Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
This link does not work. Want to try again? It's in this list: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/ Craig Manchester, NH On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:17 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. This link does not work. Want to try again? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Vortex Could Go Down July 25th
I realize it's not that important in the big scheme of things, but I wish you hadn't put 'backup' in the name. :) Craig On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 10:36 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote: Is there anything against the creation of a Google Group instead? Anyway, this is going either way to hugely affect the public reach of the vortex-l discussion group. Google groups are the old Usenet, right? Yahoo offers file folders, piccys, etc. Anyway, I created a google group too. http://groups.google.com/group/vortex-l-backup Youse guys can decide which you would prefer in the event of failure here. T
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
Global negative income tax It's not just a coincidence that the world's largest democracies have the most catastrophic wars, the most debt, the most regulations, and the highest taxes. The power seekers of the world seek power, and the most power is at the top. The freest countries offer the most to take by the power seekers at the expense of us all. You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. You propose to end poverty with a global government, but poverty will never end as long as we give the power seekers our money. What you propose is a contradiction. Math doesn't exist in the real world. It is an abstract logical science developed to help us quantify the world around us. The scientific method doesn't exist in the real world. It is a science developed to help us understand the world around us. But where people do not question the validity of math and science to solve real-world problems, they do question the validity of morality when working with other people, declare it worthless, and then put together elaborate schemes, like a global democracy, to try to solve complex moral problems. Your system is a contradiction and cannot solve the problems you identify because you separate value from the valuer. Something can only have value to someone specific. Your solutions to poverty are someone else's prescriptions for tyranny. The value you place on ending poverty, comes at the expense that someone else places on the value of their money -- for if they agreed with you, then they would donate their money to your cause. For those who don't agree with you, you take their money with the threat of violence. This is the nature of taxation, and the nature of those who do not try to work with others using a moral code. Almost everyone here is a visionary. We believe in the future with the knowledge that all of our theories will someday give way to better theories which will lead us to a life with infinite energy where fantastic devices await us. We are able to see the possibilities where few look, and are willing to look where few believe possibilities lie. This is why we're all on this list; looking for the next great future discovery. So open your eyes and realize that if you want to live in a world without war, without poverty, without constant political strife, then stop giving power to those who seek power. Stop building complex political systems where the few achieve their goals at the expense of everyone else who is not in power. Democracy does not give you equality; it gives you a methodological system of self-immolation, like in the episode of Star Trek where a society had abolished war only to replace it with a computerized system of war, where people affected in a simulated attack had to REALLY go and allow themselves to be killed as if the attack had actually occurred. They replaced war with a game of war, and you have replaced morality with a game of morality called democracy. The solution is simple: we need to start treating other people as equals. So build a moral code with equality as an axiom; and apply whatever theory you develop, equally to everyone. Make no exceptions for race, gender, class, nor any other type of aggregation. Make no exception for any group of people, and you will find that the moral theory you develop will not give power seekers the power they desire over others. Make no exception for government. So if it's wrong to steal, then it's wrong to tax. If it's wrong to kill, then it's wrong to wage war. If it's wrong to commit aggression, then force will only be used in defense from aggression. If you do this; if you build a society which respects the values of others and does not take from some people to help some other people, then you will find people banding together to solve problems like poverty, all working together in the mutual spirit of assistance, and not as slaves forced to give up the money they value, for someone else's good idea. In the 1800s, the abolitionists showed us that we must have political equality between the races. In the 1900s, the suffragettes showed us that we must have political equality between the genders. Realize now, that if we are to move forward from a world based on violence, then we must stop institutionalizing violence, and build a world with political equality for everyone. Craig Haynie
Re: [Vo]:who is the secret big partner of Rossi in USA?
Redmond, WA. On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Michael Ivanov ivanov...@gmail.com wrote: Any ideas? I heard about Ford, but could it be GE or GM?
Re: [Vo]: Rossi covered by Washingtom Times here in the U.S.
The article is dated March 17. Craig On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 09:19 -0700, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: The Rossi E-Cat finally made it into a (major?) news media here in the U.S. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/ -M
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but starts raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data collect is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C. At 23:15:53 the temperature is 114. Then it begins dropping rapidly. I am assuming this is when pressure is released inside the device, forcing the temperature down to 100.3 where the temperature stalls until about 23:22:03 where it then starts to rise. It could very well be that someone closed the valve that equalized the pressure. I don't know how to confirm this but there was a valve open at one point near the end of the run. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 04:50 +0300, Jouni Valkonen wrote: In pure and ideal basic income economy, all tax revenues are returned to the markets boosting purchasing power of consumers, therefore economic burden of taxes is zero and no one has no economic reasons to oppose taxes. —Jouni [Politics will degrade the quality of the dialog here.] You don't have a consistent moral theory. Therefore you throw morality out of the window - in the name of morality - so that you can build 'your' perfect society. But it's not perfect, because if it were, then there would be no reason to threaten those who disagree with violence. A consistent moral theory will start with an axiom that all people have an equal moral status, with no slaves and no masters. There is no other way to build a consistent universal moral theory. But when you start with equality as an axiom, then you'll quickly find that taxation is theft because you're giving one group of people the moral power to use violence to take from everyone they choose. This is the flaw with democracy and the reason it has not been able to survive on a large scale. Small countries, like Denmark, can tolerate it much easier than large ones where accountability is much farther removed from the people abused by such power. Craig
[Vo]:Oct 6 Test
I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat has been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now. https://twitter.com/#!/22passi Craig
Re: [Vo]:22passi's tweets translated by Google
[You have to paste the text into the Google translate box. It will not autotranslate the page from the URL.] If you use the Google Chrome Browser, you can right-click on the page for a translation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 10:05 -0700, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 09:19 AM 10/6/2011, Craig Haynie wrote: I've been reading Passerini's tweets, and it looks like this eCat has been running in self-sustained mode for about 4 hours now. https://twitter.com/#!/22passi I make it not quite an HOUR : Keep going back in the list. --- 22passi Daniel Passerini Reactor self-sustaining! 5 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply --- Craig
Re: [Vo]:Oct 6 Test
22passi Daniel Passerini At 19:00, after 4 hours in continuous self-sustaining mode, the reaction has been interrupted as planned... If confirmed, this should remove all doubt. Woot... Craig
Re: [Vo]:other tweets
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 15:11 -0400, Terry Blanton wrote: between 3 p.m. till 7 p.m. the temperature average delta has been of 5°C (water input/output) for 0,6 cubic meters per hour According to the husband of the cute brunette. :-) This is what I get. 0.6 cubic meters / hour = 600 liters / hour = 10 liters / minute = 167 ml /sec, with a 5 deg temp diff. If all these numbers are correct then 5 * 167 ml /s = 835 cal /s = 3.5kw for this demo. That's a lot of heat for a unit running with no power. That's in the range of what he's been getting with these latter units. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
This must be the secret sauce: 15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V. Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment the E-cat ran in self sustained mode Interesting... Frank, can you predict the frequency? Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote: Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test. There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the devices, presumably to replace the batteries; and they absurdly claimed that they were demonstrating OU. Here, there was just one battery, charged up for 4 hours, and then depleted by heating water for 3.5 hours. I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then. Craig
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote: My Two Cents: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device produces frequencies. I disagree with this. During the 'power phase', you can measure the power coming out of the system as heat. The conclusion is far away from a 4 hour 'charging phase' followed by a 3 1/2 hour 'discharging phase' of near equal parity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. Others have observed that in some cases when heater power is cut, anomalous heat rises rapidly. I think there is no doubt that anomalous heat can rise quite quickly and uncontrollably with this device, as it did during the 18-hour liquid flow test in February. There is no doubt that heat burst was real, and not an instrument artifact. I can't help but think back to the idea that it's not heat which triggers the reaction, but rather an event which causes the molecules to vibrate at a certain frequency. I think Znidarsic holds this view and, if correct, can identify the frequency needed from the work he's done. If so, then we would see a need for heat to start the reaction, and heat could then also be used to kill the reaction. If the molecules were vibrating faster than an optimum reaction would require, then shutting power down would increase the reaction as the temperature fell to the optimum point, killed only then by the lack of hydrogen. If this idea is correct, then the reaction should be stable and sustainable at a certain temperature and power spikes would be rare and short lived. This might also explain Rossi's 'frequency generator' that appears to be a mystery in this experiment. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Deflalion indicates that they are ready for production. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 And it sounds like Rossi was using an older Defkalion design: Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work. The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive: (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52357.html). Could that 'confidential special instrument' be the frequency generator? Didn't Rossi bring it out only when he wasn't seeing an 'ignition'. Craig
Re: [Vo]:rcdc.it web tv video of Oct 6 Rossi test
Interesting! Is there any indication of what the real time was then? Was that during heat after death? If it was more than an hour into it, that video image proves there is anomalous heat. It proves that all by itself, in the absence of thermocouple readings or any other ordinary quantitative scientific data. About 30 seconds earlier, it was indicated to be at hour 19:00. Craig
Re: [Vo]:New video on ecat.com
This link goes to Kleiner Perkins for some strange reason. Weird! It's not e-cat.com; it's ecat.com. Craig
RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 23:07 -0700, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET! He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets bored with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never completing what he starts. Wow, I see him as just the opposite. He's had a schedule laid out all year and he hasn't deviated from it. His goal was to build the 1mw reactor, and he's got it ready, on time. Craig
RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application
Oh shoot! I thought you meant Rossi. Regarding Mills, I wholeheartedly agree. :) It's starting to lead me to believe that something's not there. Craig On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 09:06 -0400, Craig Haynie wrote: On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 23:07 -0700, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET! He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets bored with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never completing what he starts. Wow, I see him as just the opposite. He's had a schedule laid out all year and he hasn't deviated from it. His goal was to build the 1mw reactor, and he's got it ready, on time. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Coroner Rules Irish Man Died of Spontaneous Human Combustion
On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 14:38 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/09/23/spontaneous_human_combustion_was_michael_faherty_cause_of_death_.html I've seen this type of death debunked. The same effects seen -- where the body is the only thing burnt, the body is burnt as if from high intensity heat, the surrounding room is relatively cool -- can be caused by wicking, where the person's clothes act as a wick to burning fat within the body. The fire is relatively cool, but lasts over 8 hours, which causes the fire to burn the whole body and seem as if it were high intensity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:The style is the man himself.
