Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banned from Steorn I identified one of the scientists as Scott Little's little girl, Marissa. If you mean one of the 12 in the jury, the blog you pointed us to quotes Marissa saying: ...There is a jury - and no, we aren't on it. Michel Some igit who thinks he's protecting some secret banned me for commenting on the fact that one can discern interesting facts from those threads deleted and people banned. I was instantly reinstated; so, it was a ego trip by the administrator named magnatrix. BTW, the bloggers caught it: http://freeenergytracker.blogspot.com/ Such silliness! Terry On 7/15/07, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry, What's this all about? If there was a prior related thread, I missed it. thx s Subject:re; Banned Hi Terry I didn't want to have to ban you ( I don't like doing that), but you need to understand that if you start up about all the stuff that is moderated, you will end up causing a lot of work grief for the admins. Please don't being up issues regarding moderation ( how it was done) Thank you for your consideration I will now re-instate you. mags On 7/14/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simply for identifying the mysterious Marissa: http://eyres.home.texas.net/bios/Marissa.htm I also commented to the fact that they were giving away much information simply by the threads which they deleted. Something smells in Ireland. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
The article below from today's NYT throws some light on the reasons why US energy research funding doesn't make sense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?_r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all Quote: The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27 percent of those polled. It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Million Solar Roofs initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming. But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream - last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country's electricity supply - is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon. Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States. In the meantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the world at a rate of more than one a week. Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of solar panels made of silicon that convert sunlight directly into electricity, known as photovoltaic cells, have taken off, lowering manufacturing costs and leading to product refinements. But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur who focuses on energy, said the market-driven improvements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment. Most of the environmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems, Mr. Khosla said. Scientists long ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in a year, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago. Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support. Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and - of equal if not more importance - of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining. Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlight's wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy. For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government. These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping smokestack gas. In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development. Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administration's challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it, Dr. Orbach said. This is about a portfolio. In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom. Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions, said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. We count ours in the tens of thousands. Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies.
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Michael reported NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?_r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all quoting... There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge. The article covers a wide area of energy themes. The world is become an energy glutton. Little emphasis is given on reducing use of energy. The drunks at the Dime Box saloon have little interest in the subject until the store runs outa beer. Then all hell breaks loose. That's firepower., not very encouraging. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: The article below from today's NYT throws some light on the reasons why US energy research funding doesn't make sense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html? _r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all It is really all a matter of where prices are heading, a subject about which the author seems to have no grasp. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Solar has been experiencing exponential growth and price drops for some time and will continue to do so. The price of energy is going up. Solar will soon be competitive with coal steam turbine (for many applications, especially car battery charging), based on manufacturing capacity increases alone. It appears solar panels have already beat the sterling engine solar collector game by a large margin. Effective energy storage systems are just now coming into the picture, and can change things dramatically. The problem is developing the political will to make things happen fast in the face of lobbying which not in the best interest of the public, a fact the author covered well. One of the arguments against making things happen fast is typically protecting jobs. The fact is, there are few jobs in the energy industry at present compared to the number that could be generated by replacing the cost of mining energy (low local labor intensity) with the cost of producing equipment to manufacture it from a free source and install and retrofit existing real estate and vehicles (high local labor intensity). The key to making things happen right may be to simply get the message to the people. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Gravimagnetics
