Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
1. Most of them are positive. ***Yeah, probably. But that's not really quite enough for the average rational skeptic. I don't expect skeptopatholes to accept it, but rational people expect high signal/noise evidence. 2. Many others are not reported. ***That's an invalid argument from silence. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. ***I agree, but where are they? Where is the definitive list of replications? 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. ***Jed, I can't find your article on lenr-canr.org that outlines the difference between pseudoscience and real science results. In effect, it says that pseudosciences like polywater were replicated less than about 10 times. 1 positive result doesn't cut it. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? ***Ordinary skeptics care. They watch interactions between true believers and skeptopaths and usually try to split Solomon's baby, but in this case it means they land on the side of believers, so it makes them uncomfortable. They want definitive evidence, even if it's only 153 peer-reviewed replications. It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. ***It makes a difference to those people who are attracted to the field by recent buzz, look into it and find themselves on ecatnews.com discussions or elsewhere. They are interested but skeptical. Skeptopaths like Joshua Cude use their wiles to turn such interested folk. On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude managed to dismantle the claim of 14,720 replications. http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669cpage=14#comment-76884 popeye Reply http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669cpage=14replytocom=76873#respond December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm Kevmo wrote: JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times… Your link for this doesn’t work, but I found the article (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96―102 ). And in it is given a table claiming 14,720 as an “estimated number of experiments performed”. Not positive results, let alone replications of anything specified. . . . 1. Most of them are positive. 2. Many others are not reported. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Most of them are positive. ***Yeah, probably. But that's not really quite enough for the average rational skeptic. It should be enough. Quibbling over the exact number is senseless. Such debates have no bearing on experimental science. 2. Many others are not reported. ***That's an invalid argument from silence. But it is a fact. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. ***I agree, but where are they? Where is the definitive list of replications? There is no definitive list. There is no central clearinghouse for cold fusion. It is a bunch of elderly scientists working on their own. Why should they report the numbers to anyone? Who would believe it even if they did? 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. ***Jed, I can't find your article on lenr-canr.org that outlines the difference between pseudoscience and real science results. Not sure what you mean. In effect, it says that pseudosciences like polywater were replicated less than about 10 times. 1 positive result doesn't cut it. I did not mean that literally. Anyone who glances at the literature can see that cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of labs. I meant that Cude refuses to look at definitive results from Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre, Miles and other. Let him demonstrate one error in one paper by any of those authors and we will have some reason to take him seriously. He has not done that. No skeptic ever has or ever will. You should ignore all of them. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? ***Ordinary skeptics care. If they care about this, they do not understand the first thing about experimental science or the meaning significance of replication. They want definitive evidence, even if it's only 153 peer-reviewed replications. They have it. Plus they have the tally from He, which is sort of interesting. It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. ***It makes a difference to those people who are attracted to the field by recent buzz, look into it and find themselves on ecatnews.com discussions or elsewhere. They are interested but skeptical. Skeptopaths like Joshua Cude use their wiles to turn such interested folk. Anyone who would be turned by him is an idiot who will not be convinced by any amount of definitive proof. Suggesting that 14,000 replications somehow magically proves the issue more than 700 replications would is silly. I have no time and no patience for such nonsense. I have worked hard to give people the information they need to learn the truth. If they're going to listen to nitwits and dissemblers instead of reading the facts I say to hell with them. Let them think whatever they like. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. From a tactical perspective, any plan in the US that eliminates Social Security will be doomed from the start. You do not have to eliminate it. What you do is subtract Social Security payments from the free cash universal payment. Suppose the universal payment is $10,000 a year to start with. The average Social Security benefit is $1,200 per month, or $14,400 per year. So, retired people would continue getting $14,400 per year instead of $10,000. Uncle Sam pays a little more to them than to other adults. As the universal benefit is gradually increased it will eventually be worth more than the average Social Security benefit. At that point Uncle Sam would be saving money on the universal benefit, paying out a little less to retirees than to the rest of the population. You could start phasing out Social Security. Social Security tax could be reduced because most people could get along with just the universal benefit. The tax to pay for this would have to come mainly from corporations that make a great deal of money from robot labor. They are the only ones who will have income, as the value of human labor gradually falls to zero. There is a good chance that the US will be the last country to have a basic income. We do whatever we can to do not do the right thing. As Winston Churchill put it: You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, your system would seriously incentivise crime. People aren't getting enough to really live on unless they live very hard, there are fewer jobs so crime is very tempting . . . Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. It would give poor people the leeway to turn down minimum wage work. They could hold out for $15 an hour instead of $7. They could work one job instead of two because the universal payment would be about as much as they get from a second job. People could work less hard with fewer jobs overall (fewer working hours per person) and still come out ahead. $10,000 per year is a lot of money for a poor person. A married couple or a couple living together would get $20,000 which is a huge amount for poor people. It is more than the average Social Security benefit. A full-time, 40-hour a week job at the federal minimum wage pays $15,000 a year. At present there are still many jobs for people, including jobs that robots cannot do yet. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. The idea is to have people continue to work at present, while robots gradually take over. As the robots produce more, the universal payment is increased until it is enough to live on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: You do not have to eliminate it. What you do is subtract Social Security payments from the free cash universal payment. . . . Social Security is not means tested. You get it whether you are rich or poor. There will still be some means-tested benefits when the system begins, such as food stamps (SNAP) and disabled veteran payments. These payments would also be subtracted from the universal payment. For example, the average food stamp benefit is $133 per month per person, or $1,596 per year. So, an adult receiving that would get a universal benefit of $8,404 instead of $10,000. Alternatively, the adult would be offered the option of leaving the food stamp program completely. Children in the food stamp program would not be affected. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/ A severely disabled veteran now getting $100,000 in benefits would continue to get them, with zero universal benefit. From Uncle Sam's point of view, most of present-day means-tested payments would be subtracted from cost of supplying the universal benefit, just as most Social Security benefits are subtracted. In other words, it would cost only a little more to supply food stamps than it does today. The additional amount being what the government now supplies to children, only, not to adults or retired people. Overall foodstamp outlays would probably decline, because most food stamps are paid to working adults, such as people working at Walmart. This should be considered a subsidy from the government to the wealthy stockholders who own Walmart, and to Wall Street. When poor people have $10,000 in guaranteed income, they will be less desperate and less likely to work for starvation wages. This will force Walmart to increase its wages, which will reduce the number of people on food stamps. This will incentivize Walmart to speed up its efforts to mechanize and replace its workers with robots. That's the idea! After they finish doing that, decades from now, the universal payment will have increased enough so that no one needs to work. Walmart will still be paying taxes while most individuals will not, because Walmart would be the only place still making money. Some people will still continue to work even after the system is fully in place and the universal benefit is something like $100,000 a year (in today's dollars). Some people will work for free, or nearly for free, at jobs they love. Others will make tremendous sums of money. They will include people such as best-selling authors, pop-singers, university presidents, corporate CEOs, professional football players, people who invent new technology, doctors, and so on. In 50 years I do not think there will be as many doctors or nurses as we now have, but I expect there will be some. In a thousand years I predict there will no doctors. It will be illegal and unthinkable for anything but a robot to perform surgery or diagnose an illness. - Jed
[Vo]:Simple ECAT Mathematical Model Failed to Post
I have been simulating the positive thermal feedback operation of ECAT types of devices and written several posts in an attempt to explain their behavior. My simulations have been constructed using spice programs and Excel like models. The particular model I am attaching to this post is a very simple static one that does not involve time domain behavior, but instead demonstrates how the negative resistance region is constructed and where it should be located with a real life type of stable product. I consider operation of one of these devices as being conducted according to 3 basic overall plans. My recent post describes the three in more detail and I can direct anyone who wishes more information to it. The present attached model shows a device that operates at the dividing line between the second mode and third mode of operation. In this particular case the negative resistance region exactly matches a temperature level at which the output will latch when adequate drive is removed. That temperature is at 60 degrees above ambient according to the toy model. Keep in mind that this is a toy that does not match any actual real world values. The temperature scale runs from 0 to 100 just for convenience and is representative of the process. The power levels are also made up for simplicity. Note that it is possible to adjust both the core power generation function as well as the function that defines the output power escape routes by radiation and convection. I encourage anyone with an interest in math to play with the model and visualize for themselves how the positive feedback comes into play and the variables interact. It is quite interesting to observe how the negative resistance region is modified by the coefficients for the heat generation and escape processes. You