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 09:58 -0500, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Rich sez: Wolf! Wolf! wolf? wolf... WOOF! WOOF! WOOF! If wolves don't say 'Woof! Woof!', then why are they called wolves? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Is it possible Rossi has already tested his 1 MW prototype behind closed doors?
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 23:01 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I asked Mr. Rossi whether or not he has tested several ECATS together in a moderate sized configuration to determine how well they function as a team. He responded yes to my query. He further stated that he plans to activate them in groups of 6 as he powers up the entire system. Well, that is a relief. I am glad he said that. I hope it is true. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would test a device as complex as the 1mw reactor, cold, in front of an audience. Jed, I know from your posts that you are an astute historian. Even the Wright Brothers had everything in place before their public demonstration. Wikipedia reads, Wilbur won a coin toss and made a three-second flight attempt on December 14, 1903, stalling after takeoff and causing minor damage to the Flyer. (Because December 13, 1903, was a Sunday, the brothers did not make any attempts that day, even though the weather was good.) In a message to their family, Wilbur referred to the trial as having only partial success, stating the power is ample, and but for a trifling error due to lack of experience with this machine and this method of starting, the machine would undoubtedly have flown beautifully.[52] Following repairs, the Wrights finally took to the air on December 17, 1903, making two flights each from level ground into a freezing headwind gusting to 27 miles per hour (43 km/h). Craig
Re: [Vo]:'bad science'
It was bad science when alchemists where trying to make gold, and claim they can do this, claim they have done this, claim they will soon be able to do this, taking money for this research, selling it, fighting other reasonable theories like those of Lavoisier and others when they had absolutely no evidence, where unable to make other metals and elements didnt even know what elements are and where uninterested in serious contemporary research if it didnt fit into their wishful thinking. If the Cat works, the alchemists may yet be proven correct. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
50: High input for the run. The run will be too short. There will be too many unresolved variables. Same as always... The easiest thing for me to believe is that he DOES have a working Ni-H cold fusion method, but nothing will be proven until the device gets into the hands of individual scientists, skilled in the art. Only then will we know. Craig
[Vo]:Report
from... PESNetwork PES Network, Inc. QA just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later.
Re: [Vo]:Hey, it didn't blow up! And by the way, there does seem to be a permit.
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 15:20 +0200, Mattia Rizzi wrote: How can rossi had a permit if inside the nuclear site there isn’t even a SINGLE “Nuclear Warning” panel? Nuclear Warning Panel? This is still an unknown phenomenon, and the idea that it's nuclear is still speculation. It is not known to be a nuclear reactor. It might very well be some sort of zero-point energy device. The only explanations out there are just hypothesis -- not even theories. The only thing a government might be interested in are the regulations which would apply to creating steam in a large device. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Forget John Galt, who is Domenico Fioravanti?
On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 10:02 +0100, Susan Gipp wrote: Jed try to google ivano marescotti. Have fun :) Susy It's not the same guy. :) Craig
Re: [Vo]:Recent Ni-H LENR replications?
Miley has replicated the original Patterson' Nickel-Hydrogen reaction, but he modified the metal. Now he says it's totally replicable and that there are 'no more show-stoppers.' If Rossi wasn't the news, he would be the news now, I think. Go past minute 4 to get to Miley's presentation. http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY Craig Haynie Manchester, NH On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any recent reports of Ni-H LENR other than Rossi? I know there was Brillouin back in March: http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf Brian Ahern in May: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47437.html Also seems to have gone quiet Piantelli? Others? Rumours? All seems to have gone quiet - does this mean that all researchers have the money they need and are now chasing commercial advantage?
Re: [Vo]:Fox News report on Rossi
Allan hinted on his blog that an unnamed “customer” of Rossi's device is a military organization that starts with an N. Rossi said this customer measured and verified the test -- and told FoxNews.com that Paul Swanson with the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems unit (SPAWAR) can vouch for the demonstration. FoxNews.com spoke with a man at SPAWAR who identified himself as Swanson, and who said only that he was not in a position to talk to the press. Several other sources within the Navy and the Pentagoneither declined to comment or did not return messages. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/#ixzz1caJUO4b6 Kind of sounds like the Navy was involved. Craig
Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
Frank, I've just picked up that you have a theory on Cold Fusion. I haven't been following this list very closely, so I'm slow I suppose. But: 1) Have you published your ideas anywhere? Perhaps on the internet? Is there a way for me to learn more of your theory? 2) Do your ideas explain any of Mill's work and his theory on Classical Quantum Mechanics? Craig (Houston)
[Vo]:Double-Slit Explanation
Hello Frank! Have you seen this experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser Even if the math can be explained with classical equations, I don't see how a classical explanation can be forthcoming by analyzing the experiment through the Transitional Quantum State. Photons are split, then the counter-part photon is observed. If the observed counter-part went through one of the two slits, then there is no interference pattern from the primary photon, hitting a detector in another area. If the observed counter-part takes a path that is not observed, then there is an interference pattern from the primary photon. Craig
[Vo]:Znidarsic Constant
Frank, (or anyone), I can't find a reference to the 29.05 newtons which is the maximum force exerted by two tightly packed protons. Can you walk me through the calculation? I've reviewed Lane's episode 20, but it doesn't explain it with enough detail. I also found this equation by Frank on the internet: Force = Q^2 / ( 4 * pi * e0 (2*1.409 x 10-15 )^2 ) = 29.053 Newtons So the only thing I need from this equation is What is the value of Q? What is the significance of 2*1.409 * 10^15? e0 = permitivity of free space = 8.854187817...×10−12, I presume? Craig
[Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Frank, I find your idea interesting. I've worked through your basic equations and have included them simply because I spent so much time on them, I figured I should do something with them. :) In the palladium lattice, when the molecules are stimulated such that they are vibrating near the transitional frequency, I understand from your theory that the coulombic barrier opens up. Do you have a way to calculate the size of the coulombic barrier at this point? Thanks, Craig --- The theory postulates that for energy to travel from space into matter, an impedance match must occur. Frank calculates the speed of transition to be equal to 1,094,000 meters / second, which is, essentially, the speed of sound within the nucleus of an atom. Once he calculates this number, he notices a lot of little interesting things. For instance: this speed can be translated into a vibrational frequency in the nucleus, and all electron orbitals are at integer multiples of a wavelength calculated from the frequency and the speed. To calculate the speed of transition, (Vt) 1) Newton's Law F=ma Now, what we're going to do is use classical equations to solve for the speed of sound in the nucleus, from the vibrational frequency in the nucleus. 2) Coulomb's Law Calculate the maximum force between 2 protons. This is also the force between the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom at the ground state. Maximum force occurs at the Coulombic Barrier and can be calculated from Coulomb's law. Fmax = Q^2 / (4 * pi * e0) * (2Rc)^2) Q = charge of a proton = 1.602176487*10^−19 Coulombs e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854187817*10^−12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity) Rc = the radius of the Coulombic barrier. This is also known as the classical radius of a proton. Fmax = Q^2 / ( 4 * pi * e0 (2*1.409 x 10-15 )^2 ) = 29.053 Newtons Fmax = 29.053 Newtons 3) The equation for simple harmonic motion as applied to a simple vibrating nucleus. f = (1/(2 * pi)) * sqrt (k/m) f = frequency m = mass = average mass of nucleons k = spring constant = Fmax / Rn, where Rn = displacement, from Hooke's Law. Rn = 1.36 * 10^-15 = radius of a proton 4) Frequency (f) can be turned into a speed by multiplying both sides of the equation by the distance covered during a vibration. This is 2 * displacement. Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt (k/m) * 2Rn k = Fmax / Rn Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt ((Fmax / Rn) / m) * 2Rn m = mass of proton = 1.67*10^-27 kg Rn = radius of a proton = 1.36*10^-15 meters Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt((29.053 / (2*1.36e-15)) / 1.67e-27) * (2*1.36e-15) = 1,094,817.78 Vt = 1,094,817 m/s This is the speed of transition, and the number Frank wants to call Znidarsic's Constant. It represents the speed of sound in a nucleus. Since we're talking about a vibrational speed, we can go back to a frequency and a wavelength. 5) Vt = f*w f = frequency w = wavelength w = Vt / f This is the wavelength of a photon inside of the nucleus, not the emitted photon. 6) This is the equation for capacitance. C = e0 * A / D C = Capacitance e0 = Permittivity of Free Space A = Area between D = Distance Let's assume that the wavelength of a photon in the nucleus carries a capacitance. Twice the wavelength would be the area, and 1/2 the wavelength would be used instead of the distance between the plates of a capacitor, in the equation. C = e0 * w^2 / 0.5 * w C = 2*e0*w Substituting for wavelength: C = 2*e0*Vt / f This is the capacitance of energy in the transitional state. 7) E = Q^2 / 2 * C Q = Charge C = Capacitance E = Energy Substituting E = (Q^2 / 4 * e0 * Vt) * f E = h * f (This is Einstein's Photo-Electric Equation) h = Planck's Constant
