Re: [Vo]:In the Limelight
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny, how time flies (When you're having Fun) Time's fun when you're havin' flies. Kermit
[Vo]:Peter Fimmel
In pursuit of lime-green hydrinos and other eco-flashes, I took a few hours last evening to scour the web for relevant exotic information which is currently not on the LENR-CANR website. Often there are obvious reasons why relevant information to LENR is NOT found there (except for the case of Dr Mitchell Swartz) - but please - let's not bring up that Tejana-stand-off once again [1]. The criteria of relevance is always personal, since there is lots of bogosity floating around the net: and having a nuclear model which seems intuitive - or even arguably correct - depends on who is doing the arguing. One of the better articles of interest found is from Australian by Dr. Peter Fimmel. At least it seemed to have something to offer, but it would be interesting to hear other opinions on it; and also - whether or not anyone is familiar with his work. OTOH - I have been (voluntarily) deprived of television for so long that occasionally, a degree of boredom will cloud the dividing-line between relevance and entertainment value. Here is the site: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO1PDF/V13N1FIM.pdf His conclusion is below. Conclusion; It is argued in this paper that the various dense matter LENR systems, that are known to produce anomalous heat, collectively constitute an analogue of in-vacuum sub-barrier nucleon transfer phenomena, well known in mainstream low-energy nuclear physics. [one comment: well-known ] Recent improved understanding of the conditions which enable in-vacuum sub-barrier transfers, associated with energy loss to the environment, are expected to assist a better understanding and, concomitantly, improved design and performance of heat producing condensed matter LENR systems. END Jones [1] initially, Mexican Stand-off was used there, but felling that it could be construed as derogatory... the phrase was 'relocated' back across the Rio Grande, so to speak. Mexican standoff to some Yanks - is so visually poignant that it should not be considered to be any kind of slander; but to others it reeks of the same level of regional chauvinism that gives us Dutch treat (or gives the Brits, French leave which is probably where Michel is these days ;-) nothing wrong with a little border-humor at the expense of our neighbors, eh? And say - Mexican Stand-off is key to understanding the world ... as for the past 50 years but under a different name, it has defined the World Balance-of-Power, since it is the operative strategy of US-Russian foreign policy -- known as MAD (mutually assured destruction). The phrase simply means a stand-off of enemies where the first to act will not gain. For example, if you want to the grasp the educational background of our beloved Governor (California) aka the Guvernator check out the film: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly where three (Spaghetti-drunk but possibly Mexiacn) gun-fighters stand-off in a triangle facing each other askance... Each one is understandably reluctant to draw first, knowing-well that the first to draw runs the certainty of being shot by the guy he does not aim at... ... an image worth a thousand words (which can be called up from the old memory-core with only three if you can tolerate a bit of chauvinism)
[Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist and the repercussions that would come from such an attack. PRATT: So is geopolitical risk now back on the table? It was sort of missing from the marketplace for a little while. KILDUFF: We were, for a while, really just dealing with the economics of everything. From the -- from watching the value of the dollar closely, watching interest rate moves very closely, even hanging each day on the various data points to see if the economy was slowing or not, which would dictate future energy demand and whether or not prices were justified at the ever-higher levels. But, yes, this brought the geopolitical worries front and center once again. PRATT: About a month ago I think I believe you were saying that you thought the top for oil prices would be somewhere in the $130s range. Now we're almost approaching $140. Are all bets off for you? What do you think? Where are we going in terms of prices? KILDUFF: We're at a crossroads. I have to say the bias is towards the upside still now. We had called for $138 to be the top and when we hit $135 at the end of May, we thought that it might have been over. A lot of things are certainly coming together to argue for that. The dollar had stabilized and was rebounding. Some of the economic data points were sufficiently down ... not the least of which was U.S. motorists driving about 6 percent less and diesel fuel consumption down about 8 percent. But now that is all out the window. I think you have to say it's going to go higher still before it can crack and go back lower. PRATT: So today we had Morgan Stanley analysts saying $150. Weight in on this. Where do you think we're going? KILDUFF: At this point obviously setting a new high. We are looking now at the next target is $142. You're going to need some help, some events of some import to get to that $150. The Israeli worry here today was one of those that needed to emerge. And, to be honest, to the extent that we see climb down from this by Israel and talking it down by the U.S. military, some of this worry could quickly come out of this market. So I think
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist and the repercussions that would come from such an attack. PRATT: So is geopolitical risk now back on the table? It was sort of missing from the marketplace for a little while. KILDUFF: We were, for a while, really just dealing with the economics of everything. From the -- from watching the value of the dollar closely, watching interest rate moves very closely, even hanging each day on the various data points to see if the economy was slowing or not, which would dictate future energy demand and whether or not prices were justified at the ever-higher levels. But, yes, this brought the geopolitical worries front and center once again. PRATT: About a month ago I think I believe you were saying that you thought the top for oil prices would be somewhere in the $130s range. Now we're almost approaching $140. Are all bets off for you? What do you think? Where are we going in terms of prices? KILDUFF: We're at a crossroads. I have to say the bias is towards the upside still now. We had called for $138 to be the top and when we hit $135 at the end of May, we
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
R C Macaulay wrote: Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of Money could not be a problem for a miracle worker, of course -- it takes only the slightest ability to affect the laws of chance, or the teeniest ability to predict the future, to allow one to amass as much wealth as you could possibly need. Particularly one who can materialize gold coins, eh? Howdy Vorts, 'Bout now the boys at the Dime Box are scratching their heads in wonder how this thread morphed in eastern mysticism. I thought wez discussing how the bartender could somehow slide a mug of beer down the bar at just the right time... but .. I can understand that people might not understand the understanding with the patrons. Read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:MAPLE and LENR?
The Multipurpose Applied Physics Lattice Experiment reactor was meant to produce medical isotopes. For safety reasons MAPLE was designed to have a negative power coefficient but it has been plagued by an unexpected positive power coefficient for years. (The project was terminated in May). Is it possible that the designers of MAPLE unwittingly created the conditions for cold fusion? Please consider the article below. I will see if I can find a diagram of the reactor. Harry http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/7/813 Over budget, overdue and, perhaps, overdesigned Ben Magnus Ottawa, Ont. They have become an enduring Canadian mystery. They were originally scheduled to become operational in November 2000, providing Canada with a long-term secure supply of medical isotopes. Yet, years later, the once highly lauded Multipurpose Applied Physics Lattice Experiment (MAPLE) reactors are still in limbo because of technical difficulties, and Canada's 50-year-old National Research Universal reactor is being pressed into service well beyond its original projected lifetime. The MAPLEs were to have been the first reactors in the world dedicated exclusively to the production of medical isotopes, which are used for diagnostics and the destruction of tumours or cancerous cells through gamma rays or manufactured drugs The reactors were said to have the capacity to supply double the worldwide demand, yet with their future so uncertain, it's unclear when, or if, they'll ever serve as a secure source of supply in Canada, let alone the world. Isotope supplier MDS Nordion when the had originally hired the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) to design and construct 2 MAPLE reactors and a processing facility in Chalk River, Ontario, in 1996. Aided by an interest-free loan from the federal government, the firm agreed to pony up $140 million for construction of the reactors. Radioisotope production had historically been vested with AECL but the government moved to private it in the late 1980s and eventually found a willing buyer, in 1991, in the form of MDS Health Group Inc., for $165 million. In a 2005 renegotiation of the contract between MDS Nordion and AECL, ownership of the Dedicated Isotope Facility was transferred to AECL in exchange for $68 million in cash and promissory notes, as well as a 40-year commitment to supply Nordion with isotopes, the value of which was pegged at $344 million. MDS Nordion promptly wrote off a $345 million loss. Under the agreement, AECL absorbed all remaining MAPLE development, construction and operational costs. In AECL's 2006/2007 Summary Corporate Plan, the projected cost of completing the project was estimated at $130 million. More current numbers have not been publicly disclosed, although a Sept. 5, 2007, report from the Office of the Auditor General indicated AECL forecasts the cost of overhauling its Chalk River infrastructure, including MAPLEs, at $600 million over the next 5 years and $850 million over 10 years. The federal government's Feb. 26th budget shovelled $300 million towards that effort. According to some nuclear experts, the additional outlays and extended timeline are no guarantee that the facilities will be ready by the current target deadline of Oct. 2008. Among the skeptical are Fred Boyd, who spent more than 50 years in the nuclear industry working with AECL, its regulator the Atomic Energy Control Board (now the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission), the Department of Energy Mines and Resources (now Natural Resources Canada), and who remains a regular contributor to the Canadian Nuclear Society Bulletin. Boyd fears that fundamental design flaws and testing requirements will continue to delay the project. I think the most optimistic would be at least a year and I guess I am sufficiently pessimistic at the moment that it would be longer than that. The issue that has continuously perplexed designers of the MAPLE reactors has been their positive power coefficient reactivity (Box 1). View larger version (89K): [in this window] [in a new window] Box 1. For safety reasons, the reactors were designed to have a negative power coefficient reactivity value. It was expected to be 0.12 mk/MW. In June 2003, it was measured at +0.28 mk/MW. Since then, AECL has tested and re-tested its predictions and results. Experts from around the world have been recruited to help solve the riddle. Argentina's Investigacion Aplicada was hired, along with a bevy of American contractors. To date, their reviews have confirmed that all AECL measurements and data analyses were done correctly. Yet, no amount of analysis, fiddling or technological repair has resolved the deviation from original design. Tests in 2007 achieved the exact same +0.28 mk/MW measurement. But AECL Director of Corporate Communications Dale Coffin insists that we have made some progress. Coffin says the next tests will be completed this spring, again under the watchful eye of
[Vo]:Diagram of MAPLE
This site has a cross section of MAPLE but unfortunately the low resolution of the image means some of the labels are hard to read. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionH.htm Harry
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist and the repercussions that would come from such an attack. PRATT: So is geopolitical risk now back on the table? It was sort of missing from the marketplace for a little while. KILDUFF: We were, for a while, really just dealing with the economics of everything. From the -- from watching the value of the dollar closely, watching interest rate moves very closely, even hanging each day on the various data points to see if the economy was slowing
[Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
I have had some complaints about Arata's paper and presentation. The paper lacks details such as the method of calibration. However, we should not overlook the fact that this is an astounding accomplishment, and even without a calibration it is obviously producing stable heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I just sent a note to Arata in Japanese expressing these sentiments. As everyone knows, there have been scattered reports of heat after death, which is essentially output without input. This is like a vastly improved version of heat after death. Arata said it is reproducible. I do not know the success rate but there are several graphs of successful runs. Here is the critical fact about this experiment. Look at figure 3 in the News section: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Two things jump out at you: 1. The cell core temperature is hotter than the cell wall. This proves that the heat originates in the cell. (Skeptics unfamiliar with the second law will probably dispute that, but it's proof.) The cell core is not warmer with hydrogen, so there is no heat source in the cell. 2. The sample with hydrogen returns to room temperature after 200 minutes. The two samples with deuterium remain about 1°C above ambient four 3000 minutes (50 hours), and according to Dr. Wang, for another 3000 hours after that (100 hours total). The reaction shows no sign of petering out at the end of this graph. Think about this: the cell should be stone cold by minute 600, but it is still warm at minute 6000! Obviously, this is a stable, on-demand, self-sustaining reaction. It is the holy grail of cold fusion! Not to mention plasma fusion. The temperature difference of 1°C above ambient is large. It can be measured with absolute confidence with modern instruments, and it is probably palpable. Even without a calibration, and whether this 1°C temperature difference represents 1.1 W (as Arata claims) or whether it is only a fraction of a watt, I am sure it is beyond the limits of chemistry. The control run with hydrogen proves that. Plus, Mike Melich says he can do a first principle analysis based on heat loss and the approximate heat capacity of the steel cell to confirm this. I do not know how big or heavy the cell is. As I said, it is stainless steel maybe 20 cm tall maybe 3 cm in diameter. He says you convert everything into the specific heat of water to do this conveniently. The specific heat of iron is 0.45 J/g * k, and water is 4.18 J/g * k so it is about a factor of ten less. (By the way, I hope to have this figure and the others in an English version of this paper soon. However, I have found that it is better to first understand a paper and then translate it.) - Jed
[Vo]:Groups doing the wrong experiment in 1989 and 1990
Groups doing the wrong experiment in 1989 and 1990 Here is a list of U.S. and Canadian research groups that published papers in 1989 and 1990 describing cold fusion experiments in which they looked for neutrons, particles or x-rays only, without looking for excess heat or tritium, and which produced no positive results, or results they considered within the noise. The first author of the paper is listed, followed by the number of authors and co-authors, and the name of the institution. Authors are listed alphabetically. This list is not exhaustive; there were other reported experiments, such as the one at Georgia Tech., but we have no paper in our database from this group. One or two groups reported ambiguous or interesting results. They are not listed here. Other groups not listed here reported looking for excess heat and/or tritium and not finding any. This is right experiment, although in most cases they did it the wrong way; i.e., they did not run electrolysis long enough. A few of these researchers went on to report positive results later on. As far as I know, only one group in this list also looked for excess heat: Albagli et al., MIT. They reported no excess heat but in fact they probably did see trace levels of excess heat. As is well known they manually changed the graph to erase this evidence. I did not include Salaman et al., U. Utah, because they monitored cells run by Fleischmann and Pons. They did not detect any particles. Incidentally, Pons was so upset by this, he threatened to sue them. (See Fire from Ice, p. 233) This tells us two things: 1. Pons was also expecting conventional nuclear evidence in 1989. 2. Pons has a disagreeable side to his personality. But who wouldn't, under the kind of duress he suffered from? Since Fleischmann and Pons reported that they did detect neutrons and gammas, it was reasonable for these researchers to look for them. But it is a shame that so much effort went into the search for products that we now know are almost never detected from cold fusion reactions. In his book, Storms reported that there were many upset researchers in 1989 who felt the have been wasting their time. He wrote: However, the many failures and the serious errors found in the Fleischmann and Pons paper fueled a growing doubt about the original claims. Too many people had spent too much time to get so little. They were beginning to feel they had been had. This list shows how many people there actually were or at least the lower bounds of the number of people looking for the lower bounds of fusion reactions. Most of these papers are in the Britz collection. Here is a nicely formatted table that will probably come out all wrong on Vortex: Number First author Of People Institution Albagli 16MIT Anderson 11Yale Campbell 2 Lawrence Livermore N. L. Deakin 5 Florida State U. Dignan 4 San Francisco State U. Ewig 4 Sandia N. L. Faller3 Env. Monitoring Systems Lab. Fleming5 ATT Bell Labs. Guilinger 9 Sandia N. L. Hayden10 U. British Columbia Hill 11 Iowa State U. Kashy 10 Michigan State U. Porter 8 U. California Berkeley Rehm 3 Argonne N. L. Roberts12U. Michigan Rugari 7 Yale/Brookhaven Schirber 8 Sandia N. L. Silvera 2 Harvard U. Southon4 McMaster U. Wiesmann1 Brookhaven N. L. Totals: 20 groups, 135 people - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Edmund Storms wrote: The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel . . . That is outrageous anti-Semitic crap. The Bush administration has done more to harm Israel than any other in U.S. history. I will grant they did not mean to harm Israel, but they didn't mean to harm the U.S. either, or for that matter the people of Iraq either. Claiming they are dominated by Israel makes about as much sense as claiming they are dominated by the Iraqi people and politicians. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced. He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing. Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects. I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I have had some complaints about Arata's paper and presentation. The paper lacks details such as the method of calibration. However, we should not overlook the fact that this is an astounding accomplishment, and even without a calibration it is obviously producing stable heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I just sent a note to Arata in Japanese expressing these sentiments. As everyone knows, there have been scattered reports of heat after death, which is essentially output without input. This is like a vastly improved version of heat after death. Arata said it is reproducible. I do not know the success rate but there are several graphs of successful runs. Here is the critical fact about this experiment. Look at figure 3 in the News section: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Two things jump out at you: 1. The cell core temperature is hotter than the cell wall. This proves that the heat originates in the cell. (Skeptics unfamiliar with the second law will probably dispute that, but it's proof.) The cell core is not warmer with hydrogen, so there is no heat source in the cell. 2. The sample with hydrogen returns to room temperature after 200 minutes. The two samples with deuterium remain about 1°C above ambient four 3000 minutes (50 hours), and according to Dr. Wang, for another 3000 hours after that (100 hours total). The reaction shows no sign of petering out at the end of this graph. Think about this: the cell should be stone cold by minute 600, but it is still warm at minute 6000! Obviously, this is a stable, on-demand, self-sustaining reaction. It is the holy grail of cold fusion! Not to mention plasma fusion. The temperature difference of 1°C above ambient is large. It can be measured with absolute confidence with modern instruments, and it is probably palpable. Even without a calibration, and whether this 1°C temperature difference represents 1.1 W (as Arata claims) or whether it is only a fraction of a watt, I am sure it is beyond the limits of chemistry. The control run with hydrogen proves that. Plus, Mike Melich says he can do a first principle analysis based on heat loss and the approximate heat capacity of the steel cell to confirm this. I do not know how big or heavy the cell is. As I said, it is stainless steel maybe 20 cm tall maybe 3 cm in diameter. He says you convert everything into the specific heat of water to do this conveniently. The specific heat of iron is 0.45 J/g * k, and water is 4.18 J/g * k so it is about a factor of ten less. (By the way, I hope to have this figure and the others in an English version of this paper soon. However, I have found that it is better to first understand a paper and then translate it.) - Jed
FW: [Vo]:MAPLE and LENR?
Hello Harry, I sent a response to your message (it is appended). I get an ACCESS DENIED message when sending to vortex-l, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could you post this for me? Thanks. On Jun 8, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: [snip] For safety reasons, the reactors were designed to have a negative power coefficient reactivity value. It was expected to be 0.12 mk/MW. In June 2003, it was measured at +0.28 mk/MW. [snip] Yet, no amount of analysis, fiddling or technological repair has resolved the deviation from original design. Tests in 2007 achieved the exact same +0.28 mk/MW measurement. The reactor uses a D2O-reflected core. It seems unlikely, but I have to wonder if they ignored the frequency of neutron spallation: n + D - n + n + p Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Jed, you have bought into the logic that Israel can not be criticized without being anti-Semitic. In fact, even many Jews are unhappy by the policies of Israel. Critiquing the policy of Israel is no more being anti-Semitic than critiquing Bush is being anti-American. As for the US harming Israel, we have supported them against the Palestinians in every way, including supporting their policies and giving them money and arms. As is obvious to any thinking person, the conflict will not be resolved by a one sided approach, which the Bush administration especially has supported. Other administrations tried a more balanced approach, but were frustrated by the unwillingness of both sides to compromise. When I say the Bush administration is dominated by the policies of Israel, I'm saying Bush is taking a one side position to the conflict. Of course, this is not in the interest of Israel, but that is what the Israeli government wants. Now they want us to bomb Iran because they fear the wrath of their neighbors, thanks to their policies. Meanwhile, the US has needs and interests that do not involve Israel, many of which are being jeopardized by our focus on following the fears of the Israeli government. Why can these issues be debated without emotion and the use of anti-Semitism? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel . . . That is outrageous anti-Semitic crap. The Bush administration has done more to harm Israel than any other in U.S. history. I will grant they did not mean to harm Israel, but they didn't mean to harm the U.S. either, or for that matter the people of Iraq either. Claiming they are dominated by Israel makes about as much sense as claiming they are dominated by the Iraqi people and politicians. - Jed
[Vo]:French leave (was Re: Peter Fimmel)
Still here Jones, trying to keep up with the numerous, lengthy and not always relevant posts :) BTW, the equivalent of taking a French leave in French is filer à l'anglaise, same reciprocal (mis?)-attribution phenomenon as French letter and capote anglaise ;-) Talking about misattributions, re your interesting (although probably totally unfounded) limelight speculation I don't remember proposing any LENR scheme based on CaO, that was Horace IIRC. Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 4:02 PM Subject: [Vo]:Peter Fimmel In pursuit of lime-green hydrinos and other eco-flashes, I took a few hours last evening to scour the web for relevant exotic information which is currently not on the LENR-CANR website. Often there are obvious reasons why relevant information to LENR is NOT found there (except for the case of Dr Mitchell Swartz) - but please - let's not bring up that Tejana-stand-off once again [1]. The criteria of relevance is always personal, since there is lots of bogosity floating around the net: and having a nuclear model which seems intuitive - or even arguably correct - depends on who is doing the arguing. One of the better articles of interest found is from Australian by Dr. Peter Fimmel. At least it seemed to have something to offer, but it would be interesting to hear other opinions on it; and also - whether or not anyone is familiar with his work. OTOH - I have been (voluntarily) deprived of television for so long that occasionally, a degree of boredom will cloud the dividing-line between relevance and entertainment value. Here is the site: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO1PDF/V13N1FIM.pdf His conclusion is below. Conclusion; It is argued in this paper that the various dense matter LENR systems, that are known to produce anomalous heat, collectively constitute an analogue of in-vacuum sub-barrier nucleon transfer phenomena, well known in mainstream low-energy nuclear physics. [one comment: well-known ] Recent improved understanding of the conditions which enable in-vacuum sub-barrier transfers, associated with energy loss to the environment, are expected to assist a better understanding and, concomitantly, improved design and performance of heat producing condensed matter LENR systems. END Jones [1] initially, Mexican Stand-off was used there, but felling that it could be construed as derogatory... the phrase was 'relocated' back across the Rio Grande, so to speak. Mexican standoff to some Yanks - is so visually poignant that it should not be considered to be any kind of slander; but to others it reeks of the same level of regional chauvinism that gives us Dutch treat (or gives the Brits, French leave which is probably where Michel is these days ;-) nothing wrong with a little border-humor at the expense of our neighbors, eh? And say - Mexican Stand-off is key to understanding the world ... as for the past 50 years but under a different name, it has defined the World Balance-of-Power, since it is the operative strategy of US-Russian foreign policy -- known as MAD (mutually assured destruction). The phrase simply means a stand-off of enemies where the first to act will not gain. For example, if you want to the grasp the educational background of our beloved Governor (California) aka the Guvernator check out the film: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly where three (Spaghetti-drunk but possibly Mexiacn) gun-fighters stand-off in a triangle facing each other askance... Each one is understandably reluctant to draw first, knowing-well that the first to draw runs the certainty of being shot by the guy he does not aim at... ... an image worth a thousand words (which can be called up from the old memory-core with only three if you can tolerate a bit of chauvinism)
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Edmund Storms wrote: I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced. Very true! I do not understand why he has done such primitive calorimetry, and why he does not provide calibration data. If he prefers this calorimetry because it is simple, direct or convenient, fair enough: he could have done this plus one other type, such as Seebeck calorimetry. They can afford another cell. Or, since this cell runs hot for 100 hours, perhaps they undo it and move it into another calorimeter at hour 20. He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing. Exactly. He has Zhang and 4 grand students working on this. They have plenty of resources and they had time to do it right. Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects. I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. But I hate to have to speculate and guess. He should describe calibration and he should also supply the exact dimensions of the cell, and many other details such as the type of insulation. These things are important. Details matter. Arata has been unwilling to supply them in the past, and he hasn't been much help in the last couple of weeks. I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon. Amen. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again. I doubt it could that bad! I hope not. - Jed
[Vo]:Fw: vortex engineer
This private message got returned to me so I thought I'd post it on to Vortex... - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 11:20 PM Subject: vortex engineer Hi Richard - I thought you may be interested in this NY Times story... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/technology/08stream.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin Nick
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist
[Vo]:J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard
J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard. Some of us may find it worth the time to read: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/06.05/99-rowlingspeech.html http://tinyurl.com/63dvc3 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Philip recently sed: I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, ... and ed recently sed: Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. While I'm no fan of the shrub I suspect one of Bush's advisers informed him of the Saudi custom than men held each other's hands in public. http://teachsaudi.50webs.com/culture.htm * Saudi men often greet each other with kisses, but Saudi men usually just shake hands with foreign men unless they are close friends. * The opposite sexes should never kiss in public. * Men sometimes hold hands with each other in Saudi Arabia (although not with women in public). Holding hands with another man is a sign of friendship, with no sexual connotations. * Foreign men may feel uncomfortable when another man grips their hand, but it would be insensitive to prematurely withdraw from the contact. * On the other hand, Western couples should avoid any physical contact with each other in public. You may see very modern-minded Saudi couples holding hands, but don't imitate them. * * * Of course, not everyone has interpreted Bush's recent hand holding gesture as a benign gesture: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363995_kelsoonline22.html Personal thought: How ironic that countries so apparently open about the custom of same sexes holding each other's hand in public without feeling it is a sexual advance are nevertheless terrified of the opposite sex, or worse, terrified of the notion of being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. Go figure. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard
Thanks Steven, that is indeed worth reading. Ed OrionWorks wrote: J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard. Some of us may find it worth the time to read: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/06.05/99-rowlingspeech.html http://tinyurl.com/63dvc3 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Jed Rothwell said: I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. I must ask a question that exposes my ignorance: I suspect many who aren't technically gifted are not going to perceive Arata's 1 C temperature increase, where deuterons were used instead of hydrogen, as all that impressive. So what if the 1 degree temperature increase above ambient temperature persisted for at least 6000 hours. I realize other CF researchers are likely to consider the 1 C temp increase to be a resounding breakthrough, particularly if it can be independently replicated. Nevertheless, I suspect it's difficult for the uneducated lay person to see what the fuss over a 1 degree increase is all about. Granted, I fully realize the fact that we are dealing with what I presume is a tiny experimental setup, where the reaction chamber is small to begin with. Can CF researchers perceive a way to scale up Arata's process in a practical way to eventually produce the amount of excess heat necessary for household and industrial applications? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose greatest wish is to cut my throat. The leader of the greatest and most benevolent country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to make nice to people who by their teachings precipitated the 9/11 disaster, and who incidentally benefit greatly in many ways, many of them most unpleasant, from current oil prices? Just a little strange to me. I'm no politician, but I do respect - as the Soviets did - a nation whose leaders make it perfectly clear what would happen if America were to be jeopardized. Not so with the Saudis. We make nice. As for supporting everything the Israeli government wants. Can you be a little more definitive? You say, ... the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel... Perhaps you could reword this so that we could all understand (if we're interested, which I'm sure most people here aren't) exactly what this tiny nation in this tiny sliver of land (about the size of New Jersey) is using to dominate the most powerful nation in the world. I guess it could be Viagra... Whatever it is, I'd like some of this domination juice. Please choose you words a little more carefully if you can't offer scientific explanations. They're a dead giveaway... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:03:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith --
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Steven, I can understand. I was in Pakistan a few years ago doing engineering work (fortunately I wasn't a journalist), and I saw many men holding hands. S'OK... as kids we all held our fathers' hands... However - and I don't want to read too much into this - this was done in America, in the public eye, and American ways are different. There seems to be a definite chumminess, which under other circumstances is perfectly ok. P. - Original Message From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:40:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Philip recently sed: I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, ... and ed recently sed: Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. While I'm no fan of the shrub I suspect one of Bush's advisers informed him of the Saudi custom than men held each other's hands in public. http://teachsaudi.50webs.com/culture.htm * Saudi men often greet each other with kisses, but Saudi men usually just shake hands with foreign men unless they are close friends. * The opposite sexes should never kiss in public. * Men sometimes hold hands with each other in Saudi Arabia (although not with women in public). Holding hands with another man is a sign of friendship, with no sexual connotations. * Foreign men may feel uncomfortable when another man grips their hand, but it would be insensitive to prematurely withdraw from the contact. * On the other hand, Western couples should avoid any physical contact with each other in public. You may see very modern-minded Saudi couples holding hands, but don't imitate them. * * * Of course, not everyone has interpreted Bush's recent hand holding gesture as a benign gesture: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363995_kelsoonline22.html Personal thought: How ironic that countries so apparently open about the custom of same sexes holding each other's hand in public without feeling it is a sexual advance are nevertheless terrified of the opposite sex, or worse, terrified of the notion of being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. Go figure. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: Fw: vortex engineer
Nice! That Australian guy achieved significantly quieter and (logically) more energy efficient fan and pump blades, which we will find implemented in next year's computer fans. By means of clever equations? No, by moulding his emptying bathtub's vortex! In other words by making good use of natural vortexes, as does the Eye Of The Gyre concept, which future generations may remember as the idea that allowed supplying the world's energy needs when fossil oil ran out... or not ;) Michel - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:40 AM Subject: [Vo]:Fw: vortex engineer This private message got returned to me so I thought I'd post it on to Vortex... - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 11:20 PM Subject: vortex engineer Hi Richard - I thought you may be interested in this NY Times story... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/technology/08stream.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin Nick
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
I don't like the situation either, Philip. However, when a nation has the oil we need, it is apparently easy to be nice. If not, we have to pay an even greater price for our principles. This is actually the way the world works these days. In the past, the US called the shots. Increasingly, the oil suppliers and China will call the shots. Get use to the idea, because it is only going to get worse. You should ask why such a situation was allowed to develop. These situations do not occur by accident. As for Israel, it is hard to choose words carefully and still be honest. The situation is not based on scientific logic, but on faith and religious belief. A significant number of people in the US believe that Israel was given to the Jews by God. These people have significant influence and they vote. Therefore, any criticism about how Israel behaves is unpopular, being called anti-Semitism. As a result, Israel can cause the US to do things that would otherwise be impossible if demanded by another country. History shows why is is true. Creation of the country displaced millions of Palestinians. These people were forced from their homes and land. This is a fact. As a result, these people and people in the surrounding countries have been and continue to be angry at the unfairness of this, regardless of the justification based on God's will. Nevertheless, the US has sided heavily in favor of Israel. Because the Palestinians do not have modern weapons, as supplied by the US to Israel, they fight with the only tools they have. The US labels this method terrorism, which it is. As a result, the situation is made more one sided and desperate. No body wins and the US is dragged deeper into the conflict. No matter which side you favor, this is the situation. The policies used in the past have clearly not worked no matter how correct you think them to be. The question is, what do you suggest we do now? Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose greatest wish is to cut my throat. The leader of the greatest and most benevolent country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to make nice to people who by their teachings precipitated the 9/11 disaster, and who incidentally benefit greatly in many ways, many of them most unpleasant, from current oil prices? Just a little strange to me. I'm no politician, but I do respect - as the Soviets did - a nation whose leaders make it perfectly clear what would happen if America were to be jeopardized. Not so with the Saudis. We make nice. As for supporting everything the Israeli government wants. Can you be a little more definitive? You say, ... the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel... Perhaps you could reword this so that we could all understand (if we're interested, which I'm sure most people here aren't) exactly what this tiny nation in this tiny sliver of land (about the size of New Jersey) is using to dominate the most powerful nation in the world. I guess it could be Viagra... Whatever it is, I'd like some of this domination juice. Please choose you words a little more carefully if you can't offer scientific explanations. They're a dead giveaway... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:03:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Good question. The significance of 1 degree depends on how much insulation is on the cell and how well the thermocouples were calibrated. If the cell is well insulated, 1 degree would represent very little extra power. Since we don't have any information about either, the significance is totally unknown. All we know is that some extra energy appears to be generated within the cell. It's amount and source are unknown. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Jed Rothwell said: I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. I must ask a question that exposes my ignorance: I suspect many who aren't technically gifted are not going to perceive Arata's 1 C temperature increase, where deuterons were used instead of hydrogen, as all that impressive. So what if the 1 degree temperature increase above ambient temperature persisted for at least 6000 hours. I realize other CF researchers are likely to consider the 1 C temp increase to be a resounding breakthrough, particularly if it can be independently replicated. Nevertheless, I suspect it's difficult for the uneducated lay person to see what the fuss over a 1 degree increase is all about. Granted, I fully realize the fact that we are dealing with what I presume is a tiny experimental setup, where the reaction chamber is small to begin with. Can CF researchers perceive a way to scale up Arata's process in a practical way to eventually produce the amount of excess heat necessary for household and industrial applications? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Fw: vortex engineer
paxscientific, meet viktor schauberger compilation of articles with quotes from harman's stuff. http://merlib.org/node/4942 2008/6/9 Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Nice! That Australian guy achieved significantly quieter and (logically) more energy efficient fan and pump blades, which we will find implemented in next year's computer fans. By means of clever equations? No, by moulding his emptying bathtub's vortex! In other words by making good use of natural vortexes, as does the Eye Of The Gyre concept, which future generations may remember as the idea that allowed supplying the world's energy needs when fossil oil ran out... or not ;) Michel - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:40 AM Subject: [Vo]:Fw: vortex engineer This private message got returned to me so I thought I'd post it on to Vortex... - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 11:20 PM Subject: vortex engineer Hi Richard - I thought you may be interested in this NY Times story... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/technology/08stream.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin Nick -- :)
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
[Do not reply directly] Edmund Storms wrote: Good question. The significance of 1 degree depends on how much insulation is on the cell and how well the thermocouples were calibrated. If the cell is well insulated, 1 degree would represent very little extra power. Since we don't have any information about either, the significance is totally unknown. It is not unknown; it is unexplained. Arata knows it. He claimed that this represents about 1.1 W. How he determined that I do not know. I will grant he and the other 5 could be completely wrong, but I wouldn't bet on that. 1.1 W is a lot of power for modern laboratory grade instrument, as is a 1 degree temperature difference. There is no chance they are mistaking 0 deg C for 1 deg C. I am certain that the cell remains significantly hotter than the surroundings, and the fact that the control cell does not is proof that a tremendous amount of energy was released from the 7 g sample. Sorry to resort to yet another method of estimating this, but you can also look at the amount of Pd in the system, and the heat of formation of Pd-D, which occurs in the first 300 minutes. That is a known amount of chemical heat. I don't happen to know what it is at the moment, but the new paper from Yamaura describing the ZrO2-Pd should tell us. The heat release that follows far exceeds this. Actually, it is good to have several different first principle methods of estimating the heat release, because we are then less dependent upon whatever mystery calibration Arata performed. Even after he tells us (and I hope he does tell us!) it is still nice to have other methods of independently confirming his estimate. All we know is that some extra energy appears to be generated within the cell. It's amount and source are unknown. The source has to be inside the cell, based on the second law. What is causing it is obviously what causes heat and helium production in any other highly loaded Pd-D sample: cold fusion, whatever the heck that is. (Strictly speaking, this is a logical fallacy. You can't define something by saying it is what it is. However, scientists do that all the time.) - Jed
