[Vo]:Disappearing Superconductivity Reappears -- in 2-D
And this article: http://www.physorg.com/news147363593.html "Scientists studying a material that appeared to lose its ability to carry current with no resistance say new measurements reveal that the material is indeed a superconductor — but only in two dimensions. Equally surprising, this new form of 2-D superconductivity emerges at a higher temperature than ordinary 3-D superconductivity in other compositions of the same material." -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM
RE: [Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says...
Dam! Clicked on the link and it went to some other article... Here's the correct link: http://www.physorg.com/news147367357.html Also caught at the end of the article the following... "We have demonstrated that when you go to a particular length scale – between 20 and 23 nanometers – you actually improve the energy-harvesting capacity by 100 percent." So the scientist was more accurate in his wording than the journalist... -Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says... Forgot to mention that the wording on this article, "...can co[n]vert energy at a 100 percent increase..." seems to imply 100% 'increase' over the acoustic energy put in What, OU behavior? Well, we all know that those scientists must be 'delusional'... BTW, I'd like to correct one thing in my comment, "... and tastes like a duck, it probably WAS (not is) a duck!" Could you pass the cranberry sauce please... -Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says... Hope you all had a very pleasant and filling Thanksgiving... now on to the cool stuff. http://www.physorg.com/news147353581.html "Specifically, Cagin and his partners from the University of Houston have found that a certain type of piezoelectric material can covert energy at a 100 percent increase when manufactured at a very small size – in this case, around 21 nanometers in thickness. What's more, when materials are constructed bigger or smaller than this specific size they show a significant decrease in their energy-converting capacity, he said." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it probably is a duck... Substitute "resonant effect" for duck... which is just more evidence that most all of science is built on the non-resonant behavior of bulk materials/molecules/atoms. What's possible if we were to find and exploit the resonant behavior of these systems/assemblages Granted, the resonant frequencies involved are probably very limited and in many cases a moving target... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM
RE: [Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says...
Forgot to mention that the wording on this article, "...can covert energy at a 100 percent increase..." seems to imply 100% 'increase' over the acoustic energy put in What, OU behavior? Well, we all know that those scientists must be 'delusional'... BTW, I'd like to correct one thing in my comment, "... and tastes like a duck, it probably WAS (not is) a duck!" Could you pass the cranberry sauce please... -Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says... Hope you all had a very pleasant and filling Thanksgiving... now on to the cool stuff. http://www.physorg.com/news147353581.html "Specifically, Cagin and his partners from the University of Houston have found that a certain type of piezoelectric material can covert energy at a 100 percent increase when manufactured at a very small size – in this case, around 21 nanometers in thickness. What's more, when materials are constructed bigger or smaller than this specific size they show a significant decrease in their energy-converting capacity, he said." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it probably is a duck... Substitute "resonant effect" for duck... which is just more evidence that most all of science is built on the non-resonant behavior of bulk materials/molecules/atoms. What's possible if we were to find and exploit the resonant behavior of these systems/assemblages Granted, the resonant frequencies involved are probably very limited and in many cases a moving target... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM
[Vo]:Self-powered devices possible, researcher says...