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Hello again Frank, Check out this reference: It is generally assumed that in free space the velocity of a high-frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) is the same as that of light and so the free space wavelength of an HFGW at 3GHz will be ~10cm. Li and Torr have previously published calculations claiming to show that gravitational waves propagate inside a superconductor with phase velocity reduced by ~300× and wavenumber increased by ~300×. He's saying that gravity travels at a speed about 1/300th of the speed of light, inside a superconductor. It sounds a lot like 1,094,000 m/s. Does your theory predict the speed of gravity in a superconductor? http://tinyurl.com/2wcqadk http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normalid=APCPCS0008130100130501idtype=cvipsgifs=yesref=no Craig
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Conceptually, gravity traveling in a superconductor is essentially the same thing as light traveling in the nucleus: it's just energy traveling without resistance through matter. If Frank is right, then these gravity waves are traveling at 1094000 m/s. I bet if we looked hard enough, we'll find experimental results which corroborate the theory; experiments which have already been done where the results are not understood. This would go a long way toward getting the theory accepted. Craig On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:22 -0500, Craig Haynie wrote: Hello again Frank, Check out this reference: It is generally assumed that in free space the velocity of a high-frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) is the same as that of light and so the free space wavelength of an HFGW at 3GHz will be ~10cm. Li and Torr have previously published calculations claiming to show that gravitational waves propagate inside a superconductor with phase velocity reduced by ~300× and wavenumber increased by ~300×. He's saying that gravity travels at a speed about 1/300th of the speed of light, inside a superconductor. It sounds a lot like 1,094,000 m/s. Does your theory predict the speed of gravity in a superconductor? http://tinyurl.com/2wcqadk http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normalid=APCPCS0008130100130501idtype=cvipsgifs=yesref=no Craig
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Hello Frank! This is becoming more exciting. I'm reposting this because it didn't seem to come through the first time. Check out this reference: It is generally assumed that in free space the velocity of a high-frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) is the same as that of light and so the free space wavelength of an HFGW at 3GHz will be ~10cm. Li and Torr have previously published calculations claiming to show that gravitational waves propagate inside a superconductor with phase velocity reduced by ~300× and wavenumber increased by ~300×. He's saying that gravity travels at a speed about 1/300th of the speed of light, inside a superconductor. It sounds a lot like 1,094,000 m/s. Does your theory predict the speed of gravity in a superconductor? It would make perfect sense, right? Energy traveling through matter, whether it's in a nucleus, or in a superconductor, should travel at the same speed since there's no energy loss in either. If we look hard enough, maybe we can find experimental evidence to confirm your theory from experiments which have already been performed and whose results are published. http://tinyurl.com/2wcqadk http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normalid=APCPCS0008130100130501idtype=cvipsgifs=yesref=no Craig
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Thank you for pointing out that gravity is not energy. I get caught up thinking about waves as energy, and get sloppy. I am not a scientist. But the idea intrigues me that there is a speed in the nucleus at which waves might travel. And if there is no energy involved, or no energy lost when considering a photon, then I don't understand how resistance has any meaning. If gravity travels at the same speed as light in a vacuum, then perhaps it travels at the same speed as light in matter. If Frank is correct, then one prediction is that the speed of gravity in a superconductor will be found to be 1094xxx meters / second, from the previous reference. Craig On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:23 -0800, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Conceptually, gravity traveling in a superconductor is essentially the same thing as light traveling in the nucleus: it's just energy traveling without resistance through matter. This does not follow, Craig. And this whole line of bogosity about defining quantum transitions as a speed is getting almost to the point of lunacy. 1) What makes you think a nucleus offers no resistance? 2) What makes you think that gravity is energy? Gravity is a force, and a force is NOT energy. A force can have potential energy and be converted into energy, but is not energy. If Frank is right, then these gravity waves are traveling at 1094000 m/s. This has little to do with anyone's quantum theory. This is the approximate escape velocity of our sun. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Here's another way to use Vt in a prediction. Because it looks as though Vt can be used to derive Planck's Constant, then use Planck's Constant to calculate a very accurate Vt. I don't know how accurate these other variables have been measured, but presumably, they are far past the 4 significant digits of Vt. So, by back-calculating Vt, we can then use it to predict the effective radii of protons in the nucleus, which is the variable that seems to be the least certain. Then we just need another experiment to more accurately determine the effective radii of protons while in the nucleus. E = (Q^2 / (4 * e0 * Vt)) * f E = h * f (This is Einstein's Photo-Electric Equation) h = Planck's Constant Solving backwards for a better Vt = Q^2 / (4 * e0 * Vt) = h Q = charge of a proton = 1.602176487*10^−19 Coulombs e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854187817*10^−12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity) 4 * e0 * Vt = Q^2 / h Vt = Q^2 / (h * 4 * e0) Vt = (1.602176487e-19)^2 / (4 * 8.854187817e-12 * 6.62606896e-34) = 1,093,845.63 Craig
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:23 -0800, Jones Beene wrote: OK, let's backtrack. Apparently we are not on the same page yet. In the spirit of KISS and simplicity, the internationally-accepted value of the proton's charge radius is 0.8768 fm. Is there a valid reason to use anything else? If Vt is going to have any relevance as a general constant, it must apply to hydrogen. Most of the visible universe is hydrogen, so why should we worry about higher Z nuclei for a general quantum theory ... unless, of course, it is to accommodate a strange hypothesis, where only higher values work? ... and as a general observation, recent findings suggest the radius value will be going down, not up. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/07/science/la-sci-proton-20100708 Good point, but what they found in that study from 1987, is that the density of all nuclei are the same. So if Vt applies, then the value to use might be 1.36e-15 for all nuclei -- unless you wanted to make an exception for hydrogen. However, it looks to me as if they are calculating the value of 1.36e-15 as the effective proton radius, using Planck's Constant. http://tinyurl.com/345cnr9 If anyone wants to help me read it, scroll down to Microscopic analysis of nucleus-nucleus elastic scattering at intermediate energies, and open the PDF. Search for 1.36. So this means that Planck's Constant can't be derived from Vt if Vt was derived from Planck's Constant. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
However, it looks to me as if they are calculating the value of 1.36e-15 as the effective proton radius, using Planck's Constant. http://tinyurl.com/345cnr9 If anyone wants to help me read it, scroll down to Microscopic analysis of nucleus-nucleus elastic scattering at intermediate energies, and open the PDF. Search for 1.36. So this means that Planck's Constant can't be derived from Vt if Vt was derived from Planck's Constant. I need to backtrack. I was referencing the document that Znidarsic uses to determine spacing in the nucleus, but actually reading something else, again with the same 1.36e-15 value, where it was calculated using Planck's Constant. So the value that Frank is referencing does not appear to be derived from Planck's Constant. Sorry for the confusion. Jones Beene brings up a good point. Why would a compressional wave, calculated to work between nucleons in a nucleus, work in a single proton hydrogen atom? Then again why does Vt allow us to compute values without Planck's Constant? Just a coincidence? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
The article is almost 9 euros. Can't you just share your copy? I'll send you my copy in my next email, but I don't know how to send it to the list. Otherwise, you can scroll down to it on this link, and open the PDF on the right side of the Google Scholar page. It's article number 4 on the page. Microscopic analysis of nucleus-nucleus elastic scattering at intermediate energies http://tinyurl.com/345cnr9 As odd as it sounds, Frank is using the maximum calculated force between two protons, and their effective spacing in the nucleus, to determine the speed of energy in the nucleus as if energy travels using a compressional wave. Right? So this equation doesn't really require the radius of a proton; but rather the separation value between protons in the nucleus, the hydrogen atom being the odd curiosity in this theory. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT: Virtual Currency - The future of currency in the 21st century and beyond.
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 20:28 -0800, Harry Veeder wrote: He is proposing a system to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth.This is different from giving everyone the same access to wealth. The system of payment he is proposing does not depend on more taxation (or what you call theft). I hope it also does not depend on generating more debt. But it does depend on taxation, and that's the moral dilemma. Taxation depends on threats of violence. To apply any morality consistently, we have to eliminate threats against people. Otherwise it's just predatory, no matter how nice the outcome might sound to some people. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT: How government institutions tax citizens under a Virtual Currency system - (2 of 2)
This is a science list, but since this thread continues to pursue socialist ideals here, I think it appropriate to revisit the moral argument. The most moral thing you can say about any plan such as this, is that it's a-moral, that there is no such thing as morality, and that you're pursuing the idea for whatever personal reasons you have. For if you believe in morality; if you believe that it's a necessary ingredient to living and working with other people, then you cannot make up rules whereby you steal money through force, from one person, to solve whatever problem you find, to benefit another. That is simply arbitrary, and defeats the entire purpose and scope of morality. It is simply predation. To any other living organism, you would clearly see that it defeats the life of the organism. If you clip the wings of a bird, would you think that it can still live the life of a bird? If you cut off the tail of a fish, would you think that it can still live the life of a fish? Any time you use force and violence against a living organism, you are defeating the organism's ability to survive. Likewise with humans, if you threaten them with force and violence, you are forcing them to act against their nature. You are defeating their ability to live. You cannot scale this mechanism upwards and infer that since threatening one person would act in a contrary fashion to that person's life, then threatening thousands would bring about some sort of reversal of causality. Threatening thousands and millions of people, simply stifles the society. Morality must be the central tenet of human society -- and it must apply equally to everyone. When we stop using threats of violence to solve our societal problems, then the solutions we put together will be real, workable solutions. Craig
Re: [Vo]:RE: OT: How government institutions tax citizens under a Virtual Currency system - (2 of 2)
Craig, it's not clear to me what it is about the proposed Virtual Currency (VC) system that you are uncomfortable with. I think it would be more productive if you could give me specific details. What is it that you don't like? Expressing (quite eloquently I might add) that the Virtual Currency system does not appear to be moral, that it's a-moral, does very little to get to the heart of what it is that you believe might be unworkable, or perhaps detrimental to society. Can I opt out? If I didn't want to use the virtual currency, but instead chose to trade gold for services rendered, with other people who wanted to opt out, could we? If so, then I misunderstood the system, and there is no violence associated with it. If, on the other hand, people are not allowed to opt out, and instead are threatened with being put into a cage and with theft should they try, then that's the violence and threats that trouble me. Without giving any specifics you nevertheless seem to have implied that the Virtual Currency steals money through force, from one person, to solve (social) problems. You have further implied that they system is simply predation. Those are strong criticisms. Could you please clarify in what way the Virtual Currency system steals money, and while we are on the subject of stealing exactly whom is VC stealing money from? Any time you create money, you devalue all the other money in circulation by some degree. But this isn't an issue for me if I can opt out. [...] ... Money needs to start working more directly for the welfare of all individuals working within the economic system, instead of having everyone desperately working for the continued health and welfare of money itself. It is not possible for any type of program to improve the welfare of all individuals, unless those individuals freely agreed to join the program. The best thing that a program intended for society can do, is improve the welfare of some people at the expense of others. All individuals have individual values. I value my family, my friends, my house and car, and my plans for the future, more than I value your family, friends, material items, and plans. So only I know how to best pursue my values. If I choose not to participate in a program, then it's because I don't believe that such a program will help me pursue my values. What is good for you, is not necessarily good for me. I can't think of any government program which does not threaten those who disagree and choose to opt out, with violence and theft. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house. It may take a while, but that is the inevitable outcome for those who try to opt out. If we were taxed at 100% of our income, would that be different than slavery? So what are we when we are taxed at 50% of our income? Craig
Re: [Vo]:RE: OT: How government institutions tax citizens under a Virtual Currency system - (2 of 2)
In the spirit of the Virtual Currency system trading directly with precious metals would probably be frowned upon. ;-) However, not to the point that any of its adherents would ever be threatened in any way, nor sent to jail. Heaven's no! Why send people to jail for simply exchanging pieces of silver and gold amongst each other. I suspect the percentage of individuals who would possess vast quantities of precious metals is likely to be insignificant, particularly when compared to the entire economic population base. Why get all bent out of shape with small incidentals! Around 2005, e-gold was trading around $5,000,000 US equivalent in gold, each day. The Secret Service came after them and told them that had to register with FinCen, but they disagreed. $800,000 and 18 months later, e-gold won the law suit. They were just trading gold, after all, which had been demonetized in 1977. Then 6 months later, the Secret Service came again, this time charging them with aiding child pornography, since they had apparently found someone accepting e-gold for child pornography. So Jackson worked a plea deal and got 6 months house arrest, and they shut down e-gold. All $200 million in gold was accounted for, and the judge said she had trouble sentencing Jackson because he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. So... some people get bent out of shape on such things. :) IOW, those who wish to continue to smoke. Go ahead. The Virtual Currency system was not designed to play the role of mother or father. In the end everyone is responsible for the maintenance of their own lungs - to do what they want with them. Without the threats, I have no moral issue with it. The only time the VC system might be accused of creating money out of nothing would be when a participating customer needs an essential service but doesn't have sufficient credits to pay for them from out of his personal credit account. From a practical point, once you separate a person's ability to pay, from the services he receives, then the pricing mechanism loses feedback. In other words, there's nothing to then stop the seller from raising his prices. Under the VC system, such individuals will still receive the essential services they desperately need. Under the VC system, the seller of the essential products will continue to get paid from CC precisely because he has faithfully performed a valuable and necessary service that helps/assists others. Why shouldn't sellers of essential products be paid if they perform essential services, regardless of who actually pays them? If the service is 'essential', then there is no limit to the price the sellers would charge. It is not possible for any type of program to improve the welfare of all individuals, unless those individuals freely agreed to join the program. The best thing that a program intended for society can do, is improve the welfare of some people at the expense of others. All individuals have individual values. I value my family, my friends, my house and car, and my plans for the future, more than I value your family, friends, material items, and plans. So only I know how to best pursue my values. If I choose not to participate in a program, then it's because I don't believe that such a program will help me pursue my values. What is good for you, is not necessarily good for me. I think you have succinctly expressed the very heart of the disagreement you seem to have with the Virtual Currency system. The disagreement strikes me personally as mostly philosophical in nature. (I hasten to add that philosophical perceptions are not in themselves good or bad.) Your expressed perception seems to be a popular one that many adhere to. Many express the opinion that they would prefer to make all the necessary decisions as to the maintenance of their personal welfare, which typically means also taking care of their loved ones. For some, there seems to be an almost inherent visceral-like distrust of relinquishing such decisions to organizations typically perceived to be faceless managed bureaucracies. Because it's not possible for others to decide anything that's in my best interest. They have no idea what I value and to what degree I value them. The only thing that a committee of others can do is throw money at things that 'they' believe are important - and not what those who receive such money believe - and to the detriment of those from whom they take the money for their good intentions. To choose not to help others, because it isn't necessarily good for one’s own immediate concerns is a choice we all struggle with, such as every time we go past the ringer for a Salvation Army bucket on our way out of the grocery store. We constantly ponder: Do we put our spare change in the bucket, or do we simply pocket the pieces of silver and get on with the rest of our personal business. It is perfectly
Re: [Vo]:RE: OT: How government institutions tax citizens under a Virtual Currency system - (2 of 2)
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 13:18 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Craig Haynie wrote: . . . then let's change it together, through voluntary cooperation without threats of violence being imposed on those who disagree. Let me make it clear that I do not belittle the inherent threats of violence. They are real, but I think they are necessary in a civilized society. We cannot let people do whatever they please. The libertarian ideal cannot be achieved in real life, although in fact we now have more personal freedom than at any time in the history of any country. For example, we can educate children at home, something that was never allowed in Colonial or modern America. But authorities must have recourse to force. For example, a person who speeds or drives drunk must be stopped, by force if necessary. The libertarian ideal is not a utopia. It's simply a recognition that force should not be used to solve complex social problems. This doesn't mean that you should never use force against anyone; rather you should only use it in defense from those who do first use it as a counter to aggression. If someone is using force against you; speeding on your roads, or trespassing on your property, then force may be necessary. What we now presently have is institutionalized violence, and threats of violence, to solve social problems. This implies that man is the only organism that requires threats of violence to live naturally. You would never think or proscribe such a life to the animals you love. Furthermore, it seems to me you are focused too much on the use of brute force with guns, while you disregard other injustices, such as forcing people to cross dangerous streets with no stoplights, or forcing people to live with the stench of sewage. You may call that a negative; i.e. not doing something is not the same actively doing something, but an ordinary person has no means to erect a traffic light, and cannot build a sewer system, so as a practical matter that distinction is meaningless. You are also ignoring large numbers of people who are actually killed by the government and by industry, with gross injustice. Humans need to use the natural resources of the Earth to live. We need food, clothing, shelter... roads. There's nothing special about roads or sewage. People need them. They don't desire to live in squaller. They will buy the services they value. They will give to those in need. I think the point that's being missed here, is that few people are trying to envision a life without threats of violence. If we first desire to live voluntarily, then maybe we can find solutions to these problems which don't require such threats. It's as if people are saying, well, maybe we can't live without threats of violence, so let's just ignore that we do use threats, and seek a better world without considering the threats. But, if we start looking for solutions which don't require such threats, then maybe we'll find them. We force people living in rural areas near coal fired generators to breathe filthy air. This kills roughly 20,000 of them per year. The power companies and the government pay nothing to the survivors. We all benefit from the electricity. The problem can be fixed easily with existing technology, but collectively we refuse to pay a penny or two extra per kilowatt hour, which is what it would cost. It seems to me that is the unfair use of brute force, every bit as much as coming to your door to arrest you for not paying taxes. Pouring smoke and soot into your lungs is just as bad as shooting you. This is not the threat of violence that you fear -- it is actual, on-the-ground violence, for all intents and purposes. There are two huge differences: I agree. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes property. The air is unowned, and pollution is therefore an attack on us all. A world without aggression does not mean that we live with pollution. We stop those who are polluting for the same reasons that we stop those who are committing aggression. It's the same thing. 1. You CAN pay taxes if you want to. The government never demands tax money from people who did not earn the money in the first place. Whereas the people killed by coal smoke usually have no means to move elsewhere. If they could move, they would. They can complain, but the the power companies locate coal plants near disenfranchised poverty-stricken people knowing that the politicians will ignore the suffering. When the power company builds a plant near a rich neighborhood, they make it gas fired. I think I agree. Pollution is aggression. Taxation is theft, but contributions are desirable. If we simply stopped enforcing taxation with threats of violence, and instead, reported those who didn't pay to the credit bureaus, then there would be no violence associated with taxation. 2. If you think we pay too much taxes, or you think government regulators
