Re: [Vo]:Rare earths
an office i worked with experimented with random dimming of the light. it very much simulated the occasional cloud passing overhead outside. People were more alert and aware in the area they did this. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Late reply... sorry. Had to repair a family member's car. Unbelievably simple problem, a real bear to track down. The only reason we stopped is because the Chinese do it so cheaply. This is also why the U.S. stopped manufacturing so many goods. That may not be a good reason, but it is the reason -- not because we ran out or because they do it more efficiently. Its interesting. The US economy is in a mess. It would be nice if something came along to cause business to pick up. Oh hell, China won't sell rare earths. We need rare earths... Some US company picks up on this, and starts hiring Americans to produce the stuff. Hmm. This could be a good thing in the long run. These bulbs produce light with 1/8th as much electricity as incandescent bulbs [making them at least twice as efficient as CFL, and probably 3 or 4 times] and they now cost $30, versus about $5 for this kind of bulb [indicating a CFL]. And they last 40 times longer than a conventional bulb. But the question remains, can the average family afford them? What an idiotic comment that is! Japanese people are the second richest on earth. Family income averages $67,000. I make nowhere NEAR $67k per year. Combined, me and my wife come nowhere close to this. And we CAN afford this. Not all at once, to be sure. But one or two here and there, and not have to replace bulbs constantly?*** Reduce my power bill? Fine by me. Why are people complaining about this? ***Volts at my wall socket can reach 125VAC. Normal bulbs do not seem to like this. Long life bulbs can handle it, but in my experience, they look sickly yellow. I do NOT like CFLs. But LED's are very welcome here. I also wonder at the possibility of combining RGB LED's to control the color of the light produced. Have a diffuser or something around the LED cluster, so the light is relatively uniform, and have a dozen or so 'pixels' of LEDs in RGB trios. One wonders if you could tune the light, so to speak, to help people with seasonal affective disorder. OR: think of this. Make a programmed one to vary hue and intensity so as to simulate a sunrise as you are waking up. What effect might this have on people's ability to become alert in a refreshed manner upon waking? I know, this would add cost. The basic 'cool white' LED light should be cheap, so people can afford it. But the more 'luxurious' aspects of this should be investigated, especially if it helps people feel better. With an incandescent filament, variation on color is very limited. With 'pixel' LED combos, the possibilities seem endless. Can people who earn $67,000 per year afford to invest $30 in something that will return ~10% per annum for 20 years? - Jed I don't know what the cost of living is in Japan. I would guess you are more qualified to say. But from where I am, living here in Buffalo, NY, and making less than half that with both salaries combined, yeah, we can afford that. Again, not all at once. But over time, sure. Damn it Jed, now I have to start combining LED's in RGB combinations and see how they affect my mood. Winter is coming, after all. Look what you done started! :) --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:33:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] I've shown a roughly square wire loop, with a capacitor in the bottom leg of the loop, and I've shown arrows next to the wire indicating the direction of the E field at all points. The capacitor plates are labeled + plate and - plate. Around the capacitor, note that the E field points the *other* *way* from the field near the wires. If the electrons follow the direction of the electric field around the loop, but the electric field between the plates points in the opposite direction, how can the current keep flowing? The logic of electric fields implies the current should cease. [snip] Because there's a pile of them in one place, and that pile gets smaller as the capacitor/battery drains. Once it's empty, the current does indeed stop. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
2009/9/28 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing that could be done now, and probably wouldn't be a waste would be algoil. This could make a significant dent in fossil fuel consumption, and because it targets cars and trucks, isn't likely to be quickly replaced by CF, even if that does pan out. Yes, it is another viable form of solar energy that is plodding along in development. Not nearly as viable as PV though, at least not on land, if you consider land productivity. According to the attached How far a car can drive graph, PV is 50 times more productive than the most productive biofuel: one hectare (= 100m x 100m = 2.5 acres) of land allows a car to drive 20-70 thousand km on biofuel, versus 3 million km with PV. Source: http://www.nanosolar.com/company/blog/going-all-electric. Michel attachment: FuelEfficiency.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Car Alternators Vs Old Style Generators
On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:00 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: 2009/9/28 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing that could be done now, and probably wouldn't be a waste would be algoil. This could make a significant dent in fossil fuel consumption, and because it targets cars and trucks, isn't likely to be quickly replaced by CF, even if that does pan out. Yes, it is another viable form of solar energy that is plodding along in development. Not nearly as viable as PV though, at least not on land, if you consider land productivity. According to the attached How far a car can drive graph, PV is 50 times more productive than the most productive biofuel: one hectare (= 100m x 100m = 2.5 acres) of land allows a car to drive 20-70 thousand km on biofuel, versus 3 million km with PV. Source: http://www.nanosolar.com/company/blog/going-all-electric. MichelFuelEfficiency.jpg I think algae will have its day. It will be an important energy source for quite a while. The numbers given in the above table distort the potential algae has. See: http://www.oilgae.com/ref/report/digest/digest.html The yields of oil and fuels from algae are much higher (10-100 times) than competing energy crops Algae oil yields are already incredible compared to other bio-oil. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_biofuel_crop_yields This oil can be blended with other oils to power truck and aircraft, which is a niche photoelectric will be hard pressed to fill for a long while. Presently it is all a matter of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel Algae fuel yields have not yet been accurately determined, but DOE is reported as saying that algae yield 30 times more energy per acre than land crops such as soybeans.[52] Yields of 36 tonnes/hectare are considered practical by Ami Ben-Amotz of the Institute of Oceanography in Haifa, who has been farming Algae commercially for over 20 years.[53] Photosynthesis is known to have an efficiency rate of about 3-6% of total solar radiation[57] and if the entire mass of a crop is utilized for energy production, the overall efficiency of this chain is currently about 1%[58] While this may compare unfavorably to solar cells combined with an electric drive train, biodiesel is less costly to deploy... So, I agree that ultimately it is true that other more efficient solar energy collection systems, including photovoltaics, will eventually take over the majority of energy production (given no new energy breakthrough such as CF), a considerable infrastructure needs to be produced to handle all aspects of energy needs, including aircraft and trucking fuels.) For some time to come it appears algae will have an economic energy niche, as well as other applications, such as sewage processing, and food production. Eventually, algae, which can grow in salt water, may eventually prove to be too valuable as a food or fertilizer source to waste on energy production. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank
All I can say is, WTF?! http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/29649/ LH2 somehow forming an Iceman? Terry
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 10:25 PM 9/28/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: (A blogger asked me what is the source of the dispute, and the academic politics. I like my answer, so let me copy it here. This is, perhaps, a softer, more understanding response than I might have made years ago.) That's a good explanation, Jed. I'm not quite as old as the generation described as supportive of the experimental work, but my background led me, as well, to trust in experiment over theory, and that divide is broader than science. Originally, I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist, and I was on my way, as an undergraduate student at Caltech. But my life took me to different places, so I never developed an investment in theory; I simply got an attitude and an approach from sitting with Feynmann -- who taught physics my first two years at Caltech, those lectures were the ones that became the standard text. I also had Linus Pauling for freshman chemistry, but he wasn't nearly as memorable. The rejection of cold fusion is very understandable, but also tragic. My own long-term interest is in the development of social structures that can avoid these kinds of errors, without becoming vulnerable to the opposite errors. In a word, social structures that are intelligent, not merely dependent upon individual habits and individual limitations, summed. The name Cold fusion was an error (i.e., preumature speculation), but a very understandable one, and, rather than reject it, as Krivit suggests (for good reason), I'd prefer to embrace it. There remain possibilities that don't involve fusion as normally defined, such as neutron absorption and resulting fission, but I'm going to be marketing science kits, and, as they say, bad press is better than no press. And cold fusion has the press low energy nuclear reactions and condensed matter nuclear science, though far more accurate, don't have the press. Yes, Teller should be considered a supporter of cold fusion; bottom line, he didn't reject it and very clearly did not consider it to violate known physical principles, and he encouraged the research. It violates assumptions, that's all, and the assumptions it violates can be shown to be weak extrapolations of experience from one field to another. Before Fleischmann and Pons, how many researchers had made a systematic attempt to falsify the assumption that the calculations of quantum mechanics, simplified to the two-body problem, were good enough to accurately predict nuclear behavior in condensed matter? Fleischmann expected to establish an upper bound for the deviations as below his experimental accuracy, he's written. Instead, he showed that the deviations were much greater than expected, and easily measurable under the right conditions. For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. Probably because of the obvious interest in energy generation, most attempts to explain cold fusion focus on the originally-discovered effect, excess heat, and, for lots of reasons, it is easy to impeach that and to dismiss it, when it is emphasized in isolation. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. I documented that confusion on Wikipedia, on the Cold fusion Talk page, but I've not seen it mentioned elsewhere. Probably the problem resulted from the Appendix on the Case effect results, which are a red herring, compared to the heat/helium work as reviewed by Storms. I had to read that appendix several times before I understood what was being presented. It shouldn't have been so hard, and I don't wonder that the negative reviewer who commented on it, and the DoE summarizer, misunderstood it.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
I think the biggest disconnect is trying to make a direct jump from the materials to fusion without better explaining the interim step that supplies the energy to Create the fusion artifacts. I am following a current thread Zero point fluctuations and the Casimir effecthttp://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=517524#post517524 over on scienceforums that relates to this. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, The URL for the open demo is here: http://theworld.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html More uncensored information on cold fusion here: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Feyerabend, War and Depression
Selling Cold Fusion? Public Relations? And this is Science we're talking about? It's disgusting. Guys like Feyerabend were more right than anyone likes to admit. Peer review becomes sneer review and instead of the Defenders of the Dominant Paradigm dying off, we're stuck with obituaries in the wrong camp. If I ever discover free energy, I swear I'm going to reveal it as Jesus did miracles: Tell no one - so that the whole world will know, in reaction. On a more hopeful note, I find some joy in the recent worldwide economic disaster, as this and total war are what bring new ideas and talents to the forefront of human progress. War and bankruptcy can remove obstacles that reason and science can't. I see opportunities in these areas: 1) The Dead Hand of US car companies may be lifted. We'll get electric cars somehow - and if we don't, the Chinese will. A thousand curses on GM for what they did to the EV-1. 2) Big Evil Drug companies - you know, the guys who brazenly violate the law again and again? Who put out lists of doctors to be neutralized ( Australia, Vioxx), who get extentions on patent expirations so generics aren't available? It seems that they collectively forgot to develop any new drugs and the stuff they've got is headed for Generic-City. Good Riddance. The real breakthroughs will come from brave little companies working on stem cells. 3) Banksters - hey, let's run an entire economy on financial speculation! Oh, wait. we've tried that. Eventually, even Congress may be forced to rein in these elite thugs and get investor attention focused on anything more useful. I continue to be amazed at the inventions and competence of ordinary men who came to the fore in WW2 - in an evil way(Nazis who used to be street bums and chicken farmers) and in a good way( the Allies copying the Autobahn, using Jewish scientists to create atomic energy and much more). Feyerabend said to toss in some anarchy once in a while. Maybe he was right.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Feyerabend, War and Depression
