Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

Look at the picture.  They predicted tug boat airplanes, painted floating 
signs, boies as flight path markers.  They knew that air travel was coming but 
they could only extend the existing technology to explain it.  Our current 
views of the future are no better.  I had a book from 1912 with this picture 
and many other predictions in it.  It was thrown away in 1960.  I cant remember 
its name.  Children's encyclopedia the book of wonders something.


Frank



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now


New York Sky harbor by 1950 circa 1910


https://40.media.tumblr.com/7c35fdbcd088b24fbd1aee7c0734407f/tumblr_nuhrnkfvpT1tn7avwo1_500.jpg



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 6:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote:

> That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive 
> changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot 
> be predicted... I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that 
> seminal invention that makes AI practical.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

New York Sky harbor by 1950 circa 1910


https://40.media.tumblr.com/7c35fdbcd088b24fbd1aee7c0734407f/tumblr_nuhrnkfvpT1tn7avwo1_500.jpg



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 6:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote:

> That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive 
> changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot 
> be predicted... I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that 
> seminal invention that makes AI practical.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive 
changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot 
be predicted... I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that 
seminal invention that makes AI practical.


The timing of advances may be unpredictable, in general and overly 
optimistic. However in the case of AI there could be a bootstrap, since 
we have the human model to improve upon - and mature hardware already. 
Perhaps the only thing missing from a functioning AI, using today's 
technology without a single new breakthrough, is simply an autonomous 
high-level control unit which will be allowed to learn and grow on its 
own. The hardware need not be more complicated than a PC so long as all 
the web is available as the knowledge base. Language parsing is said to 
be much improved at places like IBM, and that will filter down sooner or 
later.


First it is necessary to instill - for lack of a better word - greed. 
This may be the "year of the Gekko" after all ... thanks to the recent 
election. AI programmers actually know this and are struggling to 
pull-off the kind of deep mimicry which allows "rewards" to operate in a 
competitive world of greedy machine learners. How do you program greed 
into a control unit? Already there are greedy algorithms and 
problem-solving heuristics which can be coupled with something akin to a 
rewards credit card or bitcoins. Sounds silly but no more so, to a 
realist, than is "heaven" as a reward.


Reward's do work at many levels, especially over time in a competitive 
society - but the solvable problem is the risks they carry when autonomy 
is allowed. We must realize that "greed" is the imperative behind 
learning, in the real world, and secondly, that rewards that reinforce 
greed require both a distinct identity and a strong semblance of "free 
will" but with flexible limits more realistic than Asimov's 3 laws. For 
instance, an AI will soon be allowed to post to blogs and even 
encouraged to embarrass human ignorance, and this could happen in a few 
years. Who knows but that we may have one or two warming up on Vortex 
already.


Anyway, philosophy and behavioral sciences will become required courses 
for the AI programmer :-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

[Vo]:creation of a true LENR culture

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-15-2017-creation-of-true-lenr.html


peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Axil Axil]

By using probability-based algorithms to derive meaning from huge amounts
of data, researchers discovered that they didn’t need to teach a computer
how to accomplish a task; they could just show it what people did and let
the machine figure out how to emulate that behavior under similar
circumstances. They used genetic algorithms
, which comb through
randomly generated chunks of code, skim the highest-performing ones, and
splice them together to spawn new code. As the process is repeated, the
evolved programs become amazingly effective, often comparable to the output
of the most experienced coders.

https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_ai_essay_airevolution/

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data
> that is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from
> a million experiments worth of data.
>
>
>
> I recall a Japanese study from about 30 years ago that produced dramatic
> results in tumors using a seaweed extract.  There are surprising results
> from dandelion root right now. And Teva stopped making Vermox when it
> became clear that it might be a cheap treatment for tumors.  I don’t think
> quantum computers are the obstacle.
>

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Chris Zell]

What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data that 
is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from a million 
experiments worth of data.

I recall a Japanese study from about 30 years ago that produced dramatic 
results in tumors using a seaweed extract.  There are surprising results from 
dandelion root right now. And Teva stopped making Vermox when it became clear 
that it might be a cheap treatment for tumors.  I don’t think quantum computers 
are the obstacle.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Bob Higgins]

OK, I get that about quantum computers.  This is something that an existing
parallel computer can also do, it would just take longer.  It provides no
real leg up in making a learning, adaptive, thinking machine possible.
Possible applicability to AI is just part of the quantum computer hype...
we are also all going to be heating our tea with hot fusion grid energy in
50 years - same hype.  The invention(s) needed to make either a reality are
still in the ether.  As special Vorticians, we should look beyond the hype,
not drink the KoolAid.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data
> that is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from
> a million experiments worth of data.
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything about quantum computing that is set to make AI take
>> a giant leap forward.  AI still needs substantial core inventions to make a
>> truly adaptively thinking machine.  Same is true for the next generation
>> Intel processor.  Neither computing technology brings, in itself, an AI
>> invention to the table.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The realization of AI will follow the maturation of the quantum
>>> computer. The current computing tech is coming to an end point. Cp,puting
>>> using light instead of electrons will make the AI paradigm possible. Light
>>> is based on boson tech and coherence which will enable and drive forward
>>> the development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less
>>> than a century.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons
 results ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable
 product?



 Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
 generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
 global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
 is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
 would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Peter Gluck]

Jed
You forget a few details:
a) Your first and probably most correct;evaluation was 300 W/cc palladium
and thi is 25 W/g;
b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is
say 1.30 to be optimist, so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100
 w power= imagine your generator s a huge F Cell- or do you have
 different idea?
For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual
stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source.
You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or not,
it is instructive.
peter

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator --
>
> I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg.
> This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a
> conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much
> more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW
> wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine,
> the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would
> negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower.
>
> The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW
> combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is
> competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind
> costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium
> is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower.
>
> Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It
> will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the
> energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy
> water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ
> of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per
> day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper,
> as I said.
>
> The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here:
>
> http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistr
> ibutedgenerators.pdf
>
> - Jed
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Axil Axil]

What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data
that is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from
a million experiments worth of data.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I don't see anything about quantum computing that is set to make AI take a
> giant leap forward.  AI still needs substantial core inventions to make a
> truly adaptively thinking machine.  Same is true for the next generation
> Intel processor.  Neither computing technology brings, in itself, an AI
> invention to the table.
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The realization of AI will follow the maturation of the quantum computer.
>> The current computing tech is coming to an end point. Cp,puting using light
>> instead of electrons will make the AI paradigm possible. Light is based on
>> boson tech and coherence which will enable and drive forward the
>> development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
>> a century.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons
>>> results ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable
>>> product?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
>>> generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
>>> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
>>> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
>>> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:23:24 -0500:
Hi,

This is why I used "enhanced/altered" in my previous post. The weak force
reactions would need to happen at the same time as the initial fusion reaction
so that the neutrinos could also carry away the fusion energy as well. As I
said, "not very likely". :)

>On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount
>> of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:
>>
>> 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
>> 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si =
>> 1300.4396227 kg 28Si
>> 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J
>>
>> That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
>> hours).
>>
>
>I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:
>
>  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni =
>1300.167211 kg 56Ni
>  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)
>
>So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
>hours.
>
>Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

Here is the movie.


https://scifist.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-twonky/




I cant believe that this movie scared me why I was a young kid.


Frank

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

Here it is the Twonky now playing on comet.


https://scifist.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-twonky/




It intends to do good but in effect it takes over.   Perhaps proceeding the 
yesterday's
intelligence revelations where the government is monitoring everything.




A view of the singularity from the past.  


Watch that dot in the center if you have an old TV set.




Frank







  

Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is a brief analysis of the cost of a 1 MW palladium-based generator --

I estimate that palladium can produce ~200 W/g, so you would need 5 kg.
This costs $119,000 at today's prices. An EPRI study shows that a
conventional 1 MW generator costs $267,000, so this would not cost much
more than a conventional generator, and it would be far cheaper than a 1 MW
wind turbine. With a conventional generator, over the life of the machine,
the fuel costs more than the machine. With cold fusion, the fuel cost would
negligible, so lifetime costs would be far lower.

The generator portion of 1 MW wind turbine costs about the same as a 1 MW
combustion generator, but the tower costs $1.3 million. Yet wind is
competitive with combustion generators because the fuel is free -- wind
costs nothing. With cold fusion, the extra $119,000 you pay for palladium
is far less than the cost of the wind turbine tower.

Regarding fuel costs, high purity heavy water today costs ~$1000/kg. It
will be much cheaper with cold fusion, because most of that cost is for the
energy used to separate heavy water from ordinary water. 1 kg of heavy
water produces 69 million megajoules of heat. A 1 MW reactor consumes 3 MJ
of heat per second, so that's 23 million seconds, or 266 days, or $3.76 per
day. Actually, it would be far cheaper because heavy water will be cheaper,
as I said.

The EPRI generator data is on p. 2-5 here:

http://www.publicpower.org/files/deed/finalreportcostsofutilitydistributedgenerators.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

A view of  a robot from 1953.  Twonky.  Now playing on the Comet channel.


I first saw this show when I was very young.  Lightning bolts came out the TV 
set in the movie.


When I tuned off my TV and a dot appeared in the center of the screen.  I ran 
away before a bot could come out.
Today when I see the show is is such a simple comedy.  Perhaps I saw something 
more 
sinister when I was eight.  Today, I am still glad there are no more dots 
appear in the middle of the TV screen when they are turned off.


Frank

[Vo]:12 years from now

[Bob Higgins]

I don't see anything about quantum computing that is set to make AI take a
giant leap forward.  AI still needs substantial core inventions to make a
truly adaptively thinking machine.  Same is true for the next generation
Intel processor.  Neither computing technology brings, in itself, an AI
invention to the table.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The realization of AI will follow the maturation of the quantum computer.
> The current computing tech is coming to an end point. Cp,puting using light
> instead of electrons will make the AI paradigm possible. Light is based on
> boson tech and coherence which will enable and drive forward the
> development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
> a century.
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons
>> results ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable
>> product?
>>
>>
>>
>> Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
>> generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
>> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
>> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
>> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Axil Axil]

The realization of AI will follow the maturation of the quantum computer.
The current computing tech is coming to an end point. Cp,puting using light
instead of electrons will make the AI paradigm possible. Light is based on
boson tech and coherence which will enable and drive forward the
development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
a century.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons results
> ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable product?
>
>
>
> Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
> generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>

[Vo]:12 years from now

[Bob Higgins]

That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive
changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be
predicted.  Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from
engineering can be rapid, or can be slow, but it usually moves forward.  I
think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is
presently missing.  I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that
seminal invention that makes AI practical.

I took a class in AI and Expert Systems about 25 years ago.  I was enthused
about the languages of AI and the progress in Expert Systems.  The nasty
secret I learned was that the most successful Expert System was written in
FORTRAN!  It burst my bubble.  It was a million IF-THEN-ELSE statements.
AI needs a breakthrough that will allow machines to read and understand
books and to then incorporate that knowledge as someone's "opinion" of
reality.  At some point the system will need an opinion evaluator to know
which opinion to use to assemble a coherent reality.  I think it is a field
still waiting on multiple inventions whose timing is not predictable.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons results
> ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable product?
>
>
>
> Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy
> generally.  Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a
> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Chris Zell]

Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons results ( 
1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable product?

Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy generally. 
 Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a global 
civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering is nice but 
exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that would dramatically 
change human hopes,  what then?

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Bob Higgins]

While we may not have reached the singularity, I already feel "enhanced" by
my connection (fingers and eyes) to the computer.  My old boss used to
describe computers as "brain amplifiers" when pitching the purchase of new
computers to management (asking, "how much amplification do you want?").
It was appropriate.  I am fortunate to have witnessed the birth of
computers in the workplace, and I have seen the good and bad of how
engineering has changed due to computing having become an integral part of
the process.  Engineering is exponentially more rapid with computer.
Unfortunately, engineers that were brought up within the computer era lack
the engineering common sense in many cases that is used to tell whether the
computed result is plausible.  We have come a long way in our marriage with
computers.  While the futurists get many things right, they almost always
get the timing wrong.  I remember during the rise of GaAs ICs in the
semiconductor industry, it was frequently touted as being the technology of
the future; only the likeness turned into, "the technology of the
future...and it always will be".  One can think that the singulatity is
only 12 years out...and it always will be.  Viable hot fusion energy
production is only 25 years out... and it always will be. :)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> With or without LENR (hopefully with) "The Singularity Is Near" "Near"
> being the operative variable to be concerned about today as it is the Ides
> of March.
>
> The date when "Humans Transcend Biology" was a 2006 non-fiction book about
> artificial intelligence and the future of humanity by inventor and futurist
> Ray Kurzweil. It has evolved several times with input from many others into
> a coherent vision of things to come - and embraced by almost all of the
> great minds in Technology and Futurism. At the same time, this vision has
> been marginalized from the pulpit by almost all religious leaders who see
> it as heresy. Yet, ironically, the inevitable result of Transhumanism can
> be seen as the actual fulfillment of ancient prophecy... in a way scarcely
> imaginable to those "left-behind." History is written by the survivors.
>
> The Singularity is more than the "Age of Intelligent Machines," or even
> the "Age of Spiritual Machines" the time when we invent a viable
> deity-substitute, the iGod of technology. The full concept predicts that
> that inevitable trends in all branches of high-tech like AI and genetic
> engineering and even alternative energy (according to the Anthropocene
> Institute) will merge together into a synergistic paradigm shift, each
> reinforcing the others shared vision. It is as if this merger were being
> "directed" from afar  a double irony.
>
> Following the paradigm shift which is the Singularity, most of humanity
> will effectively become 2nd class citizens, so to speak or else "absent" in
> some way. There could be a new mythology which is put in place to prevent
> the mass of humanity from fully appreciating their predicament and
> revolting against an invisible enemy. This has been dramatized in film, and
> will continue to be the subject of debate as to who is really being
> left-behind and who gets the ticket to Elysium.
>
> But the die is cast, and a mass catastrophe like a genetically engineered
> plague, is not ruled out. The bottom line is that within a short time, the
> onslaught of Evolution will have presented Earth with more than a new elite
> - it will be a new dominant species - part biological and part
> manufactured, Brave New World meets Asimov's Robot series (he did not go
> far enough).
>
> That future date for the Singularity has been moving target, but was
> updated today to be the year 2029,  or 12 years from now.
>
> Personally, I'd welcome the change, but the date is a bit too far out
> there to make a reservation. As MLK would say . *I may not get there
> with you*, but I've been to the mountaintop...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Frank Znidarsic]

Technology has been moving fast doubling every five years for a long time now.
I see no reason for it to stop now.




This is what I have 1923.


https://antiqueradio.org/art/RadiolaIII03.jpg



This is what I want 1928.







http://www.indianaradios.com/RCA%20Radiola%2060%20Radio.htm






Frank Z




  

[Vo]:12 years from now

[Jones Beene]

With or without LENR (hopefully with) "The Singularity Is Near" 
"Near" being the operative variable to be concerned about today as it is 
the Ides of March.


The date when "Humans Transcend Biology" was a 2006 non-fiction book 
about artificial intelligence and the future of humanity by inventor and 
futurist Ray Kurzweil. It has evolved several times with input from many 
others into a coherent vision of things to come - and embraced by almost 
all of the great minds in Technology and Futurism. At the same time, 
this vision has been marginalized from the pulpit by almost all 
religious leaders who see it as heresy. Yet, ironically, the inevitable 
result of Transhumanism can be seen as the actual fulfillment of ancient 
prophecy... in a way scarcely imaginable to those "left-behind." History 
is written by the survivors.


The Singularity is more than the "Age of Intelligent Machines," or even 
the "Age of Spiritual Machines" the time when we invent a viable 
deity-substitute, the iGod of technology. The full concept predicts that 
that inevitable trends in all branches of high-tech like AI and genetic 
engineering and even alternative energy (according to the Anthropocene 
Institute) will merge together into a synergistic paradigm shift, each 
reinforcing the others shared vision. It is as if this merger were being 
"directed" from afar  a double irony.


Following the paradigm shift which is the Singularity, most of humanity 
will effectively become 2nd class citizens, so to speak or else "absent" 
in some way. There could be a new mythology which is put in place to 
prevent the mass of humanity from fully appreciating their predicament 
and revolting against an invisible enemy. This has been dramatized in 
film, and will continue to be the subject of debate as to who is really 
being left-behind and who gets the ticket to Elysium.


But the die is cast, and a mass catastrophe like a genetically 
engineered plague, is not ruled out. The bottom line is that within a 
short time, the onslaught of Evolution will have presented Earth with 
more than a new elite - it will be a new dominant species - part 
biological and part manufactured, Brave New World meets Asimov's Robot 
series (he did not go far enough).


That future date for the Singularity has been moving target, but was 
updated today to be the year 2029,  or 12 years from now.


Personally, I'd welcome the change, but the date is a bit too far out 
there to make a reservation. As MLK would say . /I may not get there 
with you/, but I've been to the mountaintop...

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM,  wrote:

Thinking outside the box is not a sin.
>

It's fine to think out of the box, if rigor is still applied and
hand-waving is not resorted to.  In this case either we apply E = mc^2, or
we don't.  Do you accept that this law applies in the case of the "excess
iron" in the Coimbatore smelter?  Or do you argue for violation of CoE?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

Eric—

I would agree that Ni-56 could be a transition result, except it was not 
reported by the Indians.  

Furthermore other transitions may occur without electric force fields ejecting 
charged entities from the coherent system.   3 virtual muons  may fuse to a 
proton or a neutron during the transition to reach a lower potential energy 
with the excess kinetic energy changing to vibrational (phonic) energy of the 
coherent system’s lattice electrons. 

  It has long been my conclusion that the ejection of charged particles is not 
a major feature of LENR; however a change of potential energy to spin energy 
is, assuming angular momentum is conserved within the coherent system.

Thinking outside the box is not a sin.

Bob Cook





From: Eric Walker
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount of 
energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:

    1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
    23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = 1300.4396227 kg 
28Si
    1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J

That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours).

I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:

  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni = 1300.167211 
kg 56Ni
  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)

So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours.

Eric