Hope you all had a very pleasant and filling Thanksgiving... now on to the cool stuff. http://www.physorg.com/news147353581.html "Specifically, Cagin and his partners from the University of Houston have found that a certain type of piezoelectric material can covert energy at a 100 percent increase when manufactured at a very small size – in this case, around 21 nanometers in thickness. What's more, when materials are constructed bigger or smaller than this specific size they show a significant decrease in their energy-converting capacity, he said." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it probably is a duck... Substitute "resonant effect" for duck... which is just more evidence that most all of science is built on the non-resonant behavior of bulk materials/molecules/atoms. What's possible if we were to find and exploit the resonant behavior of these systems/assemblages Granted, the resonant frequencies involved are probably very limited and in many cases a moving target... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.12/1821 - Release Date: 11/30/2008 5:53 PM
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation
- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation > > > Michael Foster wrote: > > > I find it shocking that these issues are not covered in an > elementary> education. They are not difficult to understand, and > the average > > voter could make up his mind based on information rather than the > > general nonsense spewed forth by politicians. If the average person > > knew how the banking system works, I doubt there would be a Federal > > Reserve, and the authority to issue currency would be returned to > the> Congress where it belongs. > > Why do you think control of the money supply should be directly in the > hands of politicians, rather than under the control of a semi > autonomousgroup run by specialists who spend their careers > understanding this stuff? Why can't there be more than one system of money creation? Another semi-autonomous group could be established to insert non-debt money into the economy. The two groups would work in concert to limit inflation AND deflation. The creation of this money would be "backed" by the value of labour, instead of by a commodity (e.g. gold) or by debt. Anyway, I predict deflation is going to happen despite the injection debt-based money, because we are not entering a classic recession. harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno phenanthrene paper uploaded
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:55:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Mizuno, T. and S. Sawada. Anomalous Heat Generation during >Hydrogenation of Carbon (Phenanthrene). in ICCF-14 International >Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. > >http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomaloushb.pdf > >The English in this paper may need more editing. I would appreciate >it if the readers here would send me suggestions. I really should not >upload papers that I have not thoroughly edited, but I have read >through this one so many times in the last few months I have >practically memorized it, and I look right past the awkward English. > >One of the reviewers pointed out to me that this paper may be of >interest to aficionados of the Mills effect, and the hydrino theory. >It may be of interest to Mills himself, come to think of it. Someone >who is in touch with him should suggest he have a look at it. Quote: "Solids found in the cell after the reaction were analyzed. Before the experiment, the carbon in the cell was 99% 12C, but after heat was produced in the example shown in Fig. 20, more than 50% of the carbon in the phenanthrene sample was 13C+." conversion of 50% of 1 gm of phenanthrene (i.e. 0.5 gm) from C12 -> C13 through the addition of Hydrogen and consequent decay of N13 -> C13 would have produced 190 kW of power for an entire run of 80 ks. Clearly either the energy mostly escaped in an undetectable form, or C13 was not the (only) product. I would only be able to explain the former through neutrino/anti-neutrino pair production, which as far as I am aware doesn't exist as a means of dissipating energy. The latter could be as simple as the measurement of a molecular ion, or as complicated as a mass shift reaction where the mass shifts between nuclei rather than being converted to energy (you can also think of this as a combined exothermic/endothermic reaction). Of course, if you really want to get exotic, then perhaps the energy disappeared through a microscopic worm hole? :^) BTW more useful would have been a measurement of the gamma ray spectrum. That could have told us something about the possible reactions taking place. Quote:- "Helium gas, a platinum mesh, and phenanthrene." I am surprised that this control produced nothing, since one would expect some H2 to have come from the phenanthrene itself. Jed, what is "zeorite" (zeolite?)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Federal Reserve Notes
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Federal Reserve Notes > In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:58:07 - > 0600:Hi, > > Am I mistaken in believing that Citi-bank is one of the > stakeholders in the Fed? > [snip] > > The problem is the only nation able to do something ( the USA) is > broke > >along with all but 11 states in the nation. > >Dealing with a debt problem in excess of 20 trillion wordwide far > exceeds > >our ability. > > ...but surely, not all of this debt is bad debt (i.e. can't/won't > be repaid). The quantity of debt is bad because it tends to push the economy of the familiar indefinitely into the future. This handicaps the youth from actually doing the things that need to be done for THEIR time. Instead they are obliged to live the life of their parents and grandparents as it was in 1955 with few extra gadgets. Harry