Chris Zell wrote: Selling Cold Fusion? Public Relations? And this is Science we're talking about? It's disgusting. Guys like Feyerabend were more right than anyone likes to admit. Peer review becomes sneer review and instead of the Defenders of the Dominant Paradigm dying off, we're stuck with obituaries in the wrong camp. If I ever discover free energy, I swear I'm going to reveal it as Jesus did miracles: Tell no one - so that the whole world will know, in reaction. On a more hopeful note, I find some joy in the recent worldwide economic disaster, as this and total war are what bring new ideas and talents to the forefront of human progress. War and bankruptcy can remove obstacles that reason and science can't. I see opportunities in these areas: 1) The Dead Hand of US car companies may be lifted. We'll get electric cars somehow - and if we don't, the Chinese will. A thousand curses on GM for what they did to the EV-1. And don't forget Ernie Kovacs. Who killed the Electric Car? Hmmm. Who killed Ernie Kovacs? Hmmm. GM never lost a case in court regarding the rear-engine unbalanced Corvair and its swing axle design. That proves they're innocent, right? -- and it must have been Ernie's bad driving that made his 'vair spin out that night? In a pig's eye. And they altered the design to be a little less deadly in 1964, two years later, but never admitted there was a problem to start with AFAIK. 2) Big Evil Drug companies - you know, the guys who brazenly violate the law again and again? Who put out lists of doctors to be neutralized ( Australia, Vioxx), who get extentions on patent expirations so generics aren't available? It seems that they collectively forgot to develop any new drugs and the stuff they've got is headed for Generic-City. Good Riddance. The real breakthroughs will come from brave little companies working on stem cells. 3) Banksters - hey, let's run an entire economy on financial speculation! Oh, wait. we've tried that. Eventually, even Congress may be forced to rein in these elite thugs and get investor attention focused on anything more useful. I continue to be amazed at the inventions and competence of ordinary men who came to the fore in WW2 - in an evil way(Nazis who used to be street bums and chicken farmers) and in a good way( the Allies copying the Autobahn, using Jewish scientists to create atomic energy and much more). Feyerabend said to toss in some anarchy once in a while. Maybe he was right.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. Yes, it is censored, but you yourself are the censor! Hagelstein included one of your ICCF-10 papers, #19 on the list of References: M. Swartz and G. Verner, Excess heat from low-electrical conductivity heavy water spiral-wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Proc. ICCF10, (2004). It is not shown on my list because I do not have a copy in the library. Many papers are missing from the list, as shown by the gaps in the numbers. I do not have a copy of any of your papers in the Library, or on my hard disk, because you have not given me any copies of your work. And you have steadfastly denied me permission to upload any of your papers, even threatening a lawsuit when I posted an abstract from one of your papers. So the only person censoring anything here is you. Don't blame Hagelstein, McKubre or me because you censor your own work, for crying out loud. Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
I think they gave the reviewers all those papers because years ago I was in someone's office, and I noticed a cardboard box full of papers with familiar titles. I asked what's all this? and the person said that's what we gave the reviewers. Those are all the references in Peter's paper. It was clear from the reviews that some of panel members read the material and understand cold fusion, and others did not. I do not think Hagelstein's paper was difficult to grasp, and these were distinguished professional scientists, so they darn well should have done their homework and figured out the helium versus heat part. But as Lomax pointed out, they got that wrong. That's sloppy. But even the best scientists sometimes make mistakes and jump to unwarranted conclusions. See the endorsement blurbs on the back of Taubes' book by Lederman, Richter, Schwartz, Seaborg and Rowland. Four Nobel laureates and the director of the AAAS! All of them full of bunk. Yeah, they should have known better, but they didn't. I expect it was an honest mistake. I know it was a sloppy one. I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 01:09 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. Yes, it is censored, but you yourself are the censor! Hagelstein included one of your ICCF-10 papers, #19 on the list of References: M. Swartz and G. Verner, Excess heat from low-electrical conductivity heavy water spiral-wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Proc. ICCF10, (2004). It is not shown on my list because I do not have a copy in the library. Many papers are missing from the list, as shown by the gaps in the numbers. I do not have a copy of any of your papers in the Library, or on my hard disk, because you have not given me any copies of your work. And you have steadfastly denied me permission to upload any of your papers, even threatening a lawsuit when I posted an abstract from one of your papers. Jed, Sorry that you took this personally, but ... Wrong. You were given copies. Multiple copies. By disk. On paper. By mail with green card. In fact, what is most boggling, is that you were given a CD with the papers when I gave you a ride back from Gene Mallove's funeral to Newbury St. You left the car, with it in hand. So the confabulations by you are nonsense. Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us that you demand to EDIT the papers. [ Now, to think about it, that is more censorship, isn't it? ] = So the only person censoring anything here is you. Don't blame Hagelstein, McKubre or me because you censor your own work, for crying out loud. BTW, when the late Dr. Mallove was murdered, you were still even censoring the titles of the three papers at ICCF-10. Since then you have the titles listed, and added others whom were not listed, like those by Dr. Bass. Thank you for all that. No one blames/d Prof. Hagelstein or Mike McKubre for the censorship by you at the LENR/CANR website. It wouldn't be logical. In fact, corroborating that, when you one wrote Gene and I about why you censor papers at your website, you named someone in the field, and it was neither of them. [ Also, FYI, Gene Mallove posted on vortex quite a bit about the censorship at your website. Some of them are quite interesting, although never understood what he meant about 'political censorship'. ] == Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format. - Jed Gosh. I don't see Prof. Dash at #52 in that table, so I must not understand what you meant. Have a good day. Mitchell
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Sorry that you took this personally, but ... Wrong. You were given copies. Multiple copies. By disk. On paper. By mail with green card. I couldn't read them. Look, we have been over this 100 times. I will repeat once more. Here is what you must do if you want me to upload the papers: 1. You first upload these papers to your web site. 2. You give me permission, here, publicly, to copy them. 3. I will then upload them. I will do it within the hour. It couldn't be any simpler. If you refuse to do that, everyone will see that you do not want the papers uploaded, by me or by anyone else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format. Gosh. I don't see Prof. Dash at #52 in that table, so I must not understand what you meant. I just explained that in the previous sentence! I said I do not have that paper in electronic format, for crying out loud. If you want to scan it an OCR it for me, I will upload it. I don't feel like doing it myself. I have had enough of scanning. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Feyerabend, War and Depression
Chris Zell wrote: Selling Cold Fusion? Public Relations? And this is Science we're talking about? It's disgusting. To be fair, I am the one who calls it public relations. Scientists tend use more genteel expressions, such as 'educating the public about the need for this research.' They all do this, and they always have, right back to the beginning of the scientific revolution when Galileo tried to impress the Cardinals with the view through his telescope -- which they found unconvincing for good reasons. (The facts are contrary to the myth in this case.) Whatever you call it, I see nothing wrong with PR. I don't understand why Zell thinks it is disgusting. Along the same lines, I do not understand why people criticized U. Utah, Fleischmann and Pons for the 1989 press conference. Thanks to Steve Krivit we have all had a chance to see it. There is nothing untoward or uncalled for in it! I don't think it was too early, although Fleischmann wanted to wait several more years. Plus I see nothing wrong with the term cold fusion. It is close enough. Heck, it is probably right: deuterium fusion probably forms helium. And if it turns out to be wrong, so what? Meteorology has nothing to with meteors but that's irrelevant and it does not confuse anyone. Words mean what they mean. There is a sort of Ivory Tower, prissy elitist opposition to press conferences and public relations, as if scientists should not have worldly concerns, or -- heaven forefend! -- concerns about mere filthy lucre, or solving problems for people and making useful contributions to society. The objections often boil down to well-funded scientists saying: we got ours, but don't you dare ask for yours. Mainly these are plasma fusion and high energy particle scientists who routinely hold press conferences to ballyhoo their results months before they publish anything. This happened most recently yesterday: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2d2333fc-1e2a-4763-acb1-b265c2a0860b This physicist even had the gall to denigrate cold fusion! (That's why I heard about it.) Technologists and inventors are even more inclined to toot their own horns, and no one finds it unseemly. Edison conducted brilliant public demonstrations of the gramophone and the incandescent light, that blew away the skeptical opposition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. Right. Now, what that means, probably, is that the publishers lost money. Bad model. Better model: on-line copies free. On-demand printed copies for a modest price that includes some funding to support the activity. The system as it is provides nothing to the people who actually do the hard work, the researchers. At least as far as I understand it. Now, it seems that the ACS LENR Sourcebook sold out and went into at least one additional printing. And it's phenomenally expensive, for what it is. It could be a small fraction of the price for an on-demand published and bound book, yet have the same utility for readers. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. You have to judge by all of it, though it depends on what you are judging! The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf There is an old logical fallacy. Because we tried, we must be successful. Look at the results. Section 3 was largely ignored and what was covered in the review was the Appendix. Why was that? Well, perhaps, people remember most what they read last. To a CF researcher, the Appendix was of considerable interest. To the reviewers and the DoE, it was a colossal distraction, and they easily misinterpreted it, for reasons I could probably explain. Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. Sensible and very wrong. There is another reason to discuss your own work. It's your work, you are close to it, you think it's important. And your judgment about that might well be clouded. The big lacuna is Miles, of course, very old evidence, and heavily verified. Really, a better effort might have been done by talking only about heat/helium, because it's a reframe of the replicability problem. It cuts through the most obvious objection to cold fusion, efficiently, as long as it isn't buried in less relevant and more controversial evidence. Appendix 1 was misunderstood because the point wasn't clear, and when I figured out the point, it was a truly minor one, important only with respect to *one* experimental example. Rather, because it reported, on the face, a series of experiments, there was a tendency to treat it as more than it was. People don't read factually, they (mostly!) read emotionally and with some sense of the purpose of a writing, and if they get the purpose wrong, they will misinterpret and misremember the facts. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! If you don't believe that the effect could be real, you won't read the papers, or you will skim them looking for some possible imaginary reason to reject them, even if, on examination, that reason turns out to be preposterous. I do not know if, in fact, it could have been done more successfully. A one-day session is probably inadequate unless there is a lot of pre-session communication. Imagine that a mailing list had been set up, with all the reviewers anonymously subscribed (through googlemail or something like that), or a wiki had been set up for them, and for the presenters, and a wider community had been included as presenters. And each detail were
RE: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:37 AM 9/29/2009, Roarty, Francis X wrote: I think the biggest disconnect is trying to make a direct jump from the materials to fusion without better explaining the interim step that supplies the energy to Create the fusion artifacts. I am following a current thread Zero point fluctuations and the Casimir effect over on scienceforums that relates to this. Fran It's very difficult to dissociate the field from the name it originally got. Fusion is a hypothesis; Francis is correct. What are the artifacts, under what conditions to they arise, and theory should have been way down the list of matters to investigate.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 01:35 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote: I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements. Unless you could approach them in a way likely to generate rapport, and discuss the issues in detail, perhaps following the approach of someone you love to hate, Hoffmann. It's not impossible, but, yes, it can be very difficult. On the other hand, if you know someone who knows one of them well, and you can approach this second person and have that conversation, it might be possible.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements. Unless you could approach them in a way likely to generate rapport, and discuss the issues in detail, perhaps following the approach of someone you love to hate, Hoffmann. It's not impossible, but, yes, it can be very difficult. Difficult or easy, why would I bother? I don't care what these nudniks think. They sure don't care what I think! As Mike McKubre says, I wouldn't cross the street to hear a lecture by Frank Close. I have nothing in common with the extreme skeptics and the Avowed Enemies of Cold Fusion. No meeting of the minds is possible between us. I never communicate with them unless there is an audience and I wish to score points. Discussing the issues with them is a futile waste of time. Needless to say, they think the same thing about me, as they have often said. Here is one that said that about me yesterday: http://evildrpain.blogspot.com/2009/09/freedom.html Here is the heated discussion linked to in the blog: http://missatomicbomb.blogspot.com/2008/06/gullible-part-2.html This person thinks that he won the debate, and that: This debate, of course, turned out to be an utterly pointless exercise, as the advocate descended predictably into nonsensical argument, and what amounted to name calling, in order to defend his position. From my point of view, I made mincemeat out of him, and I never engaged in any name calling. I believe this is cognitive dissonance on his part. Mainly it was a discussion of matters of fact, not even technical matters. For example, he claimed that no nuclear scientists have worked on cold fusion, so I gave him a long list of distinguished nuclear scientists who have. He claimed that no replications have been done, so I gave him a list of replications. And so on. By the way, I would never claim that I won the debate by virtue of superior intellect or legerdemain. Any fool who bothers to read the literature can easily win this sort of debate. I am in the same position as someone in 1906 debating whether airplanes could exist. All you have to do is point out that those Wright brothers have done public demonstrations, flying for up to 40 minutes, as attested in affidavits by leading citizens of Dayton, OH. And they have a patent, and they have published scientific papers in leading journals of engineering, and there are photos, etc., etc. The skeptic may make an absurd technical objection: Even if someone did fly, they could never land, because they would be moving so rapidly through the air. (A famous scientist in 1903 actually said this.) Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of flight would respond: Birds solve this problem by stalling at the last moment, and falling on their feet. A human pilot can do the same thing, to fall on landing gear. Which is exactly the case, and which the Wrights and others knew perfectly well, and had been doing for many years. This is analogous to me saying to the cold fusion skeptic: Many different calorimeter types have been used, so this cannot be a systematic error caused by one calorimeter type. It is one of the first things you lean when you study the subject, and it is easy to understand. (Many things about cold fusion -- and aviation for that matter -- are difficult to understand, but the skeptics of 1906 and 2009 fail to grasp even the ABCs.) - Jed
[Vo]:Chu right, Congress wrong
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/09/chu-says-hell-stop- push-to-cut-hydrogen-car-funding-will-work-with-lawmakers.html http://tinyurl.com/yevy8bu Chu Says He'll Stop Push to Cut Hydrogen-Car Funding, Will Work With Lawmakers Energy Secretary Steven Chu will no longer seek to kill Energy Department research and development of hydrogen-powered cars, a bid Congress has rebuffed, and instead will work with lawmakers to ensure the money is invested wisely, he said today. The fiscal 2010 spending bills approved in the House and Senate would continue funding for the programs. Given the reality of that, I think it would be foolish if I next year said, 'No, I'm still going to insist.' They are going to stick it back again, Chu told the subscription service EE News. 'We will do the best we can to make sure the funds are invested wisely,' Chu said. What are you going to do when your hands are tied? It is incredible that ten year or more efforts are being focused on hydrogen cars and hydrogen homes instead of the really promising more quickly and incrementally had large solar systems - gigawatt or larger systems. Nocera's company also is engaged in a ten year program to bring hydrogen storage systems into the home. http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002176/hydrogen-the-dream-fuel- shifts-from-cars-to-houses/ Hydrogen, the Dream Fuel, Shifts From Cars to Houses Now, aside from a few lingering efforts by major car companies to draw attention to hydrogen fuel cells, it’s rare to hear much about it. But wait — enter the hydrogen-powered house: The prognosis doesn’t look as good for homes that are already connected. All the equipment to create and store hydrogen will be expensive by itself, but as the article on the FSU project notes, the amount of solar paneling required also drastically increases — in this case, to 6.9 kilowatts, which is three or more times larger than the average solar installation. The problem is that solar only peaks for a few hours a day, and during that peak, the conversion to hydrogen won’t even approach perfect efficiency; a good portion of the energy will be lost, so much more solar paneling is needed than the amount required to power the home for a few hours. For reference, by the way, the solar paneling alone could cost well over $100,000 (without subsidies) if installed today. The big prize, a TW solar system, is clearly the one to chase. Solar hydrogen production for load smoothing, fertilizer production, methane production, and other petrochemical processing is clearly the low hanging fruit. It can be operated, grown, slowly enhanced, by teams of engineers, and teams of companies. It doesn't have to be public ready, idiot proof, to go into production. A TW solar complex can be constructed as a blend of production and experimental systems, and various kinds of solar collection systems and auxiliary systems, but with huge economies of scale and solid government financing. It takes leadership to make this happen. It means establishment of a vast desert area with little red tape. It means new communities and huge job creation. It ultimately means a large positive changes in balance of trade, GDP, and productivity. This is the kind of Manhattan style energy project that is technically justified and needed NOW. I think this is the last thing many lobbyists would want to see. The last thing vested interests want to see is something that might actually work. Just as with a government health care option, global warming remedies, and run amuck financial system controls, if you can't kill it, then wound it as much as possible, tie it up, and make it as ineffective as possible. Create smoke and debate where there should be none, in order to confuse the ignorant. Divert resources and attention to *anything* but the most effective options. All these strategies have been and will continue to be employed for maintaining the status quo. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Feyerabend, War and Depression
I am NOT being critical of your efforts or anyone else in trying to promote acceptance. I am, however, nauseated by the fact that such is deemed necessary apparently because things have drifted into a sterile orthodoxy dominated by scientific hierarchs. Now, I'm not even sure we can depend upon funerals to change the situation, much less reason or replication.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion, Feyerabend, War and Depression
Chris Zell wrote: I am NOT being critical of your efforts or anyone else in trying to promote acceptance. I got that. I knew you were not. My point is, why should you be nauseated by the fact that such is deemed necessary? Public relations ploys have always been a necessary part of science. Right from the very start, when Galileo botched the sale of telescope and then blamed the customer (the Cardinals). Actually, he soon got it right, and scored a big public relations coup, and was rewarded with a lavish government defense contract to provide an instrument that was obsolete a few years later, and worthless. (It was to provide a telescope for the military, for harbor defense.) Public relations and politics are human nature. We cannot transcend them. Why should you be nauseated by something that has always has been an integral part of life. It is a bit like being nauseated by sex, if you don't mind me saying. Icky it may be, this is what people and other primates do. . . . things have drifted into a sterile orthodoxy dominated by scientific hierarchs. Well, it is rather depressing, but there was never a time in the history of science when it was not dominated by sterile orthodoxy dominated by scientific hierarchy. You should not look back at some mythical golden era when this was not the case. I will grant, the problem is probably somewhat worse today than it has been on average. We are at a low ebb. But this has always been the situation in science, and in other institutions such as education, banking, fine arts, computer programming, warfare and others. There are short periods when novelty and unorthodox methods flourish, but stasis then returns. For example, in fine arts the Impressionist period lasted from the 1860s to the 1880s. Before and after that lie decades of Sterile Boring Uninspired Imitative Paintings. In physics, Newton introduced a revolution of course, but it was soon converted to orthodoxy and remained unquestioned until the late 19th century. A revolution then came, but the fundamentals were settled by the late 1930s. Within the bounds of these settled orthodoxies tremendous progress was made. But people such as Arrhenius or Fleischmann, who wanted to introduce fundamental new ideas and disruptive discoveries invariably get the bum's rush. Scientists imagine that they are open minded and more willing to look at novel ideas than other people, but history shows that is untrue. It is a shame, but that's how things are. They muddle through anyway. The institution might work better if they would try living up to the open-minded ideals they endorse in the textbooks. Maybe. Who knows? It might actually cause more problems. It has never been tried. There is not 1 in 100 scientists who actually do what they are supposed to do, for example, by honoring the replicated experiment above theory. Scientists who do this are so rare they are called out and made examples of, cited in textbooks, and approved of with tearful acclamation (seriously!). They are treated as heros if they manage to survive, that is. First, as we all know, they are treated as villains, bums and lunatics. Read biographies or an honestly written history of science, and you will see that pattern repeated over and over again, in every era, in every field. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:58:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] What is it, by knowing which, we have all knowledge? [snip] ...the ability to tap into the galactic telepathy network. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. Sensible and very wrong. There is another reason to discuss your own work. It's your work, you are close to it, you think it's important. And your judgment about that might well be clouded. The big lacuna is Miles, of course, very old evidence, and heavily verified. They made a big deal about Miles! Right there in section 3. They didn't ignore other people's work, especially not his. They emphasized their own work, but they commented on many others. I wasn't there. I don't know what the presentations were like. But McKubre is an accomplished lecturer. I have transcribed his talks and published them pretty much verbatim, as papers. Hagelstein is pretty good too. The paper they presented makes things quite clear. It as edited, improved and commented upon by many people before the presentation, including me. It was not dashed off in a rush. Some of the panel members understood the issues perfectly well. If the others did not, I suppose they were not paying attention or thinking things through. I doubt it was the fault of the people making presentations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tesla'sWardenclyffe-GusherMegaSuccess
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: What is it, by knowing which, we have all knowledge? [snip] ...the ability to tap into the galactic telepathy network. ;) Helluva database. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:31:35 -0400: Hi, [snip] All I can say is, WTF?! http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/29649/ LH2 somehow forming an Iceman? Ice wouldn't stay in one piece and maintain it's structure like that, especially at those speeds in the atmosphere - too much friction. However it does look like a frost pattern that one gets on glass windows. Perhaps that what it is, but on a view port or the camera lens? (It tracks the tank because the camera is tracking the tank). Terry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
In reply to Dr. Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us that you demand to EDIT the papers. [snip] ..from the perspective of an outsider to all of this, I get the impression that Jed edit's papers to make them more comprehensible, however I can understand that some authors would object to any interference at all. Therefore, I have a the following suggestion for Jed. In those cases, you could add an additional document to the web site, that accompanies the unedited original, and is clearly marked as either your list of edits, or as your edited version, whichever is easiest, while the unedited original is also marked as such. That way, both requirements are met. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Perhaps that what it is, but on a view port or the camera lens? (It tracks the tank because the camera is tracking the tank). It rotates independently of the tank. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
- Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:33:25 - 0400:Hi, [snip] I've shown a roughly square wire loop, with a capacitor in the bottom leg of the loop, and I've shown arrows next to the wire indicating the direction of the E field at all points. The capacitor plates are labeled + plate and - plate. Around the capacitor, note that the E field points the *other* *way* from the field near the wires. If the electrons follow the direction of the electric field around the loop, but the electric field between the plates points in the oppositedirection, how can the current keep flowing? The logic of electricfields implies the current should cease. [snip] Because there's a pile of them in one place, and that pile gets smaller as the capacitor/battery drains. Once it's empty, the current does indeed stop. Regards, Yup, but that is not what bothers me. I have been unable to consistently apply the concept of an electric around a circuit with a steady current without it ending in a contradiction. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Dr. Mitchell Swartz's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us that you demand to EDIT the papers. [snip] ..from the perspective of an outsider to all of this, I get the impression that Jed edit's papers to make them more comprehensible, however I can understand that some authors would object to any interference at all. Swartz's assertions are crazy nonsense. I would never demand to edit papers. Editing is tedious and thankless work. I would no more DEMAND you let me do that than I would DEMAND you let me come to your house, do the laundry, and spray for cockroaches. Any time an author says he does not want me to edit something, I leave it alone. Often this results in a paper that is incomprehensible that no one will download or read. I know this for a fact, because I have detailed statistics from LENR-CANR showing which papers are popular and which are ignored. However, if an author wants me to upload an incomprehensible paper that no one will read, that's his or her business. It will not cost me any bandwidth, so why should I care? As I said there are thousands of authors and about a thousand papers by now so it makes no difference if there are a few duds. When I am preparing papers for a proceedings, that's another matter. The editors of proceedings usually want to impose some format uniformity because it makes the book more professional looking. Such as having all papers start with an abstract which is block text indented on both sides. Also, the editors do not want to publish papers with spelling mistakes and incomprehensible English. So they turn to me, because I have been writing and editing technical documentation for 35 years and I know much more about Microsoft Word than most scientists do. The decision to edit these papers is made by the editors (Hagelstein, Biberian, Melich . . .) not by me. Naturally, I approve. The earlier unedited proceedings were an embarrassment. Highly unprofessional. Ed and I have on rare occasions turned down papers altogether. Maybe 3 to 5 times. These papers were off-topic, crazy, utterly incomprehensible, or handwritten and illegible. Generally speaking though, if you can get a paper published in a proceedings or journal anywhere, and it has some connection to cold fusion, we'll take it. We never turn down papers because we disagree with them. On the contrary, for years I have been trying to get more of the skeptics to contribute papers. - Jed
correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive WireCarrying a Constant Current Because there's a pile of them in one place, and that pile gets smaller as the capacitor/battery drains. Once it's empty, the current does indeed stop. Regards, Yup, but that is not what bothers me. I have been unable to consistentlyapply the concept of an electric around a circuit with a steady current without it ending in a contradiction. Harry That should read: Yup, but that is not what bothers me. I have been unable to consistently apply the concept of an _electric field_ around a circuit with a steady current without it ending in a contradiction. harry
Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:54:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] Yup, but that is not what bothers me. I have been unable to consistently apply the concept of an _electric field_ around a circuit with a steady current without it ending in a contradiction. harry That's because it's not really a complete circle. It's just a bent path between two points, or more accurately two paths, one internal and one external, but there are still two points, a positive connection point and a negative connection point. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Strange Object Near Shuttle Tank
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:39:29 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Perhaps that what it is, but on a view port or the camera lens? (It tracks the tank because the camera is tracking the tank). It rotates independently of the tank. Note that the tank appears to be catching up with the camera in the horizontal plane. That means that the camera itself has to rotate to follow it and the rotation of the object appears to be proportional to the degree of rotation of the camera. Perhaps it's a view port reflection, or the image is captured in the camera via a rotating mirror, and the frost is on the mirror? Terry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 04:58 PM 9/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll bet if you contacted those people today (the ones still alive), you would find they have not learned a thing about cold fusion and they would not change a word of their endorsements. Unless you could approach them in a way likely to generate rapport, and discuss the issues in detail, perhaps following the approach of someone you love to hate, Hoffmann. It's not impossible, but, yes, it can be very difficult. Difficult or easy, why would I bother? I don't care what these nudniks think. They sure don't care what I think! If, Jed, if. I didn't say you should do it. As Mike McKubre says, I wouldn't cross the street to hear a lecture by Frank Close. I might, but not if I had to pay, and not if I had to do much more than cross the street. And I'd bring a good book. Maybe the ACS LENR Sourcebook. On the other hand, I've never read Close. Have I missed anything? I have nothing in common with the extreme skeptics and the Avowed Enemies of Cold Fusion. No meeting of the minds is possible between us. I never communicate with them unless there is an audience and I wish to score points. Discussing the issues with them is a futile waste of time. Unless certain conditions arose. I don't advise holding your breath waiting for them, and I'm sure you don't need this advice. Or lack of advice, now, that was a weird construction, wasn't it? Needless to say, they think the same thing about me, as they have often said. Here is one that said that about me yesterday: http://evildrpain.blogspot.com/2009/09/freedom.html Supposed scientist uses pseudonym of Evil Dr. Pain. You hang out with strange people, Jed. Sounds like Wikipedia. Here is the heated discussion linked to in the blog: http://missatomicbomb.blogspot.com/2008/06/gullible-part-2.html Yeah, Jed, I've watched what you do, it turns up in searches for various topics of interest. I've done my share of advocacy responses to blogs, and, I must say, I've always found your comments quite civil and to the point. So this is the blog of Miss Atomic Bomb a.k.a. Nuclear Kelly. I'm always amused by the half-knowledge of some of these physics bloggers, who raise the most obvious questions not only as if nobody thought of those questions before, but, of course, there isn't any answer. Like, How Come the experiments can't be replicated? How Come the effect disappears if you use more accurate instrumentation? How Come there isn't any nuclear ash? How Come I ask all these questions without actually reading anything about the topic, and when someone like Jed Rothwell comes along and lays it out for me, I retreat further into my shell of contempt? Huh? How Come? I'd venture a guess that I was studying nuclear physics sometime around when Nuclear Kelly's parents were born. She treats Julian Schwinger as not a nuclear physicist? Hello? She imagines that those who work in the field of cold fusion are totally ignorant of the Coulomb barrier. Reminds me of a 12-year-old who once corrected my Arabic pronunciation. He'd learned a rule that *usually* applied, but not in the case involved. And when I told him about it, he flat refused to believe me. After all, I was only four times his age, why should he pay attention to me, when he *knew* I was wrong. Bright kid, actually, too accustomed to being right around adults who didn't know what they were talking about Her comment, The fact that they call it low energy nuclear reactions actually sickens me, reveals a great deal. That's emotional attachment, taking offense at what destabilizes her world view, her sense of herself. It was quite impossible for her to read what you wrote rationally. Could you read if every word made you nauseous? She's right, of course, it is not what she knows of as nuclear fusion. It's something else, but it is, I can say with certainty, low energy nuclear reactions. The idea that such reactions are impossible is preposterous, examples are known, and all that happened is that a new one was found, an unexpected one, to be sure. Her ad hoc numerical analysis was way off, and she neglected quite a number of important factors. Deuterium in a palladium lattice doesn't just sit at random locations, not when the lattice is at high saturation. What happens when local concentration exceeds 1:1 is interesting, and what happens when there is, near the surface, a population with some level of molecular deuterium may be of the highest interest. Takahashi -- a nuclear physicist, isn't he -- did his own calculations: what happens if somehow, it doesn't have to be for long at all, a femtosecond is enough, two deuterium molecules occupy the same cubic cell in the lattice? Takahashi's calculations describe what appears to be a Bose-Einstein collapse and fusion, predicted using quantum field theory, which appears to be totally beyond Miss Nuclear Kelly. Is this what
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 06:31 PM 9/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. Sensible and very wrong. There is another reason to discuss your own work. It's your work, you are close to it, you think it's important. And your judgment about that might well be clouded. The big lacuna is Miles, of course, very old evidence, and heavily verified. They made a big deal about Miles! Right there in section 3. They didn't ignore other people's work, especially not his. They emphasized their own work, but they commented on many others. Yeah. My memory is probably defective on that, I haven't looked recently. They don't make as big a deal out of heat/helium as Storns does, it didn't seem as clear to me, and the Appendix torpedoed it, by also talking about helium in a way that diverted attention from the much more solid information in the main body. It's just a theory, Jed, that might explain why the helium evidence was ignored by one of the reviewers, who misrepresented it, and then the reviewer took that misrepresenation and distorted it even more, until what was a clear correlation was presented as an anti-correlation that, on the fact, made it look like helium and heat were not strongly correlated. I wasn't there. I don't know what the presentations were like. But McKubre is an accomplished lecturer. He's impressive in what I've seen. I have transcribed his talks and published them pretty much verbatim, as papers. Hagelstein is pretty good too. The paper they presented makes things quite clear. It as edited, improved and commented upon by many people before the presentation, including me. It was not dashed off in a rush. Some of the panel members understood the issues perfectly well. If the others did not, I suppose they were not paying attention or thinking things through. I doubt it was the fault of the people making presentations. Fault is a tricky word. Could it have been done better? Probably. You know my opinion about the 2004 Review. It was the turning point, it established credibility for the field *if it is read carefully.* It was presented, though, as a confirmation of the 1989 review, which is actually preposterous, they were like night and day. Or maybe like the dead of night vs. the dawn.
Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current
- Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:51 pm Subject: Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:54:07 - 0400:Hi, [snip] Yup, but that is not what bothers me. I have been unable to consistently apply the concept of an _electric field_ around a circuit with a steady current without it ending in a contradiction. harry That's because it's not really a complete circle. It's just a bent path between two points, or more accurately two paths, one internal and one external, but there are still two points, a positive connection point and a negativeconnection point. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html The complete circle/loop/circuit is this: 'negative' to 'negative' (with a 'positive' in between). Harry
[Vo]:summary of Weber's force
This clipping basically summarizes Weber's force: http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/weber_clipping.JPG It comes from the paper Weberian Induction http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Lett-A-V268-p274-278(2000).pdf harry