On Jul 15, 2007, at 9:25 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 14, 2007, at 9:55 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Last night I visited the Chukanov Energy site. I noticed that there is an animation on gravity, the solar system, and the Pioneer craft. Do you have the URL of the animatiom? www.chukanovenergy.com , page about 1/4 of the way down. It takes a while for tha animation to load. I don't think I want to leave my computer exposed while the infantile dialog stuff plays out letter by letter with the music. If he had something worthwhile to say you'd think he would just say it in a professional manner. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Hi Horace, You're right but what would be the right message? Regarding your EnergyCosts.pdf I noticed you focused on capital cost in USD/W, following most authors. It seems to me a more meaningful although probably more difficult to evaluate figure would be the actual bottom line energy cost for the user (e.g. in USDcents/kWh as in your last table which is a bit outdated unfortunately (1996)), as capital cost reflects neither labor cost nor longevity nor transportation costs nor CO2 emission compensation costs etc... Then maybe the message could be brought to the people in the form of a single cents/kWh vs Year graph featuring one curve per energy type, showing the past evolution and projecting into the future. Past and foreseeable technological steps, such as printed CIGS for solar, would show as (hopefully downgoing) steps in the curves. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: The article below from today's NYT throws some light on the reasons why US energy research funding doesn't make sense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html? _r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all It is really all a matter of where prices are heading, a subject about which the author seems to have no grasp. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Solar has been experiencing exponential growth and price drops for some time and will continue to do so. The price of energy is going up. Solar will soon be competitive with coal steam turbine (for many applications, especially car battery charging), based on manufacturing capacity increases alone. It appears solar panels have already beat the sterling engine solar collector game by a large margin. Effective energy storage systems are just now coming into the picture, and can change things dramatically. The problem is developing the political will to make things happen fast in the face of lobbying which not in the best interest of the public, a fact the author covered well. One of the arguments against making things happen fast is typically protecting jobs. The fact is, there are few jobs in the energy industry at present compared to the number that could be generated by replacing the cost of mining energy (low local labor intensity) with the cost of producing equipment to manufacture it from a free source and install and retrofit existing real estate and vehicles (high local labor intensity). The key to making things happen right may be to simply get the message to the people. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:A $olar $olution: the rectenna?
All the talk about nanosolar and other so-called 'cheaper' cells, may be closer to wishful-thinking than to reality. Presently, and contrary to what is often mentioned in the science press, the *installed* cost of solar cells for homeowners is going up, not down in 2007. I absolutely dispute the conclusions of the paper mentioned on Horace's site about continuation of price-drops. From my recent experience getting actual quotes - I think we reached the bottom in 2005-6 or before, and now the prices are now going up! I challenge anyone to find a source of available solar cells which make economics sense for a home. Everytime a supposedly cheaper process comes along - by the time it gets to the prototype level, costs have escalated out of control. Nano-solar semiconductor cells will be no different. The cost may be claimed by some writer to be under a dollar a watt at some nebulous factory in China, but the installed 'turnkey' price, from a licensed and bonded contractor is closer to $10 and NOT coming down - probably NEVER for the homeowner in the USA, unless you do it yourself. Larger installations may be cheaper. The big solar conversion sites - the smart money for grid power - are going to Stirling engines, and abandoning hope for actual direct conversion cells. They have accountants and stockholders. Solar cells have simplicity and 'status' appeal to homeowners, and as a 'green' symbol (which can never pay-off) and they do proclaim to the world: I care - damn-the-cost ... The largest Solar Installation in progress, which will produce up to 900 Megawatts is under construction now in California. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) under contract with San Diego Gas Electric will produce approximately 30 times more solar power than is now being generated in the whole San Diego region by rooftop cells. It will become the world's largest solar installation, and several other desert sites are planned, thanks to Sandia's work. The installed cost there was mentioned to actually be less than what was quoted by Horace ($2 watt) but that is not clear. The problem for advanced nanosolar cells is this: it is NOT about maximizing efficiency - it is about minimizing installed cost. Follow the buck. The two variable are often contradictory. There are possible alternative ways to approach this problem (on paper, in addition to regressing a century, to the Stirling engine): 1) Use mirror or Fresnel light concentrators: EVERY process should use concentrators, as Michael Foster reminds us. Without mirrors, even the Stirling converter is a bust. 2) Abandon semiconductor cells altogether, in favor of the rectenna. Mirrors are at least 3 orders of magnitude cheaper, per unit of surface area, than are even the cheapest semiconductors. The RECTENNA: The idea of collecting solar photon radiation with antenna-rectifier (rectenna) structures was proposed three decades ago, but has not yet been achieved commercially. The rectenna is basically a fancy type of diode, and as critics opine, it may only a new type of 'cell' - since it does require micro-lithography, BUT it does not depend on a band gap, or expensive semiconductors. The idea has been promoted as having potential to achieve efficiency approaching 100% but thermodynamic considerations imply a limit of 85% for a non-frequency-selective rectenna, assuming maximal concentration. This 6 year old paper reviews the history and technical context of ITN Energy Systems solar rectenna, and discusses the major issues: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33263.pdf Had we funded some of this tech fully back in 2002, using Daddy Warbuck's death-machine-dollars, the rectenna would probably already be in production. Instead of this, the US taxpayer is getting armor-plated Humvees and more body bags. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Interesting article, Michel. But this is the part that attracted my attention. There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge. He should have said, There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., but they're all in law school, which is why they had to import me from India. I tried to interest my daughter in chemistry, but she went to law school too. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
[Vo]:SES: $olar $olution
Here is a time lapsed movie of the solar Sterling in action. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/video/time_lapse_footage.wmv They are fairly sturdy structures - but one wonders if they are really hurricane, or even gale-wind safe.
Re: [Vo]:A $olar $olution: the rectenna?
On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: I absolutely dispute the conclusions of the paper mentioned on Horace's site about continuation of price-drops. From my recent experience getting actual quotes - I think we reached the bottom in 2005-6 or before, and now the prices are now going up! Commercial retail prices are again coming down. It is profitability that has been up. Demand has far outstripped production capacity. That's why there are so many new technology types and companies, especially thin film, that are now in the factory construction stages. To follow commercial prices on a regular bases check out: http://www.solarbuzz.com/ Best thin film commercial price is now $3/watt. As the film gets thinner the price goes down. Building integration schemes are only now getting started. Larger panels, 1 m^2, and continuous flexible roll, now coming online, will help this cost go down. That's not where the real bucks are, though. Sooner or later somebody will figure this out. It's in vertical integration. Best strategy I see is to buy out a good solar manufacturer, and energy storage manufacturer, and build power plants at cost. Then its just a matter of how much cheap sunny land you can find. AT $0.21/kWh (commercial COST) this strategy doesn't yet make much sense, but as the prices move toward the nexus point it will be to the manufacturer that is producing (wholesale) at less than $0.10/ kWh, especially in states that run air conditioning where daytime peak power is at a premium, and green energy is as well. To that manufacturer, there is no risk at all once he has options on the land, and energy price contracts locked in. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Earthquake in Japan damages nuclear reactor complex
A 6.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in Niigata, Japan today. The epicenter was in the Sea of Japan (which I think the Koreans call the Sea of Korea). The earthquake damaged the Kashiwazaki nuclear power plant facility. The nuclear reactor shut down automatically, but the damage caused a fire in the electrical transformer used to power the plant, which burned for two hours. Initially the Japanese government and the local power company reported there was no leakage of radioactive material, but CNN now says 315 gallons of slightly radioactive water leaked from the plant and the water is believed to have flushed into the Sea of Japan. See: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/japan.quake.ap/index.html This is the world's largest nuclear power reactor complex 8,212 MW. What it is doing in the middle of nowhere in Niigata I cannot guess. For the past several months, Japanese reactor plant operators and government agencies have been caught in one of the worst scandals in recent decades. They have covered up many serious reactor accidents and radioactive leaks. Before that, they cover up the extent of the fire at the Monju breeder reactor, and the details of the Tokaimura nuclear accident, which was caused by such extraordinary incompetence -- such infuriating imbecility -- I would not have believed it possible in any first world nation. Given this track record, I would say that Japanese reactor operators have zero credibility and I would not be surprised to learn that hundreds of gallons of highly radioactive water were released into the grounds of the reactor and have now soaked into the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, most Japanese reporters are wusses, so we may never know. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Isomers, LENR, reprocessed D2O
In a followup attempt to track down more specific information on the subject of D2O variability in LENR: Mitchell Swartz has indicated that he has seen inexplicable variation, batch-to-batch, in D2O under otherwise identical conditions. He has also replicated the Laser enhancement effect in a few fine paper (aka the Letts/Cravens effect). Both papers were given at ICCF-10. The information on D2O variability may be found in: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). However, Michell does not believe that it is possible that any of the heavy water he uses has been previously activated in a reactor (and then reprocessed). Also he does not know, as of now, what the ratio of 18O to 16O is - in the water which he has used, but intends to look into this - which may be an overlooked point in LENR variability. To place this datum from Michell into context... ... in the previous message which started this line of speculation - there was information from Dennis Letts on variability of results from different batches of D2O - which is supposed to be 99.9% pure. Horace then suggested that a possible but unlikely source of this could relate to the material having been reprocessed from decommissioned nuclear reactor moderator. Although this source may sound unlikely, admittedly, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility and begs to be addressed scientifically - and then to be eliminated from consideration - if it is not the cause of the variability. A little more background may be necessary to corroborate the rationale for this suspicion (and to show why it is not a totally cranky suspicion): So-called shape isomerism is a deformity of the nucleus of an isotope in which there are too many neutrons and/or excess energy (metastability) for a spherical shape. Many older physicists who have not kept-up on current RD are almost unaware that it is an important new sub-category, since the tools to measure this shape variation have only recently been developed. Often in the past, this state or condition has been referred to as high spin which may be inaccurate. Quantum spin, per se, does not seem to be responsible for the deformation (but could be contributory), and instead it seems to be the result of a metastable condition of the nucleus having absorbed excess energy of an exact value to pump it up into a deformed shape. Yeah, I know - this could be manifested as spin. Anyway, most of these nuclear configurations (deformations) correspond to a small prolate deformation, but a few of them correspond to highly deformed shapes. 18O is definitely a candidate isotope for shape isomerism. And if it has been previously irradiated in a reactor - then this would be very strong evidence for identifying this (or the resulting metastable isomer) as a possible culprit in many kinds of LENR excess heat experiments. Deuterium itself is also a shape isomer candidate, and the nucleus is highly elongated normally, often referred to a barbell shape. Also, there is also the pragmatic realization that heavy water is tres cher, not just pricey - and that there are many decommissioned reactors worldwide, and that the moderator of even 'light water' reactors after 40 years contains lots of D2 - and more so for the Candu ... ... and that in any other country than the USA- ask yourself this: what you rather do with 100 tons of used heavy water, worth a quarter billion dollars if clean - would you rather reprocess it in the third world where corners can be cut, or would you rather store it forever, in an expensive underground repository ?? The answer is No-brainer for many countries. In one of the most extreme cases of shape-isomerism yet - which is consistent with the known shape of a common light nucleus, the 24Mg isomer - even in its ground state(!) has a 6:1 axis ratio state... and what is more amazing is that all 6 of virtual alpha particles (6 x 4) in that nucleus are effectively spaced in a linear chain configuration - the chain state or nuclear sausage as it has been called. Most bizzare ... and this nuclear sausage is indicative of how the 'near field' of such a sausage-antenna could possibly cohere external energy and reach a metastable state. Not to mention that this source of energy can be natural from ZPE or the neutrino flux - not requiring an extended stay in a reactor. Jones BTW - is it odd that the previous message to Vo - part of it included below, is the first thing that turns up on a google search for [18-O shape isomer] even though it is only a few days old. Don't they rank these things by how often they are read? ... to wit - this category could include an activated form of heavy water in which the oxygen atom, possibly the isotope 18O, but possibly even the 16O or deuterium as
Re: [Vo]:Re: Isomers, LENR, reprocessed D2O
From Jones: ... BTW - is it odd that the previous message to Vo - part of it included below, is the first thing that turns up on a google search for [18-O shape isomer] even though it is only a few days old. Don't they rank these things by how often they are read? Your actions have been noted. -- Dr. Zhivago Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Isomers, LENR, reprocessed D2O
On Jul 16, 2007, at 12:27 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Jones: ... BTW - is it odd that the previous message to Vo - part of it included below, is the first thing that turns up on a google search for [18-O shape isomer] even though it is only a few days old. Don't they rank these things by how often they are read? Your actions have been noted. -- Dr. Zhivago You probably subscribed to google one way or another. They now keep track of your personal queries and prioritize in a custom way ... all just for you. wink. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Isomers, LENR, reprocessed D2O
Here is a way out there improbable thought for you. One CF joker may be mirror matter. Mirror matter is invisible and moves fairly readily through normal matter (when not bound to it at a nuclear level), but has been theorized (by Robert Foot, *Shadowlands*) to have some degree of linkage, especially at the nuclear level. I would further suggest there is a strong spin related gravimagnetic linkage at that level as well. The star Achernar has an extreme and anomalous oblateness. Some time ago, I suggested to Robert Foot that mirror matter provides a possible explanation for this anomaly, which he took as credible. http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-14-03.html Such an oblateness would also extend to nuclei comprised of ordinary matter bound to mirror matter, but for other reasons. A gravimagnetically bound mirror nucleus would make the spin radius of a normal nucleus look unusually large. This alone would make fusion more probable. However, the combined spin gravimagnetic forces added to those of a second D nucleus may just tip the fusion balance sufficiently in the direction needed for Mill's paper (discussed on vortex earlier) to work out. The interesting thing about mirror matter with respect to concentration is it has negative mass and positive inertia. It separates out of water by boiling or evaporation, but is concentrated in water by centrifuging and diffusion. It would tend to concentrate in the surface area of D loaded Pd, due to its reduced diffusion rate. It would tend to concentrate in D20 separated by electrolysis. The source of the D2O and its subsequent processing would thus both be critical to the mirror matter content. There is a handy way to detect mirror matter if it is around in sufficient quantities. Its dark body photons go right through ordinary matter. If you obtain a sufficient quantity of the stuff, even though it is bound to ordinary matter, you can build a true perpetual motion machine because you can put it in a highly insulated compartment and it will spontaneously cool - and that is a good way to detect it. Far out there, but still some tantalizing grist for the general mills, or mill in general. Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Re: Isomers, LENR, reprocessed D2O
--- Horace Heffner writes: Here is a way out there improbable thought for you. One CF joker may be mirror matter. For those who haven't seen it, Wiki has a pretty good entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter ...but it would be nice to reconcile mirror matter and anti-matter elegantly, assuming that the two are not mutually exclusive... Apparently Robert Forward did not do this. It would also be nice to reconcile the Dirac epo field with mirror matter. Wonder if anyone has considered the dimensional (fractal) angle? In response to the related question- Are mirror matter particles related to supersymmetry partner particles? Robert Foot answered as follows: There's really no relation. Mirror symmery is a different type of symmetry to supersymmetry. The only similarity is that both ideas require a doubling of the number of elementary particles. (in mirror symmetry, the mirror particles form an almost decoupled sector -- similar to ordinary particles but where left and right are interchanged). Mirror symmetry is a discrete symmetry (i.e. not a continuous symmetry), which allows this type of theory to exhibit space-reflection as a symmetry, while supersymmetry is nothing to do with space-reflection, but is a continuous symmetry relating particles with differenct spin: each ordinary particle has a hypothetical superpartner. However supersymmetry must be broken because if it was unbroken the SUSY particles would have been discovered already). Nevertheless, supersymmetry is very popular, but there really is no evidence for it (despite multi-billion dollar searches for it!!). It survives only because it is popular. As you know, mirror symmetry is not so popular but I like to think there is a lot of evidence for it -- certainly more than for supersymmetry. If I can give you an example: both theories claim to provide an explanation for dark matter, but I would argue that the mirror symmetry explanation is the more natural. Why? Because it explains the basic properties of dark matter. Mirror particles couple extremely weakly to photons, so mirror matter is dark. mirror atoms are also stable for the same reason that ordinary ones are. In other words, with the one hypothesis, mirror symmetry, one predicts the existence of invisible stable matter in the Universe. The abundance is not predicted. Well - Foot is a bold one...and has put his best theory Forward, so to speak. Jones
[Vo]:Our friends in Arabia
Former CIA director James Woolsey made this insightful observation in this month's Futurist magazine http://www.wfs.org/futintervja07.htm If you remember, we got interested in alternative fuel firms like the Synfuels Corporation in the late seventies and then in 1985, the Saudis dropped the oil down to $5 a barrel and bankrupted the Synfuels Corporation. The good news is that they bankrupted the Soviet Union, too, but they certainly undercut alternative fuel efforts. People got interested in alternative fuels again in the early nineties, then in the late nineties, oil dropped down to $10 a barrel and people lost interest, again. One of the things that we have to do is make sure that this rollercoaster effect cant happen again. END One way to do this is a floating import duty on Arabian oil which will keep the price at a level where all the alternative biofuel, like Algoil, which we can make from Algae will have a ready market. We can exclude corn ethanol by other means.