Re: [Vo]:'Heavy' drinkers live longer
In short vegetable oils are not "healthy" alternatives, they are the primary cause of heart disease. The healthy alternative is nice heavy animal fats. Also there is quite a lot of evidence that eating cholesterol laden substances does not necessarily translate to a high blood cholesterol level which would support your theory about healthy animal fats but would not suggest that vegetable oils were unhealthy... Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]:Zip fuel, 20 mules and bogons
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Or ... could it really be that the Air Force doesn't feel the need for a > high and fast reconnaissance plane anymore? That's what I have heard. The satellites are so good they don't need planes. Over hostile territory they can always be shot down, no matter how high or fast. Over low tech or friendly ground the U.S. uses drones and satellites. The last generation of high altitude recon planes went so high up the resolution was not much better than satellites anyway. The only advantage was they could go anywhere on short notice, but toward the end of the cold war the Russians and Chinese were sure to see them coming nowadays, and who else did we need to spy on? Small drones are the future of military aviation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
The SR-71 ran on a "secret sauce" as they had their own tankers. I've seen the XB70 at the Wright Patt museum. The first one crashed during a publicity photo shoot when a chase plane (F104) collided with it. It really is a pretty aircraft. Ron --On Monday, December 01, 2008 4:04 PM -0800 Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Ron XB70 weighed nowhere near million pounds: I picked that up from the third paragraph of this page: http://www.vectorsite.net/avxb70.html but on recheck - that detail was apparently from an original proposal, which was scaled back in the actual prototype. Hey, the Valkyrie was a little before your time in the B-52 cockpit, I suppose, but did you ever hear anything about zip fuel back then? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zip fuel, 20 mules and bogons
Jones Beene wrote: > > It has been claimed that the "Blackstar spaceplane" and/or Blackswift > uses zip fuel, and that such a fuel exists today - but Blackstar is > almost certainly mythical... But surely not! Or, rather, if Blackstar doesn't exist, then something much like it -- Blackstar++ -- must exist, no? Else, why *were* they willing to cancel the SR-71 program? I'd always heard it said that there obviously was, somewhere, some other black program cranking out hypersonic aircraft, else they would still be making Blackbirds. So, if the exact thing called the Blackstar doesn't exist, then surely there is something with most of the same capabilities, being built somewhere, which just happens to have a different name. Or ... could it really be that the Air Force doesn't feel the need for a high and fast reconnaissance plane anymore? Can we believe that?
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
Hi Ron > XB70 weighed nowhere near million pounds: I picked that up from the third paragraph of this page: http://www.vectorsite.net/avxb70.html but on recheck - that detail was apparently from an original proposal, which was scaled back in the actual prototype. Hey, the Valkyrie was a little before your time in the B-52 cockpit, I suppose, but did you ever hear anything about zip fuel back then? Jones
[Vo]:Zip fuel, 20 mules and bogons
Zip fuel is a chemical jet fuel from the cold war days containing various hydrogen-boron compounds, or boranes. The full details have never been released. Zip fuels offered higher power than conventional jet fuel, up to double on a thrust per unit weight basis - possibly more if the full truth were known - but boranes are toxic and the fuel could only used in the afterburners - so the jet would need two fuels and the afterburners could not be used on takeoff if there was a ground crew within a large radius. If there was any remnant of radioactivity when burned, it was never mentioned in the literature AKAIK. However, if any hydrinos were being formed during the violent combustion process, one might expect that some tiny remnant of radiation activation would have occured, even if most of it never interacted with the aircraft structure. Alternatively, if a deuterated zip fuel were burned, and there was any deuteron "stripping" the afterburners would have indicated larger degrees of activation. But there is no record of that nor of anyone ever suggesting it. A number of aircraft were designed to make use of zip, including the XB-70 Valkyrie, XF-108 Rapier, as well as the BOMARC missile, and even in the nuclear powered aircraft program (ANP) where there were additional advantages of zip due to boron's high cross-section for neutrons - which would have made it an incredible fuel with a neutron source. It has been claimed that the "Blackstar spaceplane" and/or Blackswift uses zip fuel, and that such a fuel exists today - but Blackstar is almost certainly mythical, at least according to "what they want us to know" i.e. Wiki, and I should never even mentioned this detail in mixed company... so to