Re: [Vo]:Rossi E-Cat web site up
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 18:12 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: Someone at Ecatnews.com pointed out that the web site is so bad that someone left in this name: Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA) That is a throw back to Rossi's board of directors for his silly blog he pretends is a peer reviewed journal. Except that the guy apparently doesn't exist. At least that's what I've read on the ultrareliable internet. Anyone know Professor Kelly personally at U of NH? Different spelling perhaps? A George E. Kelley, (class of 1957), is listed here as having died: http://unhmagazine.unh.edu/w09/obituaries.html A George F. Kelley is listed here in the class of 1943: http://www.foundation.unh.edu/honor-roll-donors https://www.alumni.unh.edu/keep/reunion/reunion_reg.html http://extension.unh.edu/CommDev/Docs/THEGILMANTONCIVICPROFILE.pdf http://www.foundation.unh.edu/granite-cornerstone-society Craig Manchester, NH
[Vo]:Information on Dr. George Kelly
This must be him, Dr. George E. Kelly of the Department of Energy... The user Rembrandt, found here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7942 asked Rossi this question: Guest: Who is Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire, USA) is on your board of advisors? (The university doesn’t seem to know him). Rossi: I do not know him well. I met him ten years ago when I made a test of a Seebeck Effect apparatus in the UNH. Anybody can enter in the Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics (Rossis egen websajt, reds anm) so far he wants to make for free (the Journal pays nobody, is based only upon voluntary free work)a peer reviewing. Everybody is free to enter and to go out when he wants. It is necessary to be a University Professor in Scientific matter. Prof. Kelly is specialized in Environmental Engineering, as I remember. And this fellow seems to fit: http://www.nist.gov/el/building_environment/gkelly.cfm who in 1999 was chief of the Building Environment Division of the Department of Energy. In 1999, Dr. Kelly became Chief of the Building Environment Division, where he served for eight years. So I think Rossi is mistaken when he assigns George Kelly to the University of New Hampshire. He may have met him there, but Kelly worked for the Department of Energy at the time. In either case, this can be confirmed with the contact information on Kelly's profile page, and I've sent an email this morning to him. Rossi may also be embellishing the idea that Dr. Kelly is an 'advisor'. Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 10:22 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: OK, thanks. I guess in Rossi's case you look for transmutation to copper isotopes. However, the one time this was done, the copper from the ash from Rossi's machine had the EXACT isotope ratios that are found in nature. That would be compatible with someone simply seeding the ash with ordinary copper powder -- not with transmutation. It's also possible that cold fusion occurs in nature, and through the eons, the copper we see around us is the product of the same reaction. Craig
Re: [Vo]:People who will not do their homework do not deserve a response
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 16:20 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: It's also possible that cold fusion occurs in nature, and through the eons, the copper we see around us is the product of the same reaction. What reaction is that? The reaction inside Rossi's reactor... If cold fusion is real, then everything is going to change, and our understanding as to how the Universe was formed will have to be reconsidered. It may very well be that the isotopes from Rossi's reaction are the same isotopes found in nature because it was the same process which created them both.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: 'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). There are dozens of these. You should look over George Miley's work from 1996. Heat of high order and host metal transmutation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Message sent to Kenneth Cage
It is not in the interest of the US Patent Office or the US government to suppress cold fusion devices -- to the contrary, discovery of a robust energy generator that worked with cold fusion would be spectacular for the economy of the US and would reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, one of the Obama administration's most pressing issues. I'd like to see that form letter they send out. Anyone have a copy or a link? Does anyone remember this? In 2002, (or thereabouts), Randell Mills applied for a patent for his method of creating heat with a device in a similar fashion to the method that Rossi is using, and his patent was accepted to the point that they were going to issue it, until Robert Park pointed out that it was a type of cold fusion device. At that point, Mills, who had been out happily showing others how to replicate his work, canceled all demonstrations and assistance, and stopped revealing trade secrets. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 14:43 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: I'm sure someone will explain it and make excuses for Rossi. If it's not a correct quote, I'd expect Celani to deny he wrote or said it and Rossi to correct it. What would be the advantage to Rossi if he provided a conclusive test? He's already sold 13 of these things and plans to deliver in them in 3 months. If he really has orders backed up for these, then he could probably make a couple hundred million dollars by the time people realize that his device works. At that point, isn't there a good chance that his progress may be significantly stifled if some nuclear regulatory agency shuts him down? Before they tested his device and concluded that it was safe enough to build, might this not be a couple of years? When the world realizes this thing is real, then there is going to be such a clamor for it that his intellectual property may seriously be threatened. There will be knock-offs from third world countries, and I'm not even sure that Europe and America would give him a patent. They are so desperate for a solution to their oil problems that they might just declare his work too valuable to patent. When Rossi was ready to sell his product, he needed some attention to attract customers. Now, he has those customers, and I think that conclusive proof that his device works, is the last thing he wants at this time. On another note: I went over to 116 S. River Rd, in Bedford, NH, yesterday. There is a small business park there with about 15 companies listed, but no Leonardo Corporation is in the directory, and it doesn't appear to be a place where any kind of construction could be taking place. So if the Leonardo Corporation is there, then they are using it only as a small private office. So I wonder where Rossi is building these 1 MW units? There was a company listed as 4D Technologies, and this struck me as something that I remember hearing somewhere. Has anyone else heard of this company? Craig Haynie
Re: [Vo]:Krivit provides details of deal Celani offered Rossi and Rossi's rejection of it
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 15:55 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: On another note: I went over to 116 S. River Rd, in Bedford, NH, yesterday. There is a small business park there with about 15 companies listed, but no Leonardo Corporation is in the directory, and it doesn't appear to be a place where any kind of construction could be taking place. So if the Leonardo Corporation is there, then they are using it only as a small private office. So I wonder where Rossi is building these 1 MW units? Thanks for doing that. Doesn't NOT finding any trace of any large office belonging to the Leonardo corporation there shake your faith at least one little bit? Sure -- but I don't care. I am not trying to solve the mystery behind the Rossi' e-cat. :) There's not going to be any conclusive proof from Rossi. If he doesn't have a working model, then there won't be any proof, and if he does have a working model, then there won't be any proof until someone reverse engineers it, which could take a couple of years. So it's pointless to look for proof. If, however, he is selling e-cats to customers, then someone will reverse engineer it, but that will take time, and in the meantime, Rossi will make lots of money. Also note that if Rossi does have working e-cats, then he will do more demonstrations from time to time just to keep people interested in buying them -- but these will not be tests. Craig
[Vo]:Leonardo Corporation is a Paper Company
A little digging and this comes up: 1) Karl Norwood owns a real estate company named the Norwood Group and the office property at 116 S River Rd, Bedford, NH, belongs to him. http://www.nainorwoodgroup.com/propdocs/116%20South%20River%20Road% 20Building%20A.pdf 2) Karl Norwood is president of Ampenergo. http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/more-details-about-ampenergo-deal-available 3) The legal address of Ampenergo is 116-G S River Rd, Bedford, NH https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?1114558 4) Neither the Leonardo Corporation, nor Ampenergo are listed on the directory at 116 S. River Rd, Bedford, NH. 5) The registered address for the Leonardo Corporation is 8 Town Farm Rd, New Boston, NH. https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?414253 And there's nothing there. 6) The equipment on the website at www.leonardocorp1996.com seems to be something from Bologna, It. http://www.linkedin.com/company/eon-srl So the bottom line is that the Leonardo Corporation seems to be just a paper company. There doesn't seem to be any place in New Hampshire to build e-cats. This doesn't mean that anything sinister is going on. It's just that I had thought that he was building the e-cats here. Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Leonardo Corporation is a Paper Company
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 21:15 -0500, Charles Hope wrote: On Nov 26, 2011, at 21:07, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: 5) The registered address for the Leonardo Corporation is 8 Town Farm Rd, New Boston, NH. https://www.sos.nh.gov/corporate/soskb/Corp.asp?414253 And there's nothing there. What does this mean? There's no building at the address? It's the same address as the corporate registration agent, and Google Maps appears to bring up a residence there. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Leonardo Corporation is a Paper Company
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 18:28 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: He moved his US operation to Miami. He has a factory in Miami? Where? I might be able to drop by on a trip and get some clandestine photos if you can get a for sure location. The Miami location appears to be an apartment, rented by Rossi. http://tinyurl.com/7bhhhbw http://g.co/maps/ykvcv So he seems to have the corporation set up on paper in at least two states, but hasn't yet started production in America. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Next customer -- public, NE USA
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:35 -0800, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Wouldn't that be a hoot if it was good ol Dr. Mills. I hear BLP had to cut back on space heating to save money, and their technology is a little behind schedule, and over budget! :-) -Mark What is their technology? Are they developing any products for commercial or private use? They have been promising things for years... Craig
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Someone here suggested that the best solution to this problem would be for governments to throw a large pile of money that everyone involved in the initial development of cold fusion. I think that would probably be a good idea. I hope that Fleischmann and Pons get a large chunk of it. Rossi deserves a lot too. Many people do. When we start talking about morality, I feel a need to step in... It's not good to take money from people who do not want to give it up, even if someone has a 'noble' way in which to use it. If you are I did this, it would be called theft. And to take money from people to give to those working in one of the largest pent-up markets in history, is just adding insult to injury. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Congress cuts the Gordian knot of aviation patents in 1917
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:34 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:01 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Someone here suggested that the best solution to this problem would be for governments to throw a large pile of money that everyone involved in the initial development of cold fusion. I think that would probably be a good idea. I hope that Fleischmann and Pons get a large chunk of it. Rossi deserves a lot too. Many people do. When we start talking about morality, I feel a need to step in... It's not good to take money from people who do not want to give it up, even if someone has a 'noble' way in which to use it. If you are I did this, it would be called theft. I do not understand this argument. Fleischmann, Pons, Rossi and many others have intellectual property rights. They invented cold fusion. They deserve a patent just like any other inventors. History and circumstances probably will deny them this patent, so they deserve compensation. But you're not proposing a solution within a moral framework. You're advocating that people take money from those who may not want to give it, and then give it to those to whom you believe deserve it. Taxation is theft because it sits outside of any moral framework and rests on the foundation that 'might makes right'. This is the same principle that legitimized slavery. I fully support their claims to intellectual property, but that's where the battle should be fought. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Prepares
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 08:30 -0600, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Is the unit basically a small furnace, perhaps to heat a few rooms or water? What's the COP on this configuration? I haven't been able to determine that yet. For the single reactor kernel, from page 18 of the spec sheet: Thermal Power Range: 5 - 10 kw Maximum Electrical Energy Consumption: 200w Craig
Re: [Vo]:Re: can we use such a program?
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 18:44 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: Rossi lied when he said he was self-funded when in fact he had received funds from Ampenergo. Either that or Casserino lied. Rossi had a reason to lie, Casserino did not. There is no Ampenergo; it's just a paper company, like Leonardo corp. If so, where is it physically located? Because here in New Hampshire, it's just a name associated with Karl Norwood. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Off topic: Food rights to be trampled in NZ
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:27 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: The only ways to end this kind of thing I know of is a single term limit, government funded elections, and eliminating lobbyists. So you want the government to fund only its own authorized candidates in its own election? And you don't see any problem with this? :) Craig
[Vo]:Nasa Patents Method to Create Heavy Electrons
I just became aware of this. Zawodny, working for Nasa, has recently patented a method to create heavy electrons used to produce the cold fusion effect from the Widom-Larsen theory. http://tinyurl.com/7sffvkc http://tinyurl.com/7nznmhz Heavy electrons exhibit properties such as unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism, and pseudo metamagnetism. More recently, the energy associated with low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons. Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electron that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process Here's a repost of the Lewis Larsen interview from July. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVRLcC21F14 Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US has begun
On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 11:53 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why should it be in a populated area? Far as I know, all of Massachusetts is a populated area. And you can't make nuclear devices in the US without all sorts of permits. I don't think it would be considered a nuclear device. The regulating agency would want to know what type of nuclear device it was, and would refuse to issue the permit if it was thought to be cold fusion. Regulating agencies don't regulate unknown physics. And nothing stops anyone from doing anything, as long as the person taking action is ready to back up his actions in court. The only type of permits that Rossi would seek would be those that applied to making steam heaters. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Without a dramatic new source energy, I see nothing but a continuing decline of our industrialized western society. No jobs, no marriages, no reason to study hard, and a virtual only life. I hope Rossi does it, I have been been burnt out for a long time. Frank Z Frank! As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of (1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:09 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. Miley was pushing this company during his Oct talk. http://www.cfeis.com/ I was under the impression that he was involved in this company and was trying to develop a commercial product. If this is true then I'm sure you can deliver money to him through this company. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 15:10 -0500, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I don't know. The hotter the better the reaction. The hotter the more hydrogen is driven out and the worse the reaction. If I knew I would do it. But doesn't your theory revolve around the idea that the distances affected by the nuclear forces change when molecules vibrate at a specific frequency -- the frequency which will allow an impedance match between energy as it moves from inside a nucleus to outside the nucleus -- the frequency at which the individual molecules are vibrating at 1.094 MHz-meters? If so, then doesn't this translate into a specific temperature? Craig On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 15:10 -0500, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I don't know. The hotter the better the reaction. The hotter the more hydrogen is driven out and the worse the reaction. If I knew I would do it. Frank Frank! As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of (1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 19:27 +0100, Man on Bridges wrote: Hi, On 22-12-2011 4:07, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Basically a high energy photon's first step towards becoming matter happens at orbitstate n = 1/137.05999679 which Mills terms the transition state orbitsphere. Here's that number 137 again, is it possibly the same 137 which applies to the maximum number of steps for squeezing a hydrino? Fine Structure Constant: 1/137.035999074 Frank Znidarsic's number = z = 1094000 m /s speed of light = c = 299 792 458 m / s (z * 2) / c = 1 / 137.016662706 Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on National Instruments
Hello! On Sat, 2011-12-24 at 15:10 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not know, but I do know that a VP at NI wrote to a major business magazine and confirmed that they are working on a control system for Rossi... How do you know? Was it published online? If so, is there a link or any other information you can provide? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on National Instruments
On Sun, 2011-12-25 at 11:26 +1030, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Did you not see that my board and myself are 100% convinced? I have just completed several international visits. The FPE was real in 1989. It is still real in 2010. We now have a working FPE device which we will start showing to our clients and investors in 2012. AG Wow, this is new! Did you get to see an e-cat and did you get a chance to personally test it, and subsequently become 100% convinced? Craig Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Interesting link at NASA
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 12:33 -0800, Bill Traweek wrote: I notice that on slide 11 they used a Hydrogen purification system as a proxy for PF's electrolytic cell. I also notice that the Palladium membrane is heated with a heater. I wonder if Rossi's heater is for a related purpose to the process. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf This message you posted to Vortex has a 'reply-to' field to you, and not to Vortex. Other responses may not have come to the list. I haven't heard of a hydrogen purifier being used before. From the description, it appears as if the purifier is simply a substitute for a palladium electrolytic cell, meaning that as a consequence of purifying hydrogen or deuterium with this purifier, you end up with a loaded palladium lattice. They then add deuterium gas at high pressure, and subsequently see the Pons-Fleishmann effect. McKubre noted back in the 90s that the Pons-Fleishmann effect can be directly correlated to the degree to which the palladium lattice is loaded. Compared to hydrogen gas as the experimental control: 15°C increase in purifier temperature consistently seen with D2 that was not seen with the H2 control when gasses were unloaded from the purifier. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
We need to put down the guns. Every action taken by government, whether it's a new law, or some tax, is enforced by violence and the threat of violence. It's enforced at the point of a gun. We need to stop using guns to solve our social problems. Replace laws with voluntary agreements, and replace taxes with user fees. The difference is choice, and the way the rules are enforced. By allowing people to rule over us without a moral code, is the equivalent of throwing a loaded gun into a monkey cage. Put down the guns.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on the It was sent back statement
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Rossi sometimes plays word games. Jones did not claim that it was given back. His comment is more like it was returned for repairs. That is correct. Not only that, Rossi has all the characteristics of a pathological liar, and liars like to use tense to advantage. You know: the meaning of is. I have to speak up here. I have never read a Rossi lie, and I kept thinking that maybe I was just missing them, but if this is what you call a lie, then No, he is not lying. He's answering the question the way I would answer it, which is in the context of the question. If the question is Was it sent back?, then the implication is that it was returned as unusable with the sale revoked. Any other context in which it may have been returned is not relevant to the question and no other answer is correct. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on the It was sent back statement
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It's not so much proven lies as it is constant inconsistencies, vagueness, tangential answers to obviously relevant and harmless questions, spouting off about snakes and clowns, and general avoidance of credible answers. In a recent post on Moletrap, Alsetalokin again raises the issues. Here are a few he mentions ( here: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2292page=32#Comment_163596 ) First there are gammas, then there are no gammas, then there are. First the COP is 20 or more, then it's six, then it's three or less. First there's a lot of lead, then the lead isn't necessary, then it's the main way heat is produced from the gammas. He has always said that there are gamma rays. He shields them with lead. There are no gamma rays leaving the device. This is all consistent. The COP can be either 20 or 6 or whatever he chooses. This is an arbitrary number determined by his ability to keep the reaction stable. This is consistent. If he said that the lead wasn't necessary, then that may be an inconsistency, but I didn't see him write that. If you can remember where it was, please post the link -- not that this really matters. The only thing that will matter is when and if Rossi starts selling more of these devices. But the more I read Rossi, the more consistent his actions are appearing to me to that of an engineer trying to deliver a new product. If you're looking for some world-revealing epiphany, you're not going to find it from him. That is not something he will deliver. Perhaps, last year, he was pondering some sort of independent test, but I think that fell apart when his deal with Defkalion fell apart. A business strategy is always a work-in-progress. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on the It was sent back statement
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Are you saying his denial of culpability in the sordid Petrodragon affair is not a big lie? Or the money laundering - or the claim that he did not know that he had a “mail order” degree? Or the many lies about the TEG project? And, as for Rothwell’s rationalization about George Kelly – that is one lie to cover up another one. Did he misspell Frank Smith as George Kelly? Mass production in Miami is a lie. The million unit robotic factory is a lie. The list goes on and on. We found George Kelly. Did you miss that post? How do you know that Rossi is not gearing-up for production in Florida? He may be doing that. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Rossi comments on the It was sent back statement
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Craig - Did you catch Rossi's interview Friday? He said straight out: we are in mass production in Miami. I thought he said 'Florida', but it doesn't matter. When I heard this, my initial thought was that he is planning mass production for this year, not that he is already producing. I frequently come across people who do not speak native English, who use the current tense instead of a future tense. I think you are holding Rossi to a higher standard in language than you would hold the average person. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg
On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 15:26 -0200, Daniel Rocha wrote: But he didn't seem to offer any scam. He didn't promote or try to sell anything. In fact, he just seemed like a regular member who wanted to test an ecat. With the SMOT scam, Greg Watson came here and simply started to make claims that he was able to get a ball moving indefinitely around a track using magnets. He never offered to sell anything until people started asking to buy demonstration units from him. In fact, the SMOT was never originally going to be sold as a kit that would work, only as a kit that people could use to test his claims. It was Greg who changed the terms and started saying that he was going make the kits work for those who had already paid. But what he was doing then, was just stalling so that more orders come come in. All around he made about $4,000 US on the scam, as I recall. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:53 +1030, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Steven, Didn't sleep much last night. Went for a morning walk along the beach with my dog and watched the sun come up. Just had a coffee with our chairman who lives not that far from me. I'm taking 2 weeks leave to get my head together. The company will not be moving forward with any of my LENR plans as I have not be able to produce a working device. Good news is I still have a job. AG What happened? I thought you had an arrangement with another party to provide you with a working LENR device? How did that arrangement fall through? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson
Heh! I think you may need profession assistance with your obsession with Greg. :) Craig On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 07:59 -0800, Eff Wivakeef wrote: The Ballad of Greg Watson (updated) Come and listen to a story Bout a man named Greg A poor old aging scammer Barely kept his fambly fed And then one day he was looking at his roof Said I'll dream me up a sunball And I'll say that it's the troof Well the sunball turned to suncube And to mark two three four five And the money kept on flowing It felt good to be alive But those customers kept asking When those suncubes they'd be getting And they started asking questions Bout the things Greg kept forgettin LikeProof Greg Simple proof Taint hard Well now Greg he chucked a wobbly And he said you won't be gettin Not a single bloody suncube Cos it's secret...I'm not tellin But youse can all still buy a share In my solar funny farm And I'm keepin all the money So there's no cause for alarm Gold Green and Gold YEE HA! Well Greg he's building factries In Indya and Korea But Keef he said Hey Greg..just cut the crap And get on out of here Your proposals are preposterous Your aim is very clear So take your stupid Suncubes And insert them in your rear! Well the sunCube Saga ended and ole Greg was feeling bored But then he found a brand new scam (Oh thank you, thank you Lord) He found that that cold fusion was the brand new place to be So he packed his first class baggage and he flew to Italy Well he met that Andy Rossi and he was quite overawed he was oily slick and greasy and like Greg was almost bald thinks might have gone quite nicely but that bastard Keef stepped in and he shouted loudly BULLSHIT much to Greg and And's chagrin Come on Aussie Guy.you don't want us to think that you might really be Greg Watson do you?
Re: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson
1) My inability to make a 100% solid SMOT device and ship it to the 2 or so people who had sent me $150 Aus. http://peakoil.com/forums/the-cold-fusion-thread-pt-4-merged-t63982-165.html 20,000??? people sent him money for the SMOT? I never knew he was at that level. That's 3 million AUS dollars. I thought he was a beginning scammer. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 13:25 -0800, Eff Wivakeef wrote: Err the 20,000 Might be an inadvertent typo. Who knows how many of the stupid things he sold or did did/not deliver. What is for sure is that Greg advertised the SMOT all over the net and lived off the income for a few years. http://groups.google.com.au/groups/search?hl=enie=UTF-8safe=offq=real+ou+now+greg+watsonbtnG=Searchsitesearch= This is news to me too. The way he approached this list back in the mid-90s, was as a regular guy who had found this interesting thing with magnets and a steel ball. He never talked about selling the SMOT until some people here started asking to have him make one for them. The whole presentation was as if he was making them just for the people on this list, and only because he was being asked. The cost was really quite reasonable if he had actually done any work on them. The SMOT was not orginally even supposed to prove the effect he was claiming. He may have been a guy who just got lazy and failed to deliver, but if he was trying to sell them across the internet, then that tells a different story. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Dick Says Yes To $1M Counter Offer By Defkalion
The point in the agreement which requires the compensation to go to an individual, and not to a corporation, would cause me to back out if I was the CEO of Defkalion. Defkalion is doing this for the money, not to enrich some individual's personal pocket. Craig Manchester, NH On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: It's High Noon in LENR land as Dick accepts Defkalion's offer of the same testing Rossi turned down. http://ecatnews.com/?p=2054
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote: The problem with all of that is the ones who work the least are the ones with the most money. It's only a problem to you. Do you think Buffet really worked a million times harder than the average person? No, but he has a very rare talent. What Buffet does is find companies with a good business plan and good management, and he buys their stock. In the aggregate, over the course of Buffet's life, he has funneled more money into companies that use it productively, than others would have done with this money, without him. We have no idea how this may have helped improve technology, or the economy, or how it helped to bring new innovations to market. It is an unmeasurable benefit. Socialism does not mean equality, but I really don't think Buffet deserves to make a million times more just because he can shuffle stocks around. And here you're injecting your opinion into the issue. Socialism just means government ownership of business which is a lot of times more efficient than private ownership. Socialism can never be more efficient than private business because there is no accountability for the money spent. When people spend money that is taken from others by force and threats of violence, they then use it to pursue their own values in deference to the values of those from whom they took the money. They may be making themselves more efficient at pursuing their own values, but are necessarily depriving others of the ability to pursue the values held by those others, because they took the money of those others. For example, when the government creates Amtrak and subsidizes passenger rail, they do this by taking money from people by threats of violence. This deprives those people from whom they took the money of the ability to pursue their values to some degree. Now the government runs a railroad, and for those who are hired by Amtrak, their lives may be better off. If those people sought jobs from Amtrak because they love railroads then they are then able to pursue careers in a field of their choice, but only at the expense of those who were deprived of their money through force, to run Amtrak. Some customers might be better off using rail in an era when rail can't survive in the market on its own, but Amtrak was created because most people would rather fly when they travel, and those customers who'd rather fly, are simply being deprived of their money in this whole process. There is no improvement in efficiency. Engineers and scientists should get paid more while lawyers and doctors should get paid less because they are more important for society. There's no way to know who's important to society and who isn't. Importance is a value judgement. To the person saved from a terminal disease by the latest advancement in technology, that doctor might be far more important to them than the engineer who invented the eCat. Here's a question for this professor. If the majority of people are stupid enough to vote for Obama, do you think they could manage their own finances or run their own businesses? Political preference is not a determining factor in intelligence. If you had a smart person like me as leader of the country back in 1989, we'd already have LENR as our main energy source if it is real. There are not many private businesses willing to touch cold fusion, but the government can invest in it if they were smart. Again, you're interjecting your personal values into the issue. YOU may believe that LENR is a good risk for YOUR money, but here you are suggesting that you take money from others by force and threats of violence, and use it to pursue those things that match YOUR values. This has nothing to do with being smart. It has everything to do with how the lives and property of others could be expropriated by you. And if LENR is not real(which I don't think is the case)? Well, both private businesses and the government have wasted trillions on a lot of stupider things. But when businesses waste money, they waste their own money and invest it in pursuit of their own values. Government does nothing but waste money because the money it uses is taken from others by force and threats of violence. If those people from whom government took the money had their choice, they would keep their money and use it to further their own values. The point is that you can't take money from others with threats of violence and expect it to somehow 'benefit everyone', because values are personal, and the pursuit of those values can only be accomplished by the individuals that hold those values. So nothing you do with my money, taken from me by force, can benefit me, or I would freely have given you the money. I am not in favor of welfare, but government ownership of business and investments is much more efficient than private ownership. The problem is not government itself. It's the CURRENT
Re: [Vo]:Yet another flying car
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 16:24 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: What is it with flying cars? It seems like the worst idea ever. Why not just rent a car at the airport? Even small airports usually have them. Anyway, here is the latest: http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/04/03/flying_cars_terrafugia_announced_flying_car_has_made_first_flight.html - Jed It's another degree of freedom. For those of us who are private pilots, we have a tremendous range of territory at our finger tips. We can fly 1,000 miles for a weekend trip, but many airports don't have rental cars readily available, and the terms of the lease are such that it's impractical to rent a car for a short period of time. If we can land, drive around town for a couple of hours, take-off, then land at another airport, with ground transportation readily available, then the world will be at our fingertips... finally! Craig
Re: [Vo]:Unidentified subject!
On 05/06/2012 09:39 AM, Greg Watson wrote: Let me make this very clear, GGE will have no hesitation in taking you to court for defamation if you make any further remarks like that. Green and Gold Energy is a TOTAL FRAUD Pay it no mind. This felllow, Greg Watson, has been involved in multiple scams and should be removed from this list.
Re: [Vo]:Cool Fusion launch in Adelaide
On 05/06/2012 09:52 AM, Greg Watson wrote: Hi Guys In order to comply with ASX regulations GGE will make no further comment until the announcement of the float. All posts on this forum relating to this matter are being archived and passed on to our legal team. I respectfully ask that you be patient until the ASX announcement which will be in the newspapers within the next few weeks. Best Regards Greg Watson Legal team? You don't have a legal team. You are one guy, working out of your house. When I saw your first scam, fifteen years ago now, I thought you might have made a mistake. But then after the second scam, and the third, it's now old. What do you do for work, Mr. Watson? While most people have jobs and go to work every day, do you sit at home and think of ways to scam people? It's just old, and now you're doing it again here.
Re: [Vo]:OT [WIsconsin Politics] you have been warned
I vote for keeping Vortex politics-free, especially when it has zero to do with the spirit of this email list. I'm sure most of us have already decided where they fall on the political spectrum and are perfectly capable of deciding what, and for whom, to vote for. If you like politics (and I do) there are plenty of forums that are more appropriate. - Brad Hear, Hear! Craig
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On 05/31/2012 01:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] I have a similar set of quote for the canals that governments were building all over Europe and the Erie canal in 1817, and the railroads they soon subsidized, and the Transcontinental Railroad built with Uncle Sam's loans in the 1860s, and later the transatlantic cable (mainly a British government project) the automobile industry, electrification, the highways, the airports, transistors, integrated circuits, the Internet, the aerospace industry, weather satellites, nuclear power, and all the other massive investments made by governments in infrastructure and technology. How pleasant! Governments take money from people through threats of violence, to subsidize special interests. [...] In _every single case_ there has been a chorus of conservative people saying the government should not be picking winners and loses. If it is real, it will come on its own. Maybe they were right, but most of those technologies might have been delayed by 20 to 50 years. If the technology is cost efficient, then the market will bring it. Even if delayed by 20 to 50 years, this is a small price to pay for a moral society run without threats of violence. In every case, the overall investments made by governments has paid back many times over. Individual ventures failed but overall the projects succeeded. Not true. There was no return for the people whose money was taken. There was no poll of those people, before their money was taken, asking if they'd be willing to invest. That's like the Mafia coming up to you and saying, you know that money we took from you last week? It turns out it was a good investment, paying many times over. The Transcontinental Railroad was arguably the best investment in history. For other people, maybe. But it wasn't an investment. An investment entails risk of one's own capital. I can't take money from you, invest it, and call it a success when it pays a good return. People had been trying to build it for 15 years before the Civil War. They were getting nowhere. San Francisco multi-millionaires who bet $100,000 on poker (in 1855 dollars!) would not invest $1000 in a railroad going back east. They had too many easy ways to make money to run any risks. This is another way of saying that the other investments during this period were both profitable and of lower risk. Who knows what would have come out of these investments if these people had had more money to invest in the ventures they were interested in, instead of having their money taken from them. When someone breaks a window, it's easy to see the job that it creates for the window repair man, but no one sees who would have benefited from that money if no window had been broken, when the owner of that window spent the money on something else, instead. [...] Craig
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On 05/31/2012 04:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: And then Craig replied: How pleasant! Governments take money from people through threats of violence, to subsidize special interests. [...] I'm baffled, Craig. How do you go about equating certain government funded programs that have occasionally helped out the automobile industry, the electrification of the grid, building hiways, airports, transistors, integrated circuits, the Internet, and weather satellites so special? as somehow associated with generating threats of violence. And there's more... If you don't pay the government's taxes, which it uses to raise money for these projects, then they threaten you with violence, and will ultimately put you in jail. In _every single case_ there has been a chorus of conservative people saying the government should not be picking winners and loses. If it is real, it will come on its own. Maybe they were right, but most of those technologies might have been delayed by 20 to 50 years. If the technology is cost efficient, then the market will bring it. Even if delayed by 20 to 50 years, this is a small price to pay for a moral society run without threats of violence. It seems to me that you have not heard a single thing Jed sed, or perhaps you simply are not interested in listening. Certain new technologies for which Jed was referring to were not cost efficient at the time they were receiving lots of financial assistance from the government. At which times, they were bad business decisions, and did not raise private capital. This provides the justification for the government to get involved. But if the risk/reward ratio is low enough, then private capital will be available. This is how entrepreneurs work. Even if some of these risky investments turn out to be successful for a few people, the people whose money was taken, are never compensated. Under a 100% free-enterprise system I know of few business enterprises that could justify to their stock holders a plan to make investments that could take up to 20 - 50 years to start generating dividends for their stock holders. If free enterprises was the only game in town funding the development new unproven technologies like integrated circuitry, electrification of the grid, building highways, transistors, etc... could have never gotten off the ground. There was no profit in funding new technologies, especially if the investor realized he could very well be dead and buried before he gets the chance to enjoy the fruits of his investments. And my argument is that if you can't fund the ventures without using stolen money, then they shouldn't be funded. You also seem to keep bringing up threats of violence which I presume is somehow equated to government funded programs - I presume because governments want to tax you and me. Do I have that right? You're giving me the impression that you have little regard whatsoever for any kind of government assistance - and what it costs to pay for such assistance in regards to the affairs of humanity. Do I have that right? Yes, correct. When we make an exception for government and say, well we know that violence, threats of violence, and aggression are wrong, and while we would never practice these things in our personal relationships, but then we allow government to have an exception and use aggression, then we open the door for every type of aggression that people in power can dream up. It's this very idea that we 'should' use aggression in certain cases, which lead to all the wars, debt, inflation, taxation, and the blossoming police state today. It all comes from the idea that government is exempt from moral law, and when people on this list start presenting their political opinions, I'll then point out that they are making a moral exception for their special programs. Craig
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On 05/31/2012 04:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: If the technology is cost efficient, then the market will bring it. Even if delayed by 20 to 50 years, this is a small price to pay for a moral society run without threats of violence. You want to talk about violence? If France and the UK had delayed developing aviation before WWI they would have lost the war. They had a slight edge thanks to aircraft such as the Sopwith Camel (the best fighter of the war, based on enemy aircraft losses). Slight, but crucial. So is it your argument that national defense is so important that therefore, we have to use a little aggression here and there to protect ourselves from a larger aggression from invading armies? If so, then I suggest that you live in the best of all possible worlds because this 'little aggression' is used for justification for every program, policy, law, regulation, and statute, that governments create. There is no such thing as minor aggression which can be used for a larger good. If we want to protect our lives and property, does it make sense to give one large institution the one great exception, which allows it to take our lives and property at will? Or if the British had delayed the Hurricane, the Spitfire and radar in the 1930s, Hitler would have won in 1940. If the U.S. had not invested in the bomb, I am sure there would have been a million more Japanese killed or died of starvation, hundreds of thousands more Americans killed, and Japan would have been divided between the North and South, like Korea, because the Russians were preparing to invade from the North. U.S. invasion forces in Japan included 800,000 men, compared to just over 100,000 in the Normandy invasion. If enough people are worried about staying ahead of the enemy, and if the government has to budget its limited resources to protect the country, then nothing is stopping them from trying to raise the money to do so. I am just saying that we have to get rid of this moral exception. Do we know that the government could not raise enough money to maintain its nuclear arsenal, to deter foreign aggression? No one is even thinking about it. No one is trying to find alternate solutions which don't involve aggression. It would be a different world, and one which probably would not come about without a large number of people who believe in it; and if a large number of people from all over the world started believing in non-aggression, then it's likely no new Hitlers will show up, and if they did, they would still have to face a voluntarily funded nuclear arsenal. In every case, the overall investments made by governments has paid back many times over. Individual ventures failed but overall the projects succeeded. Not true. There was no return for the people whose money was taken. There was no poll of those people, before their money was taken, asking if they'd be willing to invest. Yes, there was. It is called an election. The Erie canal was a major political issue and policy. Road building has always been a make or break local issue, as it is in Atlanta this year. The election did not poll the individual people whose money was taken, and did not give them the choice to invest or not. The election takes a majority of those who show up at the polls and gives them, and their party, the authority to use force against others, so that they can pursue their own pet projects. [...] This is another way of saying that the other investments during this period were both profitable and of lower risk. Who knows what would have come out of these investments if these people had had more money to invest in the ventures they were interested in, instead of having their money taken from them. Wonderful in theory. In practice it has never worked that way, and it never will. Here in the real world Uncle Sam has always been the main source of technological progress. You are living in an Ivory Tower. There's a saying by some that the Means justifies the Ends. I think we should start looking toward the Means AS the End. Craig
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On 05/31/2012 10:17 PM, Eric Walker wrote: To (1), the complaint about the government using the threat force to extract taxes is fanciful. As has been suggested, you can move to Somalia or Afghanistan if you prefer. There you will learn that when the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, ordinary people are likely to resort to what is called self-help, or vigilante justice, and where that doesn't exist there's simply violence imposed by the strong upon the weak. I would take government enforcement of laws over self-help any day. Most people would. When enough people feel that way they band together and create constitutional democracies. Then they vote for representatives to form a government, and the government starts doing things on their behalf that they are unable to do individually. Since some people are knuckleheads, you need some form of coercion to keep things from reverting to a state of nature. There's a lot to be said here, and I did read the whole post. I don't like talking about morality in a science forum, but if people were talking about math, then no one would think twice about it. But morality is thought to be based on personal preferences, and hence, outside of the realm of science, but morality is exactly like math in its construct. We develop this abstract construct called math, based on logic, because it reflects our interactions with the known, physical, world. Likewise, when living and working with other people, we have to have a theory by which we can live and work with other people. We can't escape morality since we have to live and work with other people. So like math, we start with axioms. So, if we start with the axiom that there's nothing fundamentally different between all consenting adults of average intelligence which would change the way we treat them, then we can start with the premise that we should all treat everyone in the same fashion. We should treat everyone equally, and build a moral theory based on the idea that: 1) we should treat everyone the same; and 2) that no rule should be made based on any personal preference. The result of this is the Non-Aggression Principle, which states that no one should initiate the use of force against anyone else, while allowing the use of force in defense or retaliation against those who first use aggression. It is, in every sense, a logical abstract theory, based on an axiom of moral equality. So when you tell me that I should move to Somalia, you are dodging the issue, and expressing the opinion that I seek a society without government, also ignoring the fact that Somalia is in a non-stable state of chaos and civil war. When actually, all I am prescribing is a society which does not violate the non-aggression principle; where there are no systematic exceptions which allow some people to commit aggression. The GDP of the US in 2011 was over 10 trillion dollars. If only 25% of the people paid 10% of their income, voluntarily, to the federal government, the government would still have over 250 billion dollars a year to spend. I would certainly pay this for the defense of the country and so would a good number of everyone else. It's certainly enough to maintain a very strong defensive force against foreign aggression. It's not enough, however, to start militaristic ventures into other countries. There would probably be plenty of money left to venture into other areas of social interest, as well, if we only maintained a nuclear deterrent and not a substantial military presence. Once we conclude that we have to use reason and logic when living with other people, as we do with the physical world, then the problems we see in the political world will evaporate. When we stop making exceptions for government and treat everyone as equals, then we don't have the exceptions which drive government into every aspect of our lives. We don't have the wars, the inflation, the taxes, the debt, and the police state. We have a government which must live within its means and be accountable to its citizens. Locally, the issue is even simpler. I write about that here: http://www.freemanch.com/the-woodlands-a-city-without-government/ For the moral theory, I write about that here: http://craighaynie.iprx.com/files/5813/3574/2093/A_Simple_Theory_of_Morality.pdf Now back to your locally scheduled program, already in progress. Craig
[Vo]: Another Variant of Cold Fusion
Have you all seen this? Have I just not been paying attention? http://www.science.edu/TechoftheYear/TechoftheYear.htm Craig Haynie Houston
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Interesting moving optical illusion
With regard to: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html I just noticed that the shadow only makes sense if the figure is rotating counter-clockwise. Rotating counter-clockwise, you should only be able to see her left foot when it's at a distance and in the background, not the foreground. This should bias the results as many people will subconsciously notice this. Craig Haynie (Houston)
[Vo]:Stiffler Replication
I am not a scientist and don't have any of this equipment, but this gentleman seems to have replicated the Stiffler effect with ONLY a function generator, LEDs, and a ground. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN-WGgUkOvY He discusses it here, starting on message 367 http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3457.367.html Is anyone certain that the power isn't coming directly from the function generator? Craig Haynie (Houston)
Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered
The URL is difficult to enter, and the article is short and mainly quotes, so I will take the liberty of uploading it. As Chris Zell says, it is sadly defeatist. If they are honest conclusions, then how can they be considered 'defeatist'? That word implies a preconceived conclusion. Craig Haynie (Houston)
RE: global warming: spin or not spin?
It was my understanding that greenhouse gases are only those which have the particular characteristic of absorbing the wavelengths of reflected radiation. It was told to me that only specific gasses, not water vapor, have this characteristic. Comments? Disagreements? I don't believe that Global Warming is a man-made event. So be it, but let me make a point. It's not that water vapor isn't a green-house gas. It is. But CO2 is more important because there is a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human action. In other words, CO2 and other green house gases released from burning wood, or from burning methane, are not that important because the CO2 contained in those fuels was extracted from the atmosphere when those fuels were created. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels which are being removed from locations deep within the Earth. These sources of carbon, when burned, are creating the net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which the global warming advocates are concerned about. Craig Haynie (Houston)
Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
Jed wrote: Electricity: 8 cents kWh You're only paying 8 cents per KWH. I'm paying something like 13.4 cents per KWH. Craig Haynie (Houston)
