Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen

Science > Physics > Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"William J. Beaty"
Date:	22 Jul 2004 02:28:49 AM
Object:	Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen

Here's an easier way to experiment with "maser theory" Ball
Lightning at home.
Bigger better balls, M. Crowley
http://amasci.com/tesla/bigball2.html
.

User: "Fred Bloggs"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	23 Jul 2004 09:54:08 AM

This is not "experiment"- it is a manifestation of arrested development.
Dressing like a slob and assuming a mindless existence, although in form
with a comic book portrayal of eccentric scientific genius, will not
actually make you one.
William J. Beaty wrote:

Here's an easier way to experiment with "maser theory" Ball
Lightning at home.

Bigger better balls, M. Crowley
http://amasci.com/tesla/bigball2.html

User: "Winfield Hill"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	24 Jul 2004 08:27:29 AM

Fred Bloggs wrote...

Here's an easier way to experiment with "maser theory" Ball
Lightning at home.

Bigger better balls, M. Crowley
http://amasci.com/tesla/bigball2.html

Much of the stuff William J. Beaty comes up with is a joy to
behold, and often it's quite inspiring, so we certainly don't
want to disparage it or or discourage him in any way.
In fact, just the opposite.
Thanks,
- Win
(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)
.

User: "Roy McCammon"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	24 Jul 2004 01:05:48 PM

Fred Bloggs wrote:

William's having fun and trying to share it. Somehing a lot of us
used to do, but don't anymore.
Bill Beaty won't you please keep at it.
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	27 Jul 2004 03:45:34 PM

Roy McCammon <rmccammon@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<4102A50C.8060803@austin.rr.com>...

Fred Bloggs wrote:

William's having fun and trying to share it. Somehing a lot of us
used to do, but don't anymore.

Hi Roy! That "Balls" article is by a hobbyist who attends our
monthly meetings in Seattle:
WEIRD SCIENCE SALON
http://amasci.com/wsci/
If you're ever in Seattle, and feel a need to torment a very abused
microwave oven... :)

Bill Beaty won't you please keep at it.

I suggest thinking twice before replying to people on Usenet
who behave as this person does. In unmoderated forums, really
the only way to help the ones who suffer from the "flamer" disease
is to ignore them entirely. I know it's hard to resist when you
see an classic flamer abusing someone. But responding to their
streams of insults invariably makes their condition worse. See:
Email lists: flamewar psychology
http://www.amasci.com/lists.html#fl
"Flamer:" an actual personality disorder?
http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html
megalothymia - the need to be seen as being superior to other people.
Also highly recommended:
The gallery of typical flamer types (hilarious!)
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
And to everyone else, please remember that "The secret of genius is
to carry the spirit of childhood into maturity." - T. H. Huxley
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Fred Bloggs"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	24 Jul 2004 10:29:02 PM

Roy McCammon wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

This is not "experiment"- it is a manifestation of arrested
development. Dressing like a slob and assuming a mindless existence,
although in form with a comic book portrayal of eccentric scientific
genius, will not actually make you one.

William's having fun and trying to share it. Somehing a lot of us
used to do, but don't anymore.

Bill Beaty won't you please keep at it.

Burning up toxic substances and exploding pyrex in a microwave oven is fun?
.

User: "Roy McCammon"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	25 Jul 2004 01:09:47 AM

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Burning up toxic substances and exploding pyrex in a microwave oven is fun?

sure, but as adults we have to take proper safety precautions.
If you want to encourage Mr. Beaty to be careful, you have my support.
.

User: "Don Klipstein"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	25 Jul 2004 09:07:02 PM

In article <410328FB.7090400@nospam.com>, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Roy McCammon wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

This is not "experiment"- it is a manifestation of arrested
development. Dressing like a slob and assuming a mindless existence,
although in form with a comic book portrayal of eccentric scientific
genius, will not actually make you one.

William's having fun and trying to share it. Somehing a lot of us
used to do, but don't anymore.

Bill Beaty won't you please keep at it.

Burning up toxic substances and exploding pyrex in a microwave oven is fun?

Burning up carbon fiber "veil"? What's so toxic about that?
As described, no pyrex explodes. Lesser grades of glass used in place
may break.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind what I have heard naturally occurring "ball lightning" to
be described as, and I once saw one of these examples:
1. Lightning hits something and a puff of incandescent vapor blows
downwind and keeps on glowing for a fraction of a second to maybe a second
or two after the strike. The glow may be from flaming organic vapor, or
more likely from as little as micrograms of vapors of sodium
compound vapors - such as from perspiration from the human hands that
installed the struck object.
Keep in mind that sodium compound vapors even at a fraction of 1 PPM
concentration (in air at atmospheric pressure) glow at temperatures as low
as ~1250 degrees C or ~1500 K, while air needs to be about 3250-3500
degrees C or 3500-3800 degrees K to glow that brightly. At temperatures
much higher than this, air cools rapidly from radiation - even when below
the roughly 8,000 K or whatever needed for air to glow brightly, air has
enough argon that radiates efficiently in a bunch of near-infrared lines
until the temperature is around or somewhat under 5,000 degrees K.
Sodium vapor glowing dimly usually looks close to neon-orange in
comparison to overcast daylight.
2. Human vision may have an afterimage of a bright spot where lightning
struck, and that point can be extra-bright if there was at least several
micrograms of sodium compounds vaporized there! Vapors of many metals,
especially copper, zinc ("galvanizing") and iron, also glow more brightly
than air does!
(Zinc has been used sometimes in the pre-metal-halide-lamp era as a
mercury vapor lamp additive, and further in the past an iron ore
[magnetite] has been used for arc lamp streetlights!)
"Positive afterimages" of especially bright lightning impact points can
appear as bright spots that are in front of you wherever you look, and do
this for 1/2-1 second to maybe as much as a few seconds before fading to a
more ordinary "spot in your eyes".
3. Many instances of "ball lightning" that I have seen in the literature
appear to me consistent with globs of molten metal dropping from the
strike point and rolling around.
Molten metals normally do not wet and stick to most objects, but instead
ball up and roll with low friction the way mercury does - but usually even
more so! Drops of some molten metals can be of marble size and nearly
spherical!
Drops of molten metal can cause whatever they roll along to gas out
vapors and steam, sometimes causing incandescent rolling drops of molten
metal to be slightly airborne and causing surprisingly minimal and
unsteady burn damage where they roll!
Iron can burn, steel does so more easily (steel wool is flammable), and
in some circumstances aluminum can do what magnesium is famous for doing!
Drops of molten/burning metals can appear larger to frightened surprised
viewers, and can cause lingering "positive afterimages" that follow their
lines of sight wherever they look for s few seconda afterwards!
4. I have heard of "ball lightling" being spirits/souls (maybe from
recently nearby deceased animals/pets if non-human) that derive energy
from lightning strikes to transiently become forms that physically
manifest themselves, if only for a few seconds.
According to some "theory" by promponents of such things, this is
something that will tend to avoid laboratory scrutiny the way ESP has.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	27 Jul 2004 04:02:25 PM

(Don Klipstein) wrote in message news:<slrncg8pq5.31c.

>...

Keep in mind what I have heard naturally occurring "ball lightning" to
be described as, and I once saw one of these examples:

1. Lightning hits something and a puff of incandescent vapor blows

2. Human vision may have an afterimage of a bright spot where lightning

3. Many instances of "ball lightning" that I have seen in the literature
appear to me consistent with globs of molten metal dropping from the

4. I have heard of "ball lightling" being spirits/souls (maybe from

Ball Lightning turned "legit" over the last decade or two, and has
its own research conferences with proceedings publications (etc.)
See links at http://amasci.com/tesla/ballgtn.html
"BL" typically appears as a glowing sphere which lasts for many tens
of seconds. As you say, there are several theories which predict
glowing gas in everyday conditions in the outdoors, but most of them
don't predict a glowing sphere which drifts horizontally for quite
long periods. (Obviously a hot gas would rise like a balloon.)
The microwave-oven version of "BL" isn't a good explanation. So-called
"Maser Theory" BL would require that an intense source of naturally-
occurring RF energy be present. And the resulting plasmoid would be
quite hot inside, so it would rise rapidly rather than drifting on
the wind.
Here's a very large collection of anecdotal reports. Before dismissing
these, keep in mind that quite a few professional researchers have
witnessed "BL," and their descriptions match the ones that people
have typed into this website:
http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/bl.html
One of the continuing "myths" about BL is that it is extremely rare.
In fact it is quite common, and several percent of the USA population
has witnessed it personally. If this is so, then why the widespread
disbelief (especially in the physics community?) It's probably because
caused by the reasons detailed here:
http://www.amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.txt
I particularly liked the story of the lightning research staff where
several members had seen BL, but they never said anything because
all were afraid of being labeled as "lightning-ball quacks." The
rarity of BL became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, if most of the reports come from the public and not from
scientists, sometimes it's not because the public is untrustworthy;
sometimes it's that scientists are afraid to damage their reputations
by speak up when they personally encounter phenomena which are widely
regarded as not really existing. This demonstrates the large flaw
in the classic skeptical argument... "If such things were real,
then scientists would report them as often as the general public does."
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Paul M Koloc"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	25 Jul 2004 11:00:13 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <410328FB.7090400@nospam.com>, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Roy McCammon wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

This is not "experiment"- it is a manifestation of arrested
development. Dressing like a slob and assuming a mindless existence,
although in form with a comic book portrayal of eccentric scientific
genius, will not actually make you one.

William's having fun and trying to share it. Somehing a lot of us
used to do, but don't anymore.

Bill Beaty won't you please keep at it.

Burning up toxic substances and exploding pyrex in a microwave oven is fun?

[snip]

2. Human vision may have an afterimage of a bright spot where lightning
struck, and that point can be extra-bright if there was at least several
micrograms of sodium compounds vaporized there! Vapors of many metals,
especially copper, zinc ("galvanizing") and iron, also glow more brightly
than air does!

[snip]

3. Many instances of "ball lightning" that I have seen in the literature
appear to me consistent with globs of molten metal dropping from the
strike point and rolling around.

[snip]

Drops of molten/burning metals can appear larger to frightened surprised
viewers, and can cause lingering "positive afterimages" that follow their
lines of sight wherever they look for s few seconda afterwards!

4. I have heard of "ball lightling" being spirits/souls (maybe from
recently nearby deceased animals/pets if non-human) that derive energy
from lightning strikes to transiently become forms that physically
manifest themselves, if only for a few seconds.
According to some "theory" by promponents of such things, this is
something that will tend to avoid laboratory scrutiny the way ESP has.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

We have been looking at the question of BL for a number of years, and we
have done experiments in STP air that have produced smaller and less
long lived magnetoplasmoids than natural BL. However, we are
endeavoring to extend the lifetime of a large magnetoplasmoid (30-40 cm
diameter) to a number of seconds or even a minute or more. However, we
need to add another fast bank (180 uFd; 2 usec rise) to the front end of
our present (larger) 450 uFd crowbarred bank before this will happen.
Still, peruse our web sites in the sig below, just to see some of the
neat BL effects and stuff we have done. Sorry but the sites are not
updated with the latest work.
--
The Grand One Dimension (GOD) infinite information|operator density.
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul Miroslav Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FX (301) 434-6737:
|--PH (301) 445-1075 ; mailto:pmk@plasmak.com
|--Raising Support ; //www.neoteric-research.org
|--Grid Power ; //www.prometheus2.net
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
.

User: "Ben Bradley"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	26 Jul 2004 11:58:15 AM

In sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

According to some "theory" by promponents of such things, this is
something that will tend to avoid laboratory scrutiny the way ESP has.

Who are these proponents? How does ESP avoid laboratory scrutiny?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
.

User: "Don Klipstein"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	31 Jul 2004 01:18:01 PM

In article <61eag05feid34en7k2s0bm1n13glj6f4ji@4ax.com>, Ben Bradley wrote:

In sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

According to some "theory" by promponents of such things, this is
something that will tend to avoid laboratory scrutiny the way ESP has.

Who are these proponents? How does ESP avoid laboratory scrutiny?

I last read books mentioning ball lightning before I ever heard of such
a thing as the Internet, so I am unable to cite those who claim
supernatural explanations for ball lightning.
And my mentioning ESP avoiding laboratory scrutiny was not to claim that
it exists while avoiding laboratory scrutiny.
However, I do believe in it, just as I believe in God - and I don't hear
of many experimental findings withstanding peer review and published in
the major scientific journals showing evidence that God exists.
The "Amazing Randy" has a website where he pokes holes in studies that
show "evidence" that ESP or anything supernatural exists. Either he is
selective about what studies to stab or the supernatural only exists in
ways that avoid leaving evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny.
And there are rewards out there for providing experimental evidence of
ESP that withstands scientific scrutiny.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	01 Aug 2004 01:20:26 PM

(Don Klipstein) wrote in message news:<slrncgnoip.9uo.

>...

I last read books mentioning ball lightning before I ever heard of such
a thing as the Internet, so I am unable to cite those who claim
supernatural explanations for ball lightning.

Apparently a major portion of BL events do not involve thunderstorms.
If BL occurs even when the nearest thunderstorm is far, far away,
then what the hell is BL?

And there are rewards out there for providing experimental evidence of
ESP that withstands scientific scrutiny.

"Scientific?"
I've seen debate over whether the Randi Prize is up front, or
whether all the signed contracts and secrecy surrounding the testing
are interfering with running an honest test.
It depends on whether Randi's group is biased or not. They might
be perfectly honest, yet if they're extremely biased against
accepting ESP, the testing could end up very screwy, yet
outsiders would never know this. In science the same problem
is well known, and the solution is to do everything in broad
daylight, with no secrecy to hide unintentional bias or even
intentional machinations. If Randi's testing is secretive as
ESP-supporters claim, then it's highly unscientific and not to
be trusted to prove anything at all.
"We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise
enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We
know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that
the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire."
- J. Robert Oppenheimer
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 02:21:03 AM

"William J. Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com>

And there are rewards out there for providing experimental evidence of
ESP that withstands scientific scrutiny.

"Scientific?"

I've seen debate over whether the Randi Prize is up front, or
whether all the signed contracts and secrecy surrounding the testing
are interfering with running an honest test.

"Secrecy"? The biggest problem is getting would be Claimants to say exactly
what will constitute a pass or a failure.

It depends on whether Randi's group is biased or not. They might
be perfectly honest, yet if they're extremely biased against
accepting ESP, the testing could end up very screwy, yet
outsiders would never know this.

They don't "run" the tests. The results must be self-evident to any
observer. Read the rules...

In science the same problem
is well known, and the solution is to do everything in broad
daylight, with no secrecy to hide unintentional bias or even
intentional machinations. If Randi's testing is secretive as
ESP-supporters claim, then it's highly unscientific and not to
be trusted to prove anything at all.

It isn't. Anyone who's read the simple rules would understand why this
couldn't happen except at the request of the Claimant. Anyone who's
followed some of the preliminary tests would know that secrecy isn't an
issue. So, why don't you read the rules and post again when you're familiar
wiuth the topic?
le moo
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 02:55:57 AM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:uZlPc.4857$Jq2.306815@news20.bellglobal.com:

I've seen debate over whether the Randi Prize is up front, or
whether all the signed contracts and secrecy surrounding the testing
are interfering with running an honest test.

"Secrecy"? The biggest problem is getting would be Claimants to say
exactly what will constitute a pass or a failure.

Well, Randi does insist on such things as double-blind testing. I suppose
that could be considered a kind of secrecy that inteferrs with the
claimant's ability to produce the predicted results ;-)
--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 10:21:25 AM

"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message

"Secrecy"? The biggest problem is getting would be Claimants to say
exactly what will constitute a pass or a failure.

Well, Randi does insist on such things as double-blind testing. I suppose
that could be considered a kind of secrecy that inteferrs with the
claimant's ability to produce the predicted results ;-)

Lordy! *Please* read the rules. There is absolutely no mention of any sort
of blinding. This may be a requirement for some tests. But many tests
require none at all. The testing of the girl who claimed to be able to see
while blindfolded comes to mind. Again, the biggest problem is getting a
would-be claimant to state exactly what they can do and what will constitute
a win or a failure.
le m
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 08:41:49 PM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:P%sPc.7527$Jq2.386870@news20.bellglobal.com:

Lordy! *Please* read the rules.

OK, that settles it. I pledge never to tell a joke on usenet again. Fer
christ's sake, I even put the smiley face in this time.
--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	03 Aug 2004 01:16:14 AM

"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message

Lordy! *Please* read the rules.

OK, that settles it. I pledge never to tell a joke on usenet again. Fer
christ's sake, I even put the smiley face in this time.

You've spewed the worthless crap of the ineducable fringe. Not even worth
the three minutes I spent researching stuff you should have before you
posted. Do you have any commentary based in factual knowledge?
lm
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	03 Aug 2004 04:21:10 AM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:I6GPc.12223$Jq2.653519@news20.bellglobal.com:

"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message

Lordy! *Please* read the rules.

OK, that settles it. I pledge never to tell a joke on usenet again.
Fer christ's sake, I even put the smiley face in this time.

You've spewed the worthless crap of the ineducable fringe.

OK, maybe it's not entirely my fault. Maybe you just don't get satire.

Not even
worth the three minutes I spent researching stuff you should have
before you posted.

What the ***** is that supposed to mean?

Do you have any commentary based in factual
knowledge?

Well, it's factually apparant that you're a raving lunatic with no sense of
humour.
--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	03 Aug 2004 12:16:11 PM

"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com>

OK, that settles it. I pledge never to tell a joke on usenet again.
Fer christ's sake, I even put the smiley face in this time.

You've spewed the worthless crap of the ineducable fringe.

OK, maybe it's not entirely my fault. Maybe you just don't get satire.

I do. But you've failed to respond to the information that I posted in
response to your query. It address your concerns directly. That's SOP for
kooks. You don't *appear* to be one. But, then again, Gary Schwartz didn't
either, for a short while. If that's your way of saying that you now get
it, it's a bit obtuse, but you have my apologies. If not, respond with an
on-topic commentary or reap the abuse.

Do you have any commentary based in factual
knowledge?

Well, it's factually apparant that you're a raving lunatic with no sense

humour.

Not possible. (The latter anyway.) HD's blood is made of laughter.
lm
xposted to SS where this belongs
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	03 Aug 2004 05:03:13 PM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:pNPPc.17841$Jq2.765229@news20.bellglobal.com:

"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com>

OK, that settles it. I pledge never to tell a joke on usenet
again. Fer christ's sake, I even put the smiley face in this time.

You've spewed the worthless crap of the ineducable fringe.

OK, maybe it's not entirely my fault. Maybe you just don't get
satire.

I do. But you've failed to respond to the information that I posted
in response to your query.

What query? What the ***** are you raving about?

It address your concerns directly.

What concerns? Are you sure you're talking to the person you think you
are?

That's
SOP for kooks. You don't *appear* to be one. But, then again, Gary
Schwartz didn't either, for a short while.

Who the ***** is Gary Schwartz and why should I care?

If that's your way of
saying that you now get it,

Get what? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

it's a bit obtuse, but you have my
apologies. If not, respond with an on-topic commentary or reap the
abuse.

Abuse!? Give it your best shot, clown. I made a joke that Randi himself
has made in his commentary pages. You didn't get it. It could have ended
there.

Do you have any commentary based in factual knowledge?

Well, it's factually apparant that you're a raving lunatic with no
sense of humour.

Not possible. (The latter anyway.) HD's blood is made of laughter.

Not apparant from available evidence.
--
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 11:43:01 AM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<uZlPc.4857$Jq2.306815@news20.bellglobal.com>...

"William J. Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com>

They don't "run" the tests. The results must be self-evident

WHAT RESULTS? Where is the archive of prelim tests?
....and if it's not being done in full public view, then the
Randi group is certainly in control of the tests.

to any observer. Read the rules...

The rules are so good that it justifies secrecy? It doesn't work
that way. If the testing takes place behind closed doors, then
it's unscientific. If the testing is being performed by True
Believers and Debunkers with a big stake in the results turning
out a particular way, then the situation is so full of conflict
of interest that we'd need all sorts of checks and balances
before the results could be trusted. The very first check/
balance is to keep anything from happening behind closed doors
where it can't be inspected.
And worse, all the "psychics," the claimants, have good reason
not to come forward if there's no guarantee that the testing will
be fair. If *I* had any weird claims to submit for testing,
I'd first demand that everything happen in public, and I mean
everything. I've learned from similar situations that you have
to tape record the meetings and make the tapes accessible.
Leave a big paper trail that anyone can inspect online.
This is not science, it more resembles law or politics, and
the first rule is to never trust a lawyer or politician; insist
on removing the slightest bit of secrecy, and installing checks
and balances that halt the effects of bias.
More secrecy: the rules of the challenge aren't even fully
public, since each test requires a different set of customized
rules. Are these rules in an online archive somewhere?
On the other hand, it all could be perfectly honest and up front,
with bias amazingly playing no part. But as long as the doors
remain closed, so there's no uncontrolled outside scrutiny by
the larger communities on both sides of the issue, then we would
do well to assume the worst case. After all, this involves
Believers and Disbelievers; highly biased people with big axes
to grind, and who are more interesting in getting positive
publicity for their side of the debate than in drilling down
to the truth of the matter. I'd sooner trust a used car
salesman than trusting either a True Believer or a Debunker
to get it right.
Am I mistaken about the secrecy? Is the testing being done
with full public disclosure, with all the details online somewhere
but I just haven't found the website that displays all the info?

I haven't seen the preliminary tests. I'll be happy to read
all about them online. All I've seen the tiny bit of stuff on
randi.org, and lots of second hand stories on SCI.SKEPTIC.
I read SKEPTIC, but not SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, so if all the data is
being published in SI but not online, I don't have access to it.
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 05:14:08 PM

"William J. Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com> wrote in message

They don't "run" the tests. The results must be self-evident

WHAT RESULTS? Where is the archive of prelim tests?

...and if it's not being done in full public view, then the
Randi group is certainly in control of the tests.

*****. READ THE RULES!!! Where are the legitimate accusations of bias?
You haven't been following this for long, have you? You haven't read, or
don't understand the rules, do you?
The JREF is currently preparing an online archive. See me previous post.

The rules are so good that it justifies secrecy? It doesn't work
that way. If the testing takes place behind closed doors,

It doesn't (unless agreed upon by both parties). READ THE RULES.

And worse, all the "psychics," the claimants, have good reason
not to come forward if there's no guarantee that the testing will
be fair. If *I* had any weird claims to submit for testing,
I'd first demand that everything happen in public, and I mean
everything. I've learned from similar situations that you have
to tape record the meetings and make the tapes accessible.
Leave a big paper trail that anyone can inspect online.

An application must be notarized. Do you have a claim? You're already
using the "I'd demand" phrase. READ THE RULES.

More secrecy: the rules of the challenge aren't even fully
public, since each test requires a different set of customized
rules. Are these rules in an online archive somewhere?

READ THE RULES!!! The applicant can make up their own rules. I've yet to
see any reasonable request rejected.

Am I mistaken about the secrecy? Is the testing being done
with full public disclosure, with all the details online somewhere
but I just haven't found the website that displays all the info?

You are grossly mistaken. READ THE RULES. What if an applicant doesn't
want all this information made public?

If Randi's testing is secretive as

ESP-supporters claim,

It isn't. Follow some challenges and you'll see the problem. READ THE
RULES!!! Ask any one of these ESP supporters for a copy of a notarized
application and evidence that it wasn't handled fairly. And *please* don't
make reference to kooks like Kettler or Benneth.

Soon come. (However, I don't hold much hope that this will silence the
critics. Anyone can claim that Randi sent an email that was lost, or made a
phone call, or somesuch, that turned the whole process against an honest
applicant.)
le moo
.

User: "Rich Grise"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	03 Aug 2004 03:55:18 PM

Happy Dog wrote:
READ THE RULES!!!
....
READ THE RULES.
....
READ THE RULES.
....
READ THE RULES!!!
....
READ THE RULES!!!
Link?
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 05:49:19 PM

Just to save you some research effort, here's some info that addresses some
of your concerns about the the Challenge as well as some anecdotes about
Applicants:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
There's a new version of the JREF Million-Dollar Challenge now up on this
web site. I made small but important changes and additions, some of which
were prompted by very wide �X unfounded �X criticism of the challenge.
Here's a selection of some points that irked a chap who just doesn't want
the challenge to exist, accompanied by my answers....
"Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be
formulated for each applicant."
This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt
cannot be finalized until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or
she is going to do �X bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also
means that Randi will formulate the rules for each individual attempt at his
challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to
these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take
place at all.
Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the
cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we
call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about
the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements �X such as this
one �X made to the contrary.
"Tests will be designed in such a way that no 'judging' procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with
the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal
testing procedure taking place."
This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments
by "experts" over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it
doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules,
agreed up front, will decide.
But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or
adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional
scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have
been met �X whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic
instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly
reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have
been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that
prevails.
More nonsense. This person has ignored the statements made, and the
definitions in the rules. The statement, "no 'judging' procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer," covers that in
detail. When he mentions "whether the metal was bent psychically, or the
electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was
correctly reproduced," he misses the whole situation. We don't give a damn
how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful
observation. As for "whether . . . the remote image was correctly
reproduced," there is absolutely no doubt about that, since a participant
would be given a list of targets, and be required to choose which one was
the intended one. That doesn't call for argument or a decision; it's either
right or it's wrong. It's "yes" or "no."
Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is
successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has
met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any
appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging." In reality, he is
both judge and jury �X not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause
as well.
Further nonsense. Again, there is no judging! By anyone! And all the "agreed
terms" are clearly and definitively decided and agreed to beforehand, not
after the test has taken place. There can be no appeal of whether the gold
was found under the right cup, whether there were extraneous vibrations that
threw the dowser off, or whether Jupiter was in the wrong sign. Go back to
our encounter recently with the dowser right here at the JREF, and you'll
see how a test is properly designed and carried out. We're not amateurs,
though apparently you are.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to Randi that the thirty Ph.D.'s who
attested to the new machine [a "free energy" device] might know a little
more about physics than he does.
Randi is a non-scientist who has announced that �X by some undisclosed but
non-scientific means �X he knows that such anomalous claims are farcical and
"absurd'" and should be "tossed on the trash heap."
Let me reveal here what my "undisclosed" means consists of: I use top-notch
scientists and other experts to advise me. You see, I don't fix my own
teeth, I don't do my own plumbing, and I don't calculate needed statistics.
I go to dentists, plumbers, and statisticians for those services. Didn't
occur to you, huh? As for the "new machine," the physicists at the American
Physical Society advised me that it was absurd, and that was a body of some
41,000 persons, not thirty, who provided that opinion. I think I'll go along
with the majority.
And, in case you didn't know, if you look hard enough, you can always find
30 Phds who will make almost any statement you want them to. Having a Phd
doesn't mean you're smart; it only means that you should be....
And who decided that PhDs are capable of detecting tricks better than
magicians are?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
It won't stop. At www.alternativescience.com there's a chap named Kolodzey
who wants to apply for the JREF prize because he claims that he can survive
on nothing but water. I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but
he's still carrying on about this nonsense. A critic writes to me:
Although I VERY MUCH DOUBT that he can do any such thing, I do not think
that you did yourself any favors by, in effect, telling him to go jump in a
lake. YOU are the guy who puts up the proud $1 Million challenge to all
comers. Should have tested him out Randi.
I couldn't resist trying to explain a few basic facts to this man. I thought
that perhaps I could introduce him to a factor that he may have heard of,
but has never considered: reality. I listed for him a few claims, asking
that he read and consider them carefully:
1. I can fly by flapping my arms, but not when anyone is looking or
observing or recording with video.
2. I am God.
3. I can survive for weeks without any nourishment besides water.
4. I can soften stone just by looking at it.
5. I can cure any disease, without exception, just by knowing the name of
the patient.
6. I can make a meteorite hit any spot on Earth, on demand.
7. I can make it rain anywhere in the world, at any given time and date.
I added this:
Okay? Do you seriously think that we at the JREF should or would spend our
valuable time and facilities investigating ANY of these juvenile notions?
These claims are made by people who need and crave attention; we have no
time to feed their egos. Often, they are only looking for their names to
appear somewhere, and have no intention of ever doing what they have
claimed. And, they will not agree to just do the stunt; they insist upon
press and publicity to be brought in to glorify them. For example, when he
was asked to have a meteorite hit my backyard the following Sunday as a
simple indication of his powers, the claimant for #6, above, wanted us to
issue a press release in advance, and take an ad in the paper. We of course
refused, and he went away.
We are often criticized for going after only the silly people, the "easy"
targets: dowsers, homeopaths, "applied kinesiology" practitioners, magnet
gurus, etc. But these claims cost lives and tax dollars, so must be dealt
with. How much more would we be criticized for going after the seven claims
listed above? Yes, we've had all of those claims made, some many times over.
We must ignore them, because they're just so juvenile. Testing any of them
would take much time and labor, and at the end, we have exactly what we knew
all along: the claim is an empty one. There's no satisfaction or reward in
doing this.
We're a serious organization, not a circus, and we won't be drawn into
stupid confrontations. Let them go to Gary Schwartz, at the University of
Arizona, who will undoubtedly find them to be the real thing no matter what
their claim is, simply because he doesn't know how to design and conduct a
test.
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 11:32:49 AM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<uZlPc.4857$Jq2.306815@news20.bellglobal.com>...

I've seen debate over whether the Randi Prize is up front, or
whether all the signed contracts and secrecy surrounding the testing
are interfering with running an honest test.

"Secrecy"? The biggest problem is getting would be Claimants to say exactly
what will constitute a pass or a failure.

Yes, secrecy. Because of the secrecy, the conflicts of interest,
and the attendant lack of trust, all other problems are
insignificant.
I'm fascinated by the test procedure and results. Right off the
bat, I'd like to see the online archive of all the applications
submitted to the Randi group. (Black out the names of applicants,
but only if they request.) Then let's see the later details of
what claims were made, what custom rules were agreed upon, what
were the preliminary results, and what objections/complaints
did the testers or testees have, if any. Details details details,
so there is little chance of EITHER SIDE being able to control
or "spin" the information, particularly the distortions caused
unwittingly because of bias. If the "psychics" are ignorant
dunderheads, then this will be obvious, and we won't need the
testing group to tell us that it's true.
I'm sure that if a PSI-believing parapsychologist was claiming to
perform fair testing, skeptics would demand that all the details
remain very un-secret, and not just rely on a set of rules to
guarantee that things are being done right during the secret
testing. We have to SEE that they're being done right, never
rely on trust and assumptions when conflict of interest is an
issue. Do you disagree with Opponheimer's comment?
"We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise
enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism...
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	02 Aug 2004 05:03:03 PM

"William J. Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com> wrote in

"Secrecy"? The biggest problem is getting would be Claimants to say

exactly

what will constitute a pass or a failure.

Yes, secrecy. Because of the secrecy, the conflicts of interest,
and the attendant lack of trust, all other problems are
insignificant.

WHAT SECRECY???

I'm fascinated by the test procedure and results. Right off the
bat, I'd like to see the online archive of all the applications
submitted to the Randi group. (Black out the names of applicants,
but only if they request.)

PLEASE read the rules! (However, it's a fair question so I'll help you with
your research. This information took me all of three minutes to find on the
JREF site.)
http://www.randi.org/jr/042304seven.html#11
This brings me to a discussion which has been active on the JREF Forum,
namely, the question of why I don't rush into print to report each and every
application that's made for the million-dollar prize. I have patiently tried
to explain that we simply don't have time nor personnel to pursue such a
vanity, but complaining seems to be a major pastime for many who show up on
the Forum. What I do intend to do in this matter, is to have one of our
interns look over the files of the applicants and do a breakdown of the
different kinds of claims that have been submitted, and a summary of how
they were handled. It's impossible to enter into much detail on very many of
them, though you will have noticed that I've run some detailed discussions
of a few of them here in recent months.
Our volunteer Kramer is getting together a plan whereby we will construct a
CHALLENGE log, and a new area of the JREF Forum in which members can discuss
the claims and the status of the investigations, preliminary testing, and
what-have-you. We'd be posting daily updates and keeping things as current
as possible, keeping in mind that updates would consist mainly of new
applications, and very few notes on actual testing due to the fact that so
very few applicants ever get to the preliminary testing stage.
http://www.randi.org/jr/061804remote.html#3
Just as an update: The hardworking Kramer, volunteering his services here at
the JREF, has announced that the total list of applicants at this date
amounts to 323. They are:
65 "open" files
5 currently being negotiated
253 "closed" cases - including many that were without an official
application form, were in a foreign language, arrived without return
addresses, were textually incomprehensible, or were so badly handwritten
that we could not read them.

If the "psychics" are ignorant
dunderheads, then this will be obvious, and we won't need the
testing group to tell us that it's true.

In many cases, they are. Would you PLEASE read the rules and point out any
that are likely to foment a bias for either side?

I'm sure that if a PSI-believing parapsychologist was claiming to
perform fair testing, skeptics would demand that all the details
remain very un-secret, and not just rely on a set of rules to
guarantee that things are being done right during the secret
testing. We have to SEE that they're being done right, never
rely on trust and assumptions when conflict of interest is an
issue. Do you disagree with Opponheimer's comment?

Read the rules. Educate yourself. You so do not get it...
le moo
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	05 Aug 2004 03:30:35 AM

"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<mUyPc.11694$Jq2.481404@news20.bellglobal.com>...

Read the rules.

I read the rules right off. I note that the full rules don't even
appear on that page (the particular rules are mostly customized
for each claimant) so yelling "read the rules" is pretty useless.
But more important, rules don't work if they're not being followed.
How do I know they're NOT being followed? Well, how do I know that
they ARE? I'm extremely skeptical and distrusting, and lacking
info I assume the worst. After all, it's not a disinterested third
party who founded the Challenge. If the Challenge was started and
run by a True-Believer group, I'd also have a big problem in trusting
anything they report. Instead I'd want every detail of the entire
process to be exposed for constant outside scrutiny, with little or
no opportunity for either side of the controversy to apply any "spin."

Yes, secrecy. Because of the secrecy, the conflicts of interest,
and the attendant lack of trust, all other problems are
insignificant.

WHAT SECRECY???

Thanks for those links, but I was hoping to see online copies of
original docs, or at least a list of docs. Or even a simple list
of applicants and their claims. If they're scattered all through
a newsletter archive, that doesn't help much.
For example, this link shows a photo of the physical files:
http://www.randi.org/jr/061804remote.html#3
Are those files on line? By "secrecy" I mean "the files are not
online." And, is that drawer available for public scrutiny?
By "secrecy" I mean "you won't let people just walk in and start
reading all those files to make sure your descriptions are true."
(Heh. Maybe skepticism only should to apply to other people, never
to Skeptic organizations.)
If all we know is what you and others tell us, and we have no way
to look at original paperwork to verify accuracy, and there isn't
even a simple list of claimants' names and email addresses anywhere...
then we have to trust you. That's the problem. If all the docs
were online, then I could interpret them myself, with no need to
get second hand descriptions.
There are 323 applicants? For starters, is there an online list
with details for each one (or even better, are there scanned
images of the applications and any other paperwork?) There
are 65 open files, 5 in negotiation. Is there a list of these,
with relatively detailed descriptions? If the claimants and the
Challenge group are going back and forth hashing out the rules, are
all those emails online and available for public inspection? No?
Then the whole process is being carried out in private, i.e. it is
secretive. But what if the claimant wants things kept hidden? Well,
I don't care about "what if," instead give me a list of claimants
who insist that the docs be kept hidden.

Educate yourself. You so do not get it...

I suspect that you know that the Challenge group is trustworthy
and unbiased, so that, for you there is no need to expose all the
internal workings to a spotlight that lets outsiders directly
verify what's happening in great detail. Unfortunately we highly
doubtful outsiders have a different opinion.
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty@chem.washington.edu Research Engineer
billb@eskimo.com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
.

User: "Happy Dog"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	05 Aug 2004 06:29:30 AM

"William J. Beaty" <billb@eskimo.com> wrote in

Read the rules.

I read the rules right off. I note that the full rules don't even
appear on that page (the particular rules are mostly customized
for each claimant) so yelling "read the rules" is pretty useless.

*****. Liar. Idiot.

But more important, rules don't work if they're not being followed.
How do I know they're NOT being followed? Well, how do I know that
they ARE? I'm extremely skeptical and distrusting,

No. Youre a voluable idiot who hasn't read the GD rules! Exactly what rule
wasn't followed?

Instead I'd want every detail of the entire
process to be exposed for constant outside scrutiny, with little or
no opportunity for either side of the controversy to apply any "spin."

Idiot. Read the rules.

WHAT SECRECY???

Thanks for those links, but I was hoping to see online copies of
original docs, or at least a list of docs.

They're coming. But' what do they prove?

Are those files on line? By "secrecy" I mean "the files are not
online." And, is that drawer available for public scrutiny?
By "secrecy" I mean "you won't let people just walk in and start
reading all those files to make sure your descriptions are true."

Wrong. The files are available to anyone who wishes to see them. Anyone.

(Heh. Maybe skepticism only should to apply to other people, never
to Skeptic organizations.)

If all we know is what you and others tell us, and we have no way
to look at original paperwork to verify accuracy, and there isn't
even a simple list of claimants' names and email addresses anywhere...

And you've sent *one* email to the JREF on this? Nope. Idiot.

There are 323 applicants? For starters, is there an online list
with details for each one.

Hey stoopid! The biggest problem is getting these guys to perform for
magicians.
or even better, are there scanned

images of the applications and any other paperwork?) There
are 65 open files, 5 in negotiation. Is there a list of these,
with relatively detailed descriptions?

Yes. At the JREF.

If the claimants and the
Challenge group are going back and forth hashing out the rules, are
all those emails online and available for public inspection? No?
Then the whole process is being carried out in private,

*****. Cite a case or shut up.

Educate yourself. You so do not get it...

Y'know what? Ignore it. Show your best evidence elsewhere. Real facts
here. JREF is the the reason that you haven't been able to impress anyone.
les moos
.

User: "Rich Grise"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	31 Jul 2004 02:42:28 PM

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <61eag05feid34en7k2s0bm1n13glj6f4ji@4ax.com>, Ben Bradley
wrote:

In sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

According to some "theory" by promponents of such things, this is
something that will tend to avoid laboratory scrutiny the way ESP has.

Who are these proponents? How does ESP avoid laboratory scrutiny?

I last read books mentioning ball lightning before I ever heard of such
a thing as the Internet, so I am unable to cite those who claim
supernatural explanations for ball lightning.

And my mentioning ESP avoiding laboratory scrutiny was not to claim that
it exists while avoiding laboratory scrutiny.
However, I do believe in it, just as I believe in God - and I don't hear
of many experimental findings withstanding peer review and published in
the major scientific journals showing evidence that God exists.

The "Amazing Randy" has a website where he pokes holes in studies that
show "evidence" that ESP or anything supernatural exists. Either he is
selective about what studies to stab or the supernatural only exists in
ways that avoid leaving evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny.
And there are rewards out there for providing experimental evidence of
ESP that withstands scientific scrutiny.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

It doesn't work around Randi because of his powerful debunking field.
Imagine you live next door to an AM transmitter, and you're building
a crystal set. Pretty simple, right?
Now, imagine being surrounded by 500 AM broadcast stations, all within
oh, say, a mile or so. Now, imagine trying to pick out one of them
with your crystal set.
If 499 of them are playing rap in synchrony, it'll make it a little
difficult to pick up the Classical station, wouldn't you say?[0]
Learning to tune your telepathic receiver is kind of an intricate
process. And it's almost impossible to pick out your friend's telepathic
signal when you're surrounded by people broadcasting "FAIL!! FAIL!! FAIL!!
FAIL!!" with everything they've got. Plus all their spurious answers.
Have Fun!
Rich
[0] It can be done, of course, with various synchronous detection
tricks, but you'd need some pretty sophisticated technology to do it -
it's pretty much the same with telepathy, where the receiver is your
brain and the technology is, well, your mind. I guess "training" might
be apropos here.
.

User: "William J. Beaty"
Title: Re: Bigger better balls: "ball lightning" in the kitchen	01 Aug 2004 02:29:01 PM

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<ECSOc.384$%e2.192@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...

Learning to tune your telepathic receiver is kind of an intricate
process. And it's almost impossible to pick out your friend's telepathic
signal when you're surrounded by people broadcasting "FAIL!! FAIL!! FAIL!!
FAIL!!" with everything they've got. Plus all their spurious answers.

Here are a couple of interesting articles:
Kit Pedler's maglev hoax story:
http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/momk01.htm
Dean Radin's field guide to skepticism
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/guide/index.htm
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

What is ball lightning?
How much force does this ball feel?
My Red Ball
Tennis ball measurement
Physics of a swinging baseball / cricket ball
asked students to name two vertical forces acting on a ball, hit straight up
The strong force bettween ball particles
what happens when you shoot a ball from a riding train?

Re: collision between a ball and a lever
Oscillating Ball in Plughole
The force between copper ball and point charge
Re: Can heat be converted to kinetic energy (move a ball or turn turbines)???
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?A_little_frog_(alive_!)_and_a_water_ball_levitate_in?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?side_a_=D832mm_vertical_bore_of_a_Bitter_solenoid_in_a_magneti?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?c_field_of_about_16_Tesla_at_the_Nijmegen_High_Field_Magnet_L?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?aboratory
Would it help a foot ball kicker if he used a ball with morepressure?
Impact of bat or club speed on flight of a ball

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6</