speak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spaceplane) A relic of the zip fuel days - not to mention the "twenty mule team" is an abandoned dirt airfield outside Boron, Ca. near Death Valley and marked on maps as "Air Force Plant #72". It can be speculated that this would have been a factory for making zip fuel, using the large borax deposits nearby (giving the town its name), and proximity to Edwards Air Force Base - had the program not been cancelled. This abandoned place, and the lack of anything else in the literature, makes me think that zip fuel died a natural death in the sixties. Maybe the "zip-fuel saga", if there is to ultimately to be found to be a hydrino connection, falls in the category of "missed opportunity" ... and/or maybe Robin, like myself, occasionally gets this kind of information, ostensibly with high bogosity potential from an "alternative reality" aka parallel universe... Jones
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
XB70 weighed nowhere near million pounds: Specifications (XB-70A) Data from USAF XB-70 Fact sheet[46] General characteristics * Crew: 2 * Length: 185 ft 10 in (56.6 m) * Wingspan: 105 ft 0 in (32 m) * Height: 30 ft 9 in (9.4 m) * Wing area: 6,296 ft² (585 m²) * Airfoil: Hexagonal; 0.30 Hex modified root, 0.70 Hex modified tip * Empty weight: 210,000 lb (93,000 kg) * Loaded weight: 534,700 lb (242,500 kg) * Max takeoff weight: 550,000 lb (250,000 kg) * Powerplant: 6× General Electric YJ93-GE-3 afterburning turbojet o Dry thrust: 19,000 lbf[31] (84.5 kN) each o Thrust with afterburner: 28,800 lbf[31] (128 kN) each Performance * Maximum speed: Mach 3.1 (2,056 mph, 3,309 km/h) * Cruise speed: Mach 3.0 (2,000 mph, 3,219 km/h) * Range: 3,725 nmi (4,288 mi, 6,900 km) combat * Service ceiling 77,350 ft (23,600 m) * Wing loading: 84.93 lb/ft² (414.7 kg/m²) * lift-to-drag: about 6 at Mach 2[47] * Thrust/weight: 0.314 --On Monday, December 01, 2008 2:37 PM -0800 Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Robin, I would prefer to see a Li/B11-fusion powered vehicle that used alpha particles to create free electrons ... SIDE NOTE this beautiful airplane below, which never advanced much further than prototype stage - might possibly have had a "hydrino connection" and possible a LENR (boron fusion) connection to some small degree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie better pics here: http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/xb70.php ... it was notable in that 1) it weighed more than a 747 (million pounds+) and still could hit mach-3 2) used a boron compound (TEB or as a tri-ethyl borane) as a high energy fuel. It was said to have been most extraordinary and secretive, but way too costly. Details were once classified but nowadays could be available. The boron fuel was the first program to be canceled (ostensibly due to cost but who knows that there were not other problems like radioactivity) One wonders, given the extra boost of the fuel - if there was any alpha radiation heating up the exhaust ;-)
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
Robin, > I would prefer to see a Li/B11-fusion powered vehicle that used alpha > particles to create free electrons ... SIDE NOTE this beautiful airplane below, which never advanced much further than prototype stage - might possibly have had a "hydrino connection" and possible a LENR (boron fusion) connection to some small degree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie better pics here: http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/xb70.php ... it was notable in that 1) it weighed more than a 747 (million pounds+) and still could hit mach-3 2) used a boron compound (TEB or as a tri-ethyl borane) as a high energy fuel. It was said to have been most extraordinary and secretive, but way too costly. Details were once classified but nowadays could be available. The boron fuel was the first program to be canceled (ostensibly due to cost but who knows that there were not other problems like radioactivity) One wonders, given the extra boost of the fuel - if there was any alpha radiation heating up the exhaust ;-)
[Vo]:Latest B.S. from Robert Park
The man is incorrigible! See: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/11/bob-park-roasts-cold-fusion-again.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:08:31 -0500: Hi, > >- Original Message - >From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> A great inventor will be one who can get our cars off of fossil fuel >> elegantly, and with little downside accomodation. > >MC: Like Randell Mills and the BLP-powered hydrogen generator module for >filling stations, providing high pressure hydrogen for hydrogen-conveterd >cars. > >Mike Carrell I would prefer to see a Li/B11-fusion powered vehicle that used alpha particles to create free electrons in an Icosahedral Boride semiconductor diode power supply (analogous to a solar cell, but with the free electrons created by ionizing radiation rather than solar photons), driving an electric motor. (This is the same concept as a beta-voltaic battery, but using alpha particles rather than beta particles as the power source, and with the advantage that the reaction rate is completely variable and electrically controlled). Advantages:- 1) Built in fuel supply that lasts the lifetime of the vehicle. 2) Non-polluting. 3) Quiet. 4) Cheap. Disadavantages:- None. With a little luck, the fusion reaction would be so fast that response to the controls would be near instantaneous, and no battery buffer would be needed. The most optimistic scenario, for the device I have in mind, would make this possible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Vo]:Mizuno phenanthrene paper uploaded
At long last, after many delays, I have uploaded a paper about the effect Mizuno observes with phenanthrene in hydrogen with a platinum catalyzer: Mizuno, T. and S. Sawada. Anomalous Heat Generation during Hydrogenation of Carbon (Phenanthrene). in ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomaloushb.pdf The English in this paper may need more editing. I would appreciate it if the readers here would send me suggestions. I really should not upload papers that I have not thoroughly edited, but I have read through this one so many times in the last few months I have practically memorized it, and I look right past the awkward English. One of the reviewers pointed out to me that this paper may be of interest to aficionados of the Mills effect, and the hydrino theory. It may be of interest to Mills himself, come to think of it. Someone who is in touch with him should suggest he have a look at it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:'Heavy' drinkers live longer
I do know that Vitamin C and Lysine taken in good dosages (3-5 grams a day each) will reverse heart disease, CHF etc... Thanks Linus Pauling... On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Yikes! Somebody's hawking *palm oil* as a healthy alternative to (fill > in the blank)? > > It's among the most heavily saturated fats available, known in food > industry parlance as "vegetable lard". > > Here's a quote from the Wiki article: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil > > "The World Health Organization (WHO) states there is convincing evidence > that palmitic oil consumption contributes to an increased risk of > developing cardiovascular diseases.[69] Research in the US and Europe > support the WHO report.[70]" > > Palm oil would be great for plugging those arterial holes of Robin's, > though; it's not one of those wimpy "runny" oils like canola or > safflower. And if you hydrogenate it to make it even harder, you can > probably use it to drive nails afterwards. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:18:12 -0600: > > Hi, > > [snip] > > > > IMO, vegetable oils are responsible for small holes in artery walls, > which the > > body then tries to fill with cholesterol. In short vegetable oils are not > > "healthy" alternatives, they are the primary cause of heart disease. The > healthy > > alternative is nice heavy animal fats. > > > >> Howdy Jones, > >> Thanks for the link. Encouraged us to look at a bio-isotope-chemical > link to > >> a possible route to further a study we have underway for algae to > edible > >> forms of vegetable oil. We have completed the first phase of fabricating > a > >> modular designed algae bio-reactor using our Gasmastrrr driver for > operating > >> a closed system reactor. The bio-chemistry is posing some problems and > it > >> may be the heavy isotope approach may offer a clue. In our work, we have > >> considered the use of algae for fuel may not reach market stage > >> production... however.. edible vegetable oils may offer the opportunity > to > >> compete with the push by palm oil producers hawking their healthy > alternates > >> to animal fats. > >> Richard > >> > >> > >>> Alternative subject line: what to do when your LENR experiment gives a > >>> null result... > >>> > >>> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026841.800-would-eating-heavy-atoms-lengthen-our-lives.html > >>> > > Regards, > > > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:'Heavy' drinkers live longer
Yikes! Somebody's hawking *palm oil* as a healthy alternative to (fill in the blank)? It's among the most heavily saturated fats available, known in food industry parlance as "vegetable lard". Here's a quote from the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil "The World Health Organization (WHO) states there is convincing evidence that palmitic oil consumption contributes to an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.[69] Research in the US and Europe support the WHO report.[70]" Palm oil would be great for plugging those arterial holes of Robin's, though; it's not one of those wimpy "runny" oils like canola or safflower. And if you hydrogenate it to make it even harder, you can probably use it to drive nails afterwards. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:18:12 -0600: > Hi, > [snip] > > IMO, vegetable oils are responsible for small holes in artery walls, which the > body then tries to fill with cholesterol. In short vegetable oils are not > "healthy" alternatives, they are the primary cause of heart disease. The > healthy > alternative is nice heavy animal fats. > >> Howdy Jones, >> Thanks for the link. Encouraged us to look at a bio-isotope-chemical link to >> a possible route to further a study we have underway for algae to edible >> forms of vegetable oil. We have completed the first phase of fabricating a >> modular designed algae bio-reactor using our Gasmastrrr driver for operating >> a closed system reactor. The bio-chemistry is posing some problems and it >> may be the heavy isotope approach may offer a clue. In our work, we have >> considered the use of algae for fuel may not reach market stage >> production... however.. edible vegetable oils may offer the opportunity to >> compete with the push by palm oil producers hawking their healthy alternates >> to animal fats. >> Richard >> >> >>> Alternative subject line: what to do when your LENR experiment gives a >>> null result... >>> >>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026841.800-would-eating-heavy-atoms-lengthen-our-lives.html >>> > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