will notice how sensitive the functions are which is an indication of how carefully Rossi and others need to calibrate their fuel charges and geometries in order to end up with a system that is controllable. This particular model uses simple polynomial functions to describe the variable interactions, but a piecewise construction would work with a bit of modification. Of, if one day we are given the actual functional relationships among the variables, it can be modified to include that information. Perhaps others will find it worthwhile to take this simple model and expand it in other interesting ways. I encourage that but expect proper credit to be given to me for my initial input. I will attempt to attach the model to this email and it might not transfer to vortex-l. If that happens interested parties can contact me for an individual copy. (P.S. It apparently did happen and the posting did not appear on the site. Anyone who wishes a copy just send your email address and I will forward a copy to you.) One last point: I used LibreOffice Calc for this particular model. Good luck modifying the model and I encourage anyone interested in the simulation to discuss the subject further on vortex. Dave
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
As an aside; polywater probably wasn't pseudoscience. See: Gerald Pollack's 4th Phase of water. Ron --On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:03 AM -0800 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Most of them are positive. ***Yeah, probably. But that's not really quite enough for the average rational skeptic. I don't expect skeptopatholes to accept it, but rational people expect high signal/noise evidence. 2. Many others are not reported. ***That's an invalid argument from silence. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. ***I agree, but where are they? Where is the definitive list of replications? 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. ***Jed, I can't find your article on lenr-canr.org that outlines the difference between pseudoscience and real science results. In effect, it says that pseudosciences like polywater were replicated less than about 10 times. 1 positive result doesn't cut it. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? ***Ordinary skeptics care. They watch interactions between true believers and skeptopaths and usually try to split Solomon's baby, but in this case it means they land on the side of believers, so it makes them uncomfortable. They want definitive evidence, even if it's only 153 peer-reviewed replications. It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. ***It makes a difference to those people who are attracted to the field by recent buzz, look into it and find themselves on ecatnews.com discussions or elsewhere. They are interested but skeptical. Skeptopaths like Joshua Cude use their wiles to turn such interested folk. On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude managed to dismantle the claim of 14,720 replications. http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669cpage=14#comment-76884 popeye Reply December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm Kevmo wrote: JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times… Your link for this doesn't work, but I found the article (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96―102 ). And in it is given a table claiming 14,720 as an estimated number of experiments performed. Not positive results, let alone replications of anything specified. . . . 1. Most of them are positive. 2. Many others are not reported. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
People aren't getting enough to really live on unless they live very hard, there are fewer jobs so crime is very tempting . . . Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. If they aren't in a minimum security jail it could seem not so bad to some since they can save money very effectively inside. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. John
[Vo]:discussion about ICCF-19
Dear Friends, Will things change for better, here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/initiating-discussion-about-iccf-19.html at Padua? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:The simplest element: Turning hydrogen into 'graphene'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php Carnegie's Ivan Naumov and Russell Hemley discover hydrogen forms grapheme layers/clusters instead of metal under pressure.. could this also happen loaded into a lattice with fractional hydrogen? Fran
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. I think your definition of a job is oversimplified. A job is not a single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay you a lot more or you would stay home. McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace with advancing robotization. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the economy by increasing demand. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? No. No one under 21 should get the money. Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social Security. Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that standard prisoners should not get the universal income. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. Well, when it happens we will need this program. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone should get as a matter of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. This would undo one, perhaps the, primary benefit of Unconditional BI: Disintermediation of the government's welfare state aparatus. In order to more completely disintermediate the government, a liquid-valuation net asset tax would have to replace not only taxes on economic activity, but the regulatory behemoth that intervenes in the operation of the free market -- regulation that thereby opens the government to regulatory capture by crony capitalists as well as other forms of bureaucratic corruption. You could do away with anti-trust laws and too big to fail so we have to regulate you excuses for government intervention -- replacing them with the tax on liquid-valuation of net assets distributed as a citizen's dividend under the UBI.
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Yes, but it isn't just automation. It is efficiency of human labour. Of course currently we have another source of robots. People in 3rd world countries being treated and paid like $#!7. On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. I think your definition of a job is oversimplified. A job is not a single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay you a lot more or you would stay home. McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace with advancing robotization. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the economy by increasing demand. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? No. No one under 21 should get the money. Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social Security. Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that standard prisoners should not get the universal income. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. Well, when it happens we will need this program. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone should get as a matter of course. - Jed
[Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market
$55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR?
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This would undo one, perhaps the, primary benefit of Unconditional BI: Disintermediation of the government's welfare state aparatus. This plan will gradually make the welfare state go away, along with capitalism. In order to more completely disintermediate the government, a liquid-valuation net asset tax would have to replace not only taxes on economic activity, but the regulatory behemoth that intervenes in the operation of the free market -- regulation that thereby opens the government to regulatory capture by crony capitalists . . . These issues will all gradually vanish as human labor becomes worthless. There will not be any economic activity by people, except for a few pop-music singers and movie stars. There will be no free market or regulated market. All production of goods and services will be done by machines. Machines do not respond to economic incentives. Nor do they care about economic freedom, opportunity, or tax structures. They just sit there churning out tomatoes, tofu, computers, cars or whatever you program them to make. The cost of these goods and services will gradually approach $0. Or, to put it the other way, everyone's buying power will gradually approach infinity. Thousands of years from now any person will be able to get any goods or services he wants, just by murmuring a few words to a robot servant. If you want a 20,000 sq. foot house made of gold, or a 10,000 acre estate on Mars, or a new supercomputer 10,000 times more powerful than the best one in the 21st century, you will tell your computer and whatever you ask for will ready a week later. No one else will know or care that you have done this. No one will tax you, or feel jealous of your sold-gold house. The whole concept of free markets, wages and capitalism will be long forgotten. . . . as well as other forms of bureaucratic corruption. Bureaucrats will all be replaced by computers within 100 years. Their numbers per capita has already declined. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: No one will tax you, or feel jealous of your sold-gold house. I meant solid-gold house. I doubt gold is strong enough for this purpose. I suppose it might be a steel structure with a thick layer of gold in the living spaces and outdoor walls. I doubt anyone would want to live in such a monstrosity but if anyone does, the robots will build it. The whole concept of free markets, wages and capitalism will be long forgotten. Communism and socialism will also be forgotten. Money itself will probably cease to exist. Human labor will be as distant to people in the year 5000 as hunter-gatherers and Egyptian pyramid builders are to us. The work ethic; and notion that you are immoral if you do not work for your bread and make a contribution; or the idea that a free market is essential to human freedom and dignity will seem utterly alien to people in the future. Only a handful of ancient history professors will know that such views were common in our era, and that we disputed such things, and even threatened a nuclear war between the forces of communism and capitalism in the 1960s. People will look back at these things the way we look back at the Egyptians putting the mummies of dead pharaohs into pyramids. They will wonder why we were so worked up about such outlandish concerns. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: $55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR? I do not think that cold fusion has played any role in this. It is caused by fracking in the United States which has lowered the cost and increased supplies of both oil and natural gas. The moment it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it is likely to be commercialized, the price of oil will fall to $10 a barrel. That is approximately what it costs in Saudi Arabia, I believe. It will never rise again. Eventually oil will fall to zero dollars per barrel, and then negative $10 per barrel, when it is synthesized from garbage. That is to say, people will pay you to take their garbage and others will pay you a little for the oil, which will still be needed for plastic feedstock, lubrication and a few other purposes. I hope that eventually people will synthesize teratons of oil from CO2, and pump it back underground, where it belongs. This will reduce the carbon concentration in the atmosphere and prevent global warming. We could pump it underground or ship it off-Earth via a space elevator. If people on Mars have no use for it we can dump it into the sun I suppose. That is what we should do with all of the fission rad-waste left from today's nuclear reactors. The notion that we have to bury that stuff underground here on earth and protect it for the next 10,000 years strikes me as unimaginative. It is silly. This is a problem we should leave to our great-grandchildren to fix. They will be able to do it more easily than we can. It will be a minor expense for them. Some problems are best left for posterity to fix. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market
Global banking cabal and the US trying to keep Russia/BRICS nations in line. Many nations are fed up with the stranglehold the cabal has on the IMF and banking/currencies, and having their currencies pegged to the US$; they want their currencies to float, and be able to conduct business without having to convert to USD. China and Russia have already made agreements with some countries to bypass the US$, and US is trying to keep them in line. Hope the cabal loses. -mark From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market $55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR?
RE: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market
$10/bbl is the Saudi’s lifting (production) cost for getting it out of the ground, which, next to C./S. America, is the lowest cost found on the planet. But the exploration costs are usually more http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367t=6 t=6 http://www.businessinsider.com/crude-oil-cost-of-production-2014-5 For explanation of terms: http://www.eia.gov/finance/performanceprofiles/oil_gas.cfm -mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: $55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR? I do not think that cold fusion has played any role in this. It is caused by fracking in the United States which has lowered the cost and increased supplies of both oil and natural gas. The moment it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it is likely to be commercialized, the price of oil will fall to $10 a barrel. That is approximately what it costs in Saudi Arabia, I believe. It will never rise again. Eventually oil will fall to zero dollars per barrel, and then negative $10 per barrel, when it is synthesized from garbage. That is to say, people will pay you to take their garbage and others will pay you a little for the oil, which will still be needed for plastic feedstock, lubrication and a few other purposes. I hope that eventually people will synthesize teratons of oil from CO2, and pump it back underground, where it belongs. This will reduce the carbon concentration in the atmosphere and prevent global warming. We could pump it underground or ship it off-Earth via a space elevator. If people on Mars have no use for it we can dump it into the sun I suppose. That is what we should do with all of the fission rad-waste left from today's nuclear reactors. The notion that we have to bury that stuff underground here on earth and protect it for the next 10,000 years strikes me as unimaginative. It is silly. This is a problem we should leave to our great-grandchildren to fix. They will be able to do it more easily than we can. It will be a minor expense for them. Some problems are best left for posterity to fix. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:39:33 -0500: Hi, [snip] If people on Mars have no use for it we can dump it into the sun I suppose. That is what we should do with all of the fission rad-waste left from today's nuclear reactors. The notion that we have to bury that stuff underground here on earth and protect it for the next 10,000 years strikes me as unimaginative. Eventually we should be able to transmute nuclear waste into useful stable elements. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The simplest element: Turning hydrogen into 'graphene'
Cool paper. It goes against current thinking but supports simple chemical propositions from the 1930's. From the article: Aromatic structures take on a ring-like shape that can be thought of as alternating single and double bonded carbons. But what actually happens is that the electrons that make up these theoretically alternating bonds become delocalized and float in a shared circle around the inside of the ring, increasing stability. ***That sounds a lot like a circular BEC starting to form. Similar to my V1DLLBEC but forming a circle at high pressures. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php Carnegie's Ivan Naumov and Russell Hemley discover hydrogen forms grapheme layers/clusters instead of metal under pressure.. could this also happen loaded into a lattice with fractional hydrogen? Fran
Re: [Vo]:The simplest element: Turning hydrogen into 'graphene'
This is a validation of the Rydberg matter structure of hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter Rydberg matter consists of usually hexagonal planarzclusters; these cannot be very big because of the retardation effect caused by the finite velocity of the speed of light. Hence, they are not gases or plasmas; nor are they solids or liquids; they are most similar to dusty plasmas with small clusters in a gas. All the alkali metals including the Rossi :secret sauce elements potassium and lithium form this hexagonal planar structure and so does water. LeClair said that he found the imprint of a hexagonal planar “water crystal” in his experiments. The take away is that Rydberg matter is important in LENR. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php Carnegie's Ivan Naumov and Russell Hemley discover hydrogen forms grapheme layers/clusters instead of metal under pressure.. could this also happen loaded into a lattice with fractional hydrogen? Fran
[Vo]:The Complete Bo Hoisted Interview on Radio24 in English
http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-industrial-heat-llc-complete-bo-hoisted-interview-on-radio24-in-english/
Re: [Vo]:The Complete Bo Hoisted Interview on Radio24 in English
see also 22passi for kind of explanation- goes with Google Translate Peter On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-industrial-heat-llc-complete-bo-hoisted-interview-on-radio24-in-english/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
