (metric) pipe size that is just a bit smaller than our 2" pipe. Interestingly, there are two sizes of common US tubular material that seem just right for the outlet diameter reduction and the "bypass" line. My Yusmar did not come with a diameter reduction at the end of its outlet tube...however, it does have the spoiler plate inside the outlet tube. I have discovered that the inside area of 1-1/4" pipe (which is actually 1.36 ID) is 0.50 times the area of my outlet tube, just what Chris Tinsley learned it should be from his trip to Moldavia. I have also discovered that 3/4" thinwall EMT (electrical conduit) has an ID of 0.825" which yields an area that is 0.185 of the outlet tube area....pretty close to the 0.20 figure that Chris provided. Fortified with hope and enthusiasm, I have fabricated a nice-looking bypass line from this tubing using a standard conduit bender. My bypass closely resembles the ones in the photos except it is a bit larger...dictated by the fixed radius of my conduit bender. I drilled and tapped the closed end of the Yusmar vortex chamber for 3/4 NPT and I am going to try using standard EMT conduit hubs (which have 3/4 NPT male threads) except I'll replace the little ferrule piece with a -1XX O-ring that fits pretty well and will be compressed nicely when the nut is snugged down. I drilled a 7/8" hole in the side of the main outlet tube (just above where my outlet diameter reduction will be installed) just as it appears in the photos. Over this hole I welded a 3/4" steel (not cast iron) coupling to provide 3/4" NPT female threads for another EMT conduit hub. I realize this is a bit kludgy, but I'll have it working early next week and I believe it will satisfy the bypass requirement as well as could be done working from photographs and the relatively sketchy info we have. I will also put a press/vac gauge into a small port in the side of this line near the main vortex chamber so I can see what the pressure in there is doing. I'll also arrange to measure the temperature of this line with a contact probe of some sort so we can see of it is hotter (or cooler) than the rest of the system. Comments? From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 09:36:20 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA03618; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 08:53:14 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AB01796; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 08:35:41 -0700 Received: from net-1-143.eden.com (net-1-143.eden.com [199.171.21.143]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA16773 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199507021522.KAA16773@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: While Eskimo was down. #2 X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: While eskimo was down, Chris Tinsley sent me this in response to my msg: Date: 01 Jul 95 17:27:29 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: , Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, Gene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> Subject: Bypass loops To:internet:little@eden.com;jed;gene Scott, (I'm going to rely on you to repost any exchanges onto Bill's system when it comes back on line) What bothers me is this business of how your machine has no constriction on the output port. I very much regret (not for the first time) that I didn't take still shots of all those Y-2s set up for transport, all 200 of them with pumps and motors. But what I do have is shots of the four sizes of vortex tube on the floor of Potapov's office. In that shot, you can't see the output end of the Y-4 properly, but the other three sizes are clearly shown with this threaded piece of noticeably smaller diameter than the actual vortex tube itself. /| |/ /| |/ <---threaded /| |/ /| |/ _(| |)_ <---welded | | | | | | <---output end of vortex tube | | | | | | <---'spoiler' inside output end of tube | | | | I hate doing those 'drawings'. It has been commented that the Y machines have a common ratio of length to diameter. I *estimate* (from photos) that the diameters of the Y-1 and Y-2 (the outside of the main vortex tube) are in the ratio 11:15. The *internal diameter of the threaded 'end piece'* of the Y-1 is 30mm. I don't have the Y-1 to hand here, or I would give the external diameter of the Y-1 main tube. Also, the pile of Y-3 tubes in one factory all have the restricting threaded endpiece. So, what bothers me is that somebody seems to have cut the extraneous little extra bit off the end of Scott's tube. (I believe there is a technical term for this process). If my ratios are correct, the little bit should have an internal diameter of 30*15/11mm, or 41mm, or 1.61". Let's see what you get, ah, quite a lot bigger. Um. (Brief pause for paranoia). Now I have to search my archive disks. Urrggh. Wish I had a real computer . . . Well, Peter's figure are for a ratio between Y-1 and Y-2 diameters of 1:1.41. Which means my estimate from the photographs is about correct, and *either* Scott's Yusmar-2 has been circ . . I mean truncated . . or the calculation should be based on the i.d.of the vortex tube itself. Now, I did wonder about all this, because the bypass tubes on allthe Y-1s I saw were just over 0.5" and obviously (by the bend marks) thin-walled. That seemed *much* too small to be 20%, based on the diameter of the vortex tube itself, but it would be *correct* for 20% of the outlet tube of 30mm. Not good news, since Scott has done all this hard work on the Y-2. But I insist that EVERY Yusmar I saw had this constrictor fitted as standard, and that 20% does fit the appearance of both the Y-1 *AND* (as far as I can see) for the Y-2s. (I mean the by-pass tubes of the fully built-up systems). So, why doesn't Scott's have it? And, for what it may be worth, I think that the bypass tube should run from the box-on-the-end-near-the-inlet to just beyond the outlet pipe. I *think* that the effect is to allow the actual vortex tube to heat up quickly, *and* to have the right flow ratios. That arrangement seems to be the most common one. I suspect that Potapov simply forgot something crucial about the way you have to build the 'inside a tank' variant, so we are pretty much stuck with the system like in the photos. I feel frustrated by my lack of 'feel' for fluid dynamics. Chris From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 14:56:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA25536; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 14:21:11 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA23806; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 13:55:06 -0700 Received: from net-1-143.eden.com (net-1-143.eden.com [199.171.21.143]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA16770 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:21:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:21:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199507021521.KAA16770@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Experts, Potapov, Life, and the Pursuit of Happiness X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ahhh! Vortex-L is back. Thank goodness. A round of applause for Bill Beaty who set this all up...it's turned out to be damned useful. It's like having a whole engineering team working on the problem. Peter Gluck: Your experience is highly valued, don't underestimate it. Your suggestion that we utilize existing expertise in cavitation is excellent and appropriate but I think the timing is wrong. We should contact those guys AFTER we have observed the Potapov effect, to help us understand it. If we go to them now and say, "How would you suggest arranging a water cavitation so it produces 300% more energy than it takes to create it?", they would stare at us blankly (or laugh like crazy). No, at this delicate point in the life of the Potapov effect, it is HE that should be helping us (Jed, from your recent comments on spf, I'm counting you with me on this one). Surely Potapov must realize that if we succeed in replicating his effect, he is destined to become the most famous (and wealthiest) physicist of all time. Why isn't he bending over backwards to help us? Is it simply because we haven't asked him to help? Jed: As chief negotiator for the group, perhaps you could initiate an appeal to Potapov (thru VIZOR, I guess) for help in replicating the "Potapov effect". If nothing else, he should provide engineering drawings of the bypass/recirc loop. Ideally, he would give us step-by-step instructions for getting "the effect" including what not to do. Make sure in your request that they realize that. if we succeed, they succeed. Editorial Comment: If we don't succeed in our efforts, Potapov presumably still has a thriving business. If Schaffer's suggestion is correct, that there are economic reasons that make a Yusmar cheaper, say 3 times cheaper, for heating than fossil fuels, then Potapov is pretty safe...that is until someone goes into competition with him selling heaters that consist of standard resistive heating elements and a small circulation pump. Mike Schaffer: Please measure the OD of the main outlet tube of your Yusmar and tell me what it is. To All: I have opened the main vortex chamber of my Yusmar (the weld was removed via grinder...and bolts+gasket added to reclose it for operation) and the inside looks like this: . . . . . . . . . . . <--- IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <--------- 2.5" -------------> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I describe this in my preliminary report. The main outlet is 2" in diameter and occupies almost all of one end of this chamber (i.e. only a 1/4" wide strip of "end wall" remains around the outside of the outlet. This chamber is obviously machined, probably with modern CBC tooling (at least that's how it would be done here) and it has a rather sophisticated shape. The main part appears to be cylindrical and the inlet passage seems to spiral smoothly into the main part (the drawing above does not do it justice!). Bye for now. From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 15:08:55 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA27173; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 14:36:52 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA25486; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 14:17:24 -0700 Received: from net-1-143.eden.com (net-1-143.eden.com [199.171.21.143]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id KAA16792 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:22:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199507021522.KAA16792@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: While Eskimo was down. #3 X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: And this is my reply to Chris: Thanks for all your thoughts, Chris. I can clear up some of your questions... >What bothers me is this business of how your machine has no constriction on the >output port. That end of my unit appears to bave been modified. > /| |/ > /| |/ <---threaded > /| |/ > /| |/ > _(| |)_ <---welded > | | | > | | | <---output end of vortex tube > | | | > | | | <---'spoiler' inside output end of tube > | | > | | > >I hate doing those 'drawings'. You did well.... Mine looks like this: > | | | > | | | <---output end of vortex tube > | | | > | | | <---'spoiler' inside output end of tube > | | > | | I have welded on a short piece of 2" pipe into which the bypass line will connect after which the reduction will occur, thusly: | | __| |__ <-----diameter reduction | | | | | \________ | | <---- bypass line | ________ | / | | | | (| |) <---weld > | | | > | | | <---output end of vortex tube > | | | > | | | <---'spoiler' inside output end of tube > | | > | | (Gee! I hate doing them, too...I'm pretty good with a little CAD program I have and (1) it's ton's faster and (2) it looks much better....wish that kind of images could be smoothly integrated into these email messages...BTW, does your software support MIME encoded attachments to email messages? With those, it is practical to exchange complex PC files such as Word documents, etc.) >That seemed *much* too small to be 20%, based on the diameter of >the vortex tube itself, but it would be *correct* for 20% of the outlet tube of >30mm. Could it be, Chris, that it should be 20% of the REDUCED outlet size? >Not good news, since Scott has done all this hard work on the Y-2. Didn't take all that long...in fact, I'll probably make another one out of 1/2" EMT if this one doesn't "work". >And, for what it may be worth, I think that the bypass tube should run >from the >box-on-the-end-near-the-inlet to just beyond the outlet pipe. Now, Chris, here's where your photos do come in handy. In the latest IE there are three photos which go to this issue. On the first one the attachment location is a bit ambiguous. On the second, which is a photo of a Yusmar-1 test rig, you can clearly see that they have attached the bypass into the large diameter portion of the outlet, just before the diameter reduction. This is evident also in the third photo which is an older one that appeared in a Russian business journal and shows Lev Sapogin, what's-his-name from ENECO, a cosmonaut all decorated with medals, and another guy. Do you see this as I do, Chris? Also of interest in that photo is the fact that the reduced diameter portion of the outlet pipe is very short...about 1 diameter!...then it grows to a diameter even larger than the outlet pipe. That's all for now. Please forward this to Gluck as well. PS. I received official word from Bill Beaty about Eskimo. They got raided by a hacker who penetrated their security system. He guesses they'll be back up in a day or so. Jed, you sed: >It sounds like you are working hard! If it does not work, we need >to get someone from Vizor over here. Why don't you go ahead and ask them if that service is available...I'd like to see what they say. (my connection with them is rather convoluted and tenuous at best) From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 17:46:06 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA09133; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 17:12:27 -0700 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA06864; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:40:33 -0700 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id SAA14162; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:44:38 -0400 Date: 02 Jul 95 18:43:06 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Vortex and 'bypass' tube. Message-Id: <950702224306_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: internet:vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com A comment or two on Mike Schaffer's note. First, though, yes, Scott. I do believe that the 50% and 20% values are to be based on the reduced output tube diameter. that would be 30mm for a Y-1, and 42mm for a Y-2 I simply do not know enough about these vortex tubes to be very helpful. But Mike's description is not the same as Potapov's. He says that there is no (or no significant) void at the axis. He says there is a 10kV potential between centre and perimeter. Someone told me today that high-pressure jets (as in fire hoses) cause sparks. Potapov says that the cavitation occurs at the distance from the perimeter where the velocity gradient is steepest, and occurs as a result of shear between water layers. Note that I am reporting what the man says, not my own ideas - 'cos I have none of those. I wish we had a Yusmar 'initiation chamber', with a transparent vortex tube. As it is, we simply do not know if we are getting cavitation at all. As I understand it, the manual makes no reference to the bypass tube because it is always present. Again, I must point out that these things are sold as *tuned systems*. All we have is the vital part of the system. It can't be as bad as trying to get a thermionic tube working without knowing that it needs a low voltage across the heater as well as a high one between cathode and anode, but it may not be much better than that. There is no manual for the tube, because they don't normally *sell* tubes. Chris From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 17:54:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA10389; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 17:21:36 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA08826; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 17:10:06 -0700 Received: from net-1-151.eden.com (net-1-151.eden.com [199.171.21.151]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id VAA00558 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:34:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:34:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199507010234.VAA00558@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: Pressure loss in open systems X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Schaffer provided a useful formula for computing approximate pressure loss associated with accelerating water from a still chamber up to the speed it travels in a pipe. In my test system, the suction line is 2" ID. At 65 gpm, a flow rate that is in the middle of the range for my Yusmar-2, the velocity works out to 4782 in/min and the rho*v^2 value is only 0.6 psi. In other words, I've got such a big pipe that the pressure penalty of having an open system is negligible. Knuke, does this fit at all into your experiences? Any comments on my "recirculation" vs "bypass" question this morning? - Scott Little, EarthTech International, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 18:25:42 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA00196; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:09:17 -0700 Received: from halcyon.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01064; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 01:20:41 -0700 Received: by halcyon.com id AA28410 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for vortex-l@eskimo.com); Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:33:50 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:33:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp." To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Pathological Skepticism Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can anyone think of other good ones to add? Has anyone seen such a list before? ************************************************************************ SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM - Blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system. - Seeing the ridicule and suppression of new ideas as a desirable "natural selection" force. - Constant altering of requirements for proof. "I'll believe it when 'X' happens," but when it does; "I'll believe it when Y happens." - Blind to the lessons of history: "Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, space flight, meteors, etc. Isn't it good that such things cannot happen today?" - Belief that all progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps. - " 'X' cannot be true, or we would already know about it." - Hiding of evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. " 'X' is obviously ridiculous, and it's supporters should be silenced" without warning becomes "since 'X' is obviously true, it follows that..." - Follows the 'herd,' changes opinions to stay in line with popular beliefs MORE? and last but very much NOT least: - Blindness to any evidence of the above symptoms in self or peers. ===================================+================================== Bill Beaty Eaton/Cutler-Hammer Corp. Industrial Optoelectronics 720 80th St. SW voice: 1-800-426-9184 Everett, WA 98203-6299 fax: 1-206-347-0544 From owner-vortex-l Sun Jul 2 18:54:37 1995 Return-Path: Received: by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA04300; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:35:42 -0700 Received: from matrix.eden.com by mail.eskimo.com (5.65c/1.35) id AA01392; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 01:28:22 -0700 Received: from net-1-149.eden.com (net-1-149.eden.com [199.171.21.149]) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.12.1) with SMTP id AAA12345 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 00:31:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 00:31:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199507010531.AAA12345@matrix.eden.com> X-Sender: little@eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Subject: bypass loop design X-Mailer: Sender: owner-vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My Yusmar's outlet tube is 1.92" ID....this appears to be a Russian (metric) pipe size that is just a bit smaller than our 2" pipe. Interestingly, there are two sizes of common US tubular material that seem just right for the outlet diameter reduction and the "bypass" line. My Yusmar did not come with a diameter reduction at the end of its outlet tube...however, it does have the spoiler plate inside the outlet tube. I have discovered that the inside area of 1-1/4" pipe is 0.50 times the area of my outlet tube, just what Chris Tinsley learned it should be from his trip to Moldavia. I have also discovered that 3/4" thinwall EMT (electrical conduit) has an ID of 0.825" which yields an area that is 0.185 of the outlet tube area....pretty close to the 0.20 figure that Chris provided. So today I have fabricated a nice-looking bypass line from this tubing using a standard conduit bender. My bypass closely resembles the ones in the photos except it is a bit larger...dictated by the fixed radius of my conduit bender. I drilled and tapped the closed end of the Yusmar vortex chamber for 3/4 NPT and I am going to try using standard EMT conduit hubs (which have 3/4 NPT male threads) except I'll replace the little ferrule piece with a -1XX O-ring that fits pretty well and will be compressed nicely when the nut is snugged down. I drilled a 7/8" hole in the side of the main outlet tube (just above where my outlet diameter reduction will be installed) just as it appears in the photos. Over this hole I welded a 3/4" steel (not cast iron) coupling to provide 3/4" NPT female threads for another EMT conduit hub. I realize this is a bit kludgy, but I'll have it working early next week and I believe it will satisfy the bypass requirement as well as could be done working from photographs and the relatively sketchy info we have. I will also put a press/vac gauge into a small port in the side of this line near the main vortex chamber so I can see what the pressure in there is doing. I'll also arrange to measure the temperature of this line with a contact probe of some sort so we can see of it is hotter (or cooler) than the rest of the system. Comments?