Re: [Vo]:'Heavy' drinkers live longer
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:29:57 -: Hi Nick, [snip] >body then tries to fill with cholesterol. In short vegetable oils are not >"healthy" alternatives, they are the primary cause of heart disease. The >healthy >alternative is nice heavy animal fats. >>> > >Hey Robin, you'll have to explain why vegetarians get far less heart disease >then! I can't, other than to say that this may not be the only factor involved. E.g. there may also be a fungal connection, and raw fruit and vegetables contain cellulase which is an enzyme that breaks down cellulose which is a polysaccharide. Since the cell walls of fungi also contain polysaccharides, the body may use the cellulase to fight fungal infection. Perhaps needless to say vegetarians probably eat more raw fruit and veg. than meat-eaters. The alternative (shock horror) is that my theory is complete nonsense. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
Jones Beene wrote: > The numbers on land vary from ~27% in Germany to ~33% in parts of the U.S. Some offshore installations reach ~40%. These could be little more than imaginary numbers, without documentation. Since they are documented, they are not imaginary. The 27% is documented for the best UK offshore sites, but I can find nothing higher. You have not looked very hard. This is rather like discussing cold fusion with 'skeptics' who claim "I have seen no evidence for [excess heat / tritium / fill in the blank]." They see nothing because they don't bother to look. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Michael Foster wrote: >> Arbitrary raising of interest rates by the Fed, for example, reduces >> inflation immediately by reducing the demand for borrowing. Since >> commercial banks are able to lend about ten times the amount >> deposited in them, > > Please provide a reference for this. I have continued looking and have found no indication that commercial banks either are allowed to lend more than their total deposit value, nor that they actually do. The money supply is currently several trillion dollars (exact amount depends on what's included in it): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html All time peak borrowing at the discount window totaled about $400 billion, which is substantially less than the size of the money supply: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1967248/ Ergo, borrowings at the discount window certainly don't account for 90% of the circulating money, as your claim would lead one to conclude. Banks can't make unsecured loans from the discount window; they must pledge securities in exchange for the loans: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed18.html http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/cfaq.cfm?hdrID=21&dtlID= Commercial banks are limited to lending an amount no larger than their primary deposits (NB -- a loan from the discount window is certainly not a "primary deposit"). None the less the overall effect of injecting high powered money is to increase the money supply by a substantial factor, termed the "multiplier", over and beyond the deposit of cash by the Fed: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Deposit-creation-multiplier http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071220225943AAAzhu2 http://e-articles.info/e/a/title/Monetary-Multiplier/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking Note that the Wiki article claims that the effective reserve rate on most deposits is currently 0%, which is startling, as that also leads to a multiplier of infinity. (But it's been flagged as out of date, so that may or may not currently be true.) In any case, that's still no evidence that banks are allowed to lend out more than the value of their deposits. Unfortunately my economics texts seem to be AWOL -- I thought I'd unpacked them after we moved but they're nowhere to be found, so I'm just looking at reference on the Web here. Again, if you have a reference supporting the claim that a commercial bank can lend out up to 10 times the value of its primary deposits, please post it. I would be extremely interested in seeing it. Thanks. > > I have as yet not come across any information indicating that commercial > banks can lend out more than about 90% of their net asset value -- > reserve requirements currently being around 10% -- and you are claiming > they can actually lend out about 900% of their net asset value. > > I will continue looking around but it would save time if you could > provide a link to the relevant information. Next step will be dig my > old macro book out of the basement and see what they say about the > detailed operation of the discount window, which is what this is all > about, of course. > > Note well that the "money multiplier effect", which is about 10x, is > quite different from the claim you are making. The "money multiplier" > results from the assumption that the 90% which the bank lends out is > redeposited in another bank, at which point 90% of the new deposit is > again lent out, and so forth. You are claiming, on the other hand, that > the original bank can lend out 900% of the original deposit amount, and > that once that's deposited in another bank, another 900% can be lent > out. The former converges to a multiplier of about 10x. The latