Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income. http://theweek.com/article/index/267720/america-is-running-out-of-jobs-its-time-for-a-universal-basic-income quotes The idea that work is a bedrock of society, that absolutely everyone who is not too old, too young, or disabled must have a job, was not handed down on tablets from Mount Sinai. It is the result of a historical development, one which may not continue forever. On the contrary, based on current trends, it is already breaking down. The history of nearly universal labor participation is only about a century and a half old. Back in the early days of capitalism, demand for labor was so strong that all the ancient arrangements of society and family were shredded to accommodate it. Marx's Capital famously described how women and very young children were press-ganged into the textile mills and coal mines, how the nighttime was colonized for additional shifts, and how capitalists fought to extend the working day to the very limits of human endurance (and often beyond). The resulting misery, abuse, and wretchedness were so staggering, and the resulting class conflicts so intense, that various hard-won reforms were instituted: the eight-hour day, the weekend, the abolition of child labor, and so forth. But this process of drawing more people into the labor force peaked in the late 1990s, when women finally finished joining the labor force (after having been forced out to make room for returning veterans after World War II). The valorization of work as the source of all that is good in life is to a great degree the result of the need to legitimate capital's voracious demand for labor. As someone with a nice, stimulating job, I agree that work can help people flourish. But in an economy that is flatly failing to produce enough jobs to satisfy the need, a universal basic income will start to seem more plausible — even necessary.
[Vo]:some fundamental aspects of LENR
Dear Friends I have just published the second LENR miniature promised for today: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/thinking-about-lenr-and-dikw-scale.html It is sad but eventually optimistic- like me. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
The ideas by Marx and Engel were built on the problems in an changing world. The beginning of the industrialism. Yes, the ideas had perhaps some political overtones we have a hard time to accept and we know that particularly in Sovjet it showed its limitations. Reality is of course that old Russia, with a tradition of feudalism at its worst. was probably the most unsuitable place to try this experiment with Marxism. Today we are approaching another major change as our capacity to produce food and other merchandise is going to a situation that it will only require a fraction of the labor required so far. Just like the farm workers, who probably thought it much better to plow than to stand by a lace all day, had to change we need to change. I have an idea about making the work force more independent and very flexible. I have many reasons. Here is a few. 1. There is no need for big very structured organizations. They actually would lose in a bidding to a group of people loosely established to solve a certain issue. 2. Our communication situation does not require us to be in the same conference room or office. 3. The western world has a cost structure that means we cannot compete with emerging economies when it comes to simple labor incentive jobs. Projects we can compete for are sophisticated jobs that require our infrastructure, ingenuity and passion to come to fruition. I know that emerging countries also has good school and you might think they would be hard to beat. That will be true in the longer perspective but remember it took the great grand children of the farm worker a hundred years before they went to college in general. It will take emerging economies time to change in to a new model. They will down the line but at that time we will have another paradigm shift. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income. http://theweek.com/article/index/267720/america-is-running-out-of-jobs-its-time-for-a-universal-basic-income quotes The idea that work is a bedrock of society, that absolutely everyone who is not too old, too young, or disabled must have a job, was not handed down on tablets from Mount Sinai. It is the result of a historical development, one which may not continue forever. On the contrary, based on current trends, it is already breaking down. The history of nearly universal labor participation is only about a century and a half old. Back in the early days of capitalism, demand for labor was so strong that all the ancient arrangements of society and family were shredded to accommodate it. Marx's Capital famously described how women and very young children were press-ganged into the textile mills and coal mines, how the nighttime was colonized for additional shifts, and how capitalists fought to extend the working day to the very limits of human endurance (and often beyond). The resulting misery, abuse, and wretchedness were so staggering, and the resulting class conflicts so intense, that various hard-won reforms were instituted: the eight-hour day, the weekend, the abolition of child labor, and so forth. But this process of drawing more people into the labor force peaked in the late 1990s, when women finally finished joining the labor force (after having been forced out to make room for returning veterans after World War II). The valorization of work as the source of all that is good in life is to a great degree the result of the need to legitimate capital's voracious demand for labor. As someone with a nice, stimulating job, I agree that work can help people flourish. But in an economy that is flatly failing to produce enough jobs to satisfy the need, a universal basic income will start to seem more plausible — even necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
I feel that a universal basic income would only work in a society where there was sufficient mutual trust and undestanding to make it work. The problem with those who propose such ideas can be that they think that everyone else is like them. I suspect that if that was the case then the scheme would work. You dont have to see much news to realise that we are not there yet, which means the scheme would fail (PInker's The Angels of our better nature provides some background) I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. Ideally the inefficiencies are ones which mean that fewer resources, but more people are needed to do what needs to be done. It might be cheaper to buy new rather than repair, but with the appropriate inefficiencies we can make it cheaper to repair (using the repair shop round the corner) rather than buy new. However, I cant work out what the inefficiencies would need to be, and how they could be introduced. Nigel On 09/09/2014 16:58, H Veeder wrote: America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income. http://theweek.com/article/index/267720/america-is-running-out-of-jobs-its-time-for-a-universal-basic-income quotes The idea that work is a bedrock of society, that absolutely everyone who is not too old, too young, or disabled must have a job, was not handed down on tablets from Mount Sinai. It is the result of a historical development, one which may not continue forever. On the contrary, based on current trends, it is already breaking down. The history of nearly universal labor participation is only about a century and a half old. Back in the early days of capitalism, demand for labor was so strong that all the ancient arrangements of society and family were shredded to accommodate it. Marx's Capital famously described how women and very young children were press-ganged into the textile mills and coal mines, how the nighttime was colonized for additional shifts, and how capitalists fought to extend the working day to the very limits of human endurance (and often beyond). The resulting misery, abuse, and wretchedness were so staggering, and the resulting class conflicts so intense, that various hard-won reforms were instituted: the eight-hour day, the weekend, the abolition of child labor, and so forth. But this process of drawing more people into the labor force peaked in the late 1990s, when women finally finished joining the labor force (after having been forced out to make room for returning veterans after World War II). The valorization of work as the source of all that is good in life is to a great degree the result of the need to legitimate capital's voracious demand for labor. As someone with a nice, stimulating job, I agree that work can help people flourish. But in an economy that is flatly failing to produce enough jobs to satisfy the need, a universal basic income will start to seem more plausible — even necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. See Frederic Bastiat, The Candlemaker's Petition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A Petition See also: A Negative Railroad: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A Negative Railroad QUOTE: M. Simiot raises the following question: Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain? He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers. But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative railroad*. END QUOTE Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
I am sure you are right Jed artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. However, we do not need that. There are many things not invented yet. (Even LENR might be funded by a few enthusiast having nothing else to do but what interested them. Even today some people write blog posts without any chance to be paid - must be interest??:) ) The situation was the same when the industrial revolution happened. People said it was better to do real (farm work) than to make automobiles for rich spoiled people. We change and our values change also. Our problem is that we are not prepared to jump to the new era. We are afraid of the change. Not such a new phenomena. America was early in the industrial revolution. GB, which was a more powerful country a hundred years ago decided that its colonies would keep GB in top. Well . . . Nigel, I think your fears are making you try to find an answer to the question; which came first the hen or the egg? In a society where we can offer everybody the basics - trust will evolve. Debatable if it is good or bad but I think we are more alike now then we were a hundred years ago. I do agree that there is period when some people will take the opportunity to abuse the system but that is the cost of progress. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. See Frederic Bastiat, The Candlemaker's Petition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A Petition See also: A Negative Railroad: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A Negative Railroad QUOTE: M. Simiot raises the following question: Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain? He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers. But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative railroad*. END QUOTE Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
I had the pleasure this last spring on one of its most beautiful days to follow a winding path from one hardware store to the next looking for a specialized and hard to get part for a piece of antique gardening equipment. This quest took me deeper and deeper into the countryside until I found a quaint hardware supply from a long-past era that contained a strange and wonderful assortment of eclectic land care products from a bygone age. From the commanding heights of the store’s hill top parking lot, the view of the surrounding farms rolled on far into the hazy distance of the springtime air. This view was beautiful as it seemed to roll on forever like a painting from a master of the landscape. The farms were immaculately maintained with not one fencepost out of place, with every row of corn planted straight and true and the lovingly cared for houses and barns were all freshly painted in a wonderful rustic palette of complimentary artistic colors. When I left that old-time store and hit the road with my rare replacement part, the reason for such beauty in the land became clear. The buggies and bicycles of the Amish were all on the road as that community all were in a long practiced precession to a community meeting. Using a technology that was 300 years old, they had transformed their small corner of this world into a paradise without the aid of electricity or oil and gas, just their beloved horses and an abundance of hard work. This ant like community worked for the common good with all members cooperating to take care of each other in the harmony of a loving community. This vivid memory of that beautiful springtime day makes my peasant roots long for a simpler life and wonder if we might have left the tracks somewhere along the line of a more fulfilling and satisfying lifestyle.
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
About 100 years ago... On Tuesday, September 9, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I had the pleasure this last spring on one of its most beautiful days to follow a winding path from one hardware store to the next looking for a specialized and hard to get part for a piece of antique gardening equipment. This quest took me deeper and deeper into the countryside until I found a quaint hardware supply from a long-past era that contained a strange and wonderful assortment of eclectic land care products from a bygone age. From the commanding heights of the store’s hill top parking lot, the view of the surrounding farms rolled on far into the hazy distance of the springtime air. This view was beautiful as it seemed to roll on forever like a painting from a master of the landscape. The farms were immaculately maintained with not one fencepost out of place, with every row of corn planted straight and true and the lovingly cared for houses and barns were all freshly painted in a wonderful rustic palette of complimentary artistic colors. When I left that old-time store and hit the road with my rare replacement part, the reason for such beauty in the land became clear. The buggies and bicycles of the Amish were all on the road as that community all were in a long practiced precession to a community meeting. Using a technology that was 300 years old, they had transformed their small corner of this world into a paradise without the aid of electricity or oil and gas, just their beloved horses and an abundance of hard work. This ant like community worked for the common good with all members cooperating to take care of each other in the harmony of a loving community. This vivid memory of that beautiful springtime day makes my peasant roots long for a simpler life and wonder if we might have left the tracks somewhere along the line of a more fulfilling and satisfying lifestyle.
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
you make good points but further than that I think that the error is to imagine that Job as salaryman is required. in emerging economies you see there is many kind of jobs, and salaryman is just one fragile but comfortable kind of work. exploiting your assets (car, room,land, pavement space,shop, trolley), giving services (using others assets), is another capitalist way... circular economy is part of the future... back to the future... today retired people are just rent capitalist... why not younger people if the robots do the jobs... there is a problem of distribution, not of salary, but of capital... debt is part of the solution, as chapter 11 regulation and personal backruptcy... not one without the other. microcredit when done locally does work well... agrarian reforms dis also spread the concentrated capital on the small farmers... it should be the same for manufacturing industry, energy industry, tourism industry, transport industry... it should be deconcentrated. a system can help to do that. it is slightly less efficient but much more resilient. imagine that all restaurant in newyork be managed by Mc Donald ? would it help the restaurant industry to adapt to trends ? big corps are fragile like dinosaurs. small business are less performaing but survive better. if you admit that someone work more for his own business than for a boss, maybe per worker unit, is it more efficient, while less per hour. future is more capitalist, not less... however whe have to kill the corps. it have to became like the restaurant industry. maybe even like a foud court... I discovered that concept in Indonesia... (is is US?) you have a mall. some one place tables, chairs in a big space. someone is paid for cleaning the table... toilets are cleaned too... there are many tiny kitchen/shps selling only some kind of food, beverage... two for cofee, one for chocolate, 3 for pasta, 5 kind of rice based meal, 2for chicken, 2 for beef, one for sandwiches, one pizza, ... and you buy your own menu from 2-3 shops... an ecosystem for restauration, with some infrastructure shared, service subcontracted to various actors... is that the future of business? 2014-09-09 20:45 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com: I am sure you are right Jed artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. However, we do not need that. There are many things not invented yet. (Even LENR might be funded by a few enthusiast having nothing else to do but what interested them. Even today some people write blog posts without any chance to be paid - must be interest??:) ) The situation was the same when the industrial revolution happened. People said it was better to do real (farm work) than to make automobiles for rich spoiled people. We change and our values change also. Our problem is that we are not prepared to jump to the new era. We are afraid of the change. Not such a new phenomena. America was early in the industrial revolution. GB, which was a more powerful country a hundred years ago decided that its colonies would keep GB in top. Well . . . Nigel, I think your fears are making you try to find an answer to the question; which came first the hen or the egg? In a society where we can offer everybody the basics - trust will evolve. Debatable if it is good or bad but I think we are more alike now then we were a hundred years ago. I do agree that there is period when some people will take the opportunity to abuse the system but that is the cost of progress. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. See Frederic Bastiat, The Candlemaker's Petition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A Petition See also: A Negative Railroad: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A Negative Railroad QUOTE: M. Simiot raises the following question: Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain? He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers. But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
Stewart isn't that true something well done is pleasure. I do not think it is because they avoid cars. They just use another set of values. They do use wheels so some technology is OK. So even if I think that it is beautiful it is not OK. If we all became that local in a world that is getting smaller every day we would rather have the standard of a hundred years ago. You could say that they abuse the rest of the society also. Once I had a discussion with a farmer friend he had a relatively large farm and close by was another large farm but in between was a small farm just a few acres. The small farm sold all their veggies on farmer's market in town at a very high price. He advertised No pesticides all Natural. Well my friend said that is a little untrue because when I spray my fields his get a good serving as well and if I miss some portion of his little field my neighbor on his other side will cover that.. Yes, I think your food court is a good analogy for how business can be run, Alain. Yes, I think it is a capitalistic system even in the future Marx ideas was coming from a time when being a land owner gave you rights. Today there are many other assets, which provides power incl. of intellectual assets (IA). I think we have IA we should explore. Big corps are too slow for that and the amount of resources they have to mobilize and demobilize for every project will make them too expensive. The problem as I see it is that there is very little political interest. We hear all the time that small businesses created all the new jobs but in DC (or Paris) it looks like all jobs are provided by GM or Renault. Consequently new laws are always made to fit large ineffective corps and make small flexible entities have to adopt to the same bureaucratic nonsense. All our systems are to large and anonymous. Automated attendants has made it a farce. I had an income I do not know how to declare on my tax return (it is soon October again). I called IRS to get some help. IRS has a remarkable rich auto attendant one can spend ten minutes pressing 1 and 2 and . . Every time I ended up with a recording IRS does not provide such information after April 15. Well, I called taxpayer's advocate a service IRS has on their website. They do not answer any questions if you are not inhardship. Not understand how to fill in the tax return is not hardship. Btw they suggest finding an answer on the web. Not possible. Of course the good thing is that I keep the full employment up by hiring a CPA. That is another form of artificial inefficiencies. We have plenty of that already - no need to have more. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: you make good points but further than that I think that the error is to imagine that Job as salaryman is required. in emerging economies you see there is many kind of jobs, and salaryman is just one fragile but comfortable kind of work. exploiting your assets (car, room,land, pavement space,shop, trolley), giving services (using others assets), is another capitalist way... circular economy is part of the future... back to the future... today retired people are just rent capitalist... why not younger people if the robots do the jobs... there is a problem of distribution, not of salary, but of capital... debt is part of the solution, as chapter 11 regulation and personal backruptcy... not one without the other. microcredit when done locally does work well... agrarian reforms dis also spread the concentrated capital on the small farmers... it should be the same for manufacturing industry, energy industry, tourism industry, transport industry... it should be deconcentrated. a system can help to do that. it is slightly less efficient but much more resilient. imagine that all restaurant in newyork be managed by Mc Donald ? would it help the restaurant industry to adapt to trends ? big corps are fragile like dinosaurs. small business are less performaing but survive better. if you admit that someone work more for his own business than for a boss, maybe per worker unit, is it more efficient, while less per hour. future is more capitalist, not less... however whe have to kill the corps. it have to became like the restaurant industry. maybe even like a foud court... I discovered that concept in Indonesia... (is is US?) you have a mall. some one place tables, chairs in a big space. someone is paid for cleaning the table... toilets are cleaned too... there are many tiny kitchen/shps selling only some kind of food, beverage... two for cofee, one for chocolate, 3 for pasta, 5 kind of rice based meal, 2for chicken, 2 for beef, one for sandwiches, one pizza,
Re: [Vo]:some fundamental aspects of LENR
“Though they be little on earth, they are exceedingly wise.” To what does this refer? Ants (Proverbs 30:24). Ants appear only twice in the Bible, both times in the Book of Proverbs being lauded for their wisdom (Proverbs 6:6-8, 30:24-25). Ants are one of the world’s oldest and most successful living creatures and their outstanding reputations have not changed much since the time of Solomon. From the dawn of human civilization, the behavior forged in the roiling eons long caldron of evolution is recognized as a quintessential example of the ultimate expression of wisdom; a wisdom born by the witness of their continuing survival as they thrive over a span of some 150 million years to become 10% of the worlds biomass. Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! (Proverbs 6:6) Much of ants’ success as a species is attributed to cooperation and task sharing within the context of unselfish and anonymous hierarchical social structures. Ants work anonymously without the constrains imposed by individual ego in teams to collectively move extremely heavy things, capture prey, and they can when required summon extra workers who immediately respond without any concern about reputation, or ego gratification, or being in line for winning a next year's Nobel Prize for their efforts. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men (Colossians 3:23) Each individual of the colony works in silence for the common good. Ants can also adapt their duties to overcome any unforeseen problems. They communicate within an ages old system that is the key to the success and survival of their society. This method of communication explains how though single ants are not clever; collectively they are capable of complex collective tasks. They have no interest in preserving intellectual property, they have no need for patents, and would never keep their activity secret from the other members of their colony. Ants, known for being industrious, are lauded for their initiative. Ants have no leader—no commander to direct them, no overseer to inspect their work, no peer reviewers, no ruler to prod them on. People who act only when commanded do not possess wisdom. Such “swarm intelligence” is of huge value to science. Science needs less rock stars and more ants. One final way in which ants display wisdom is that though each ant has a distinct function, all work collectively towards a singular goal. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends I have just published the second LENR miniature promised for today: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/thinking-about-lenr-and-dikw-scale.html It is sad but eventually optimistic- like me. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. Bob - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:37 PM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62 (Sorry if this was already posted -- my internets have been intermittent ) Andrea Rossi August 28th, 2014 at 6:38 AM Curiosone: We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
Piantelli showed that a diproton fuses with Ni62 and produces Cu with a emission of a protons carrying 6 Mev of energy. IMHO, all fusion occurs with a diproton with zero spin. Helium-2 or 2He, also known as a *diproton*, is an extremely unstable isotope of helium that consists of two protons without any neutrons On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. Bob - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:37 PM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62 (Sorry if this was already posted -- my internets have been intermittent ) Andrea Rossi August 28th, 2014 at 6:38 AM Curiosone: We think that our process, the so called “Rossi Effect”, is , as a serendipity, also a system to produce 62Ni, because only this fact can explain the formation of atoms of stable Cu, even if in very small amounts; we also noticed that using eventually powders of Ni enriched this way, the efficiency of the E-Cats increases. But we are not sure of this fact, because there may have been errors in the analysis, so we are studying , as a side effect , this phenomenon. Obviously, I cannot add information regarding this issue, pending the patents relative to it. Warm Regards, A.R.
[Vo]:How LENR could destroy the universe.
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004 If LENR is a mechanism that can amplify quantum tunneling, it might be conceivable that a LENR reaction will someday reduce the mass of the HIGGS boson to about 100 GeV. This value will produce a bubble in the higgs field that will expand at the speed of light and destabilize matter as it expands. *Stephen Hawking Believes Higgs Boson Particle May Destroy Universe* http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004
Re: [Vo]:How LENR could destroy the universe.
It appears to me cosmological speculations are getting more more pseudoscientific. I can't imagine I'm the only one here who believes so. Also, why would we trust the speculations/projections of Stephen Hawking necessarily? He has proven himself to be a horrible futurist/oracle in the past. He was one of those silly voices proclaiming the end of science as well as the imminent discovery of a unified field theory toward the end of the 20th century (similar to Lord Kelvin at the end of the 19th). How's that search still going over a decade later? Theorists nowadays working in super symmetric extensions of the standard model have been pretty much demonstrated wrong already by LHC results and are building their houses on sand. All sorts of inflationary multiverse cosmologies are inherently flawed inconsistent in many ways, as best articulated by Paul Steinhart, Neil Turok, and others. Inflationary theories nowadays must posit a an infinite chaotic multiverse scenario, where anything that can happen does, lest believers concede that endless inflation is unlikely at best. Just my opinion. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004 If LENR is a mechanism that can amplify quantum tunneling, it might be conceivable that a LENR reaction will someday reduce the mass of the HIGGS boson to about 100 GeV. This value will produce a bubble in the higgs field that will expand at the speed of light and destabilize matter as it expands. *Stephen Hawking Believes Higgs Boson Particle May Destroy Universe* http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation to remove 62Ni from the nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wrote: In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation to remove 62Ni from the nickel. I said that with too much confidence. Let me preface it with I think this is what will happen ... Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
Eric-- I do not think the reaction of the d,p variety occurs. There are not 87,000 Ev gammas reported, which would be evident as you suggest. I do not think Ni-63 is involved in the production of Cu-63. Ni-62 removal would be expensive for Rossi. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62 On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation to remove 62Ni from the nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
Hi Bob, Regarding the existence of the reaction, please see: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2C%2CDA https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2CPAR%2CDA%2C%2CREL https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2CPAR%2CDA The differential cross sections have been obtained, so I assume it is not a theoretical reaction. The mass excess is 5.1 MeV, so it is exothermic. High energy photons have been reported coming from at least one nickel+H2O system; Ed Storms mentions one electrolysis experiment in passing on p. 84 of his new book. (I'm not sure what the energies were in that case.) Note also that in the interview provided by Bob Higgins, Focardi mentioned that they were using lead shielding at one point to shield gammas (perhaps high energy x-rays). There would obviously be an incentive to be discrete about something like this if one's target segment is the consumer market. I assume the removal of a nickel isotope would be quite expensive. Perhaps it would be easier to go with a preparation with a single isotope enriched rather than attempt to select out a specific isotope. About the beta-delayed gamma -- it's not clear that the 63Ni* gamma decay is a beta-delayed gamma in this instance (see the decay in [1]). But as you know beta-delayed gammas are a frequent occurrence. The half-life of the beta decay in this case is 100 years, so if there is beta-delayed gamma emission, the activity would be significant. I'm not saying this is what is going on; just that it's a possibility. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric-- I do not think the reaction of the d,p variety occurs. There are not 87,000 Ev gammas reported, which would be evident as you suggest. I do not think Ni-63 is involved in the production of Cu-63. Ni-62 removal would be expensive for Rossi. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:56 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62 On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation to remove 62Ni from the nickel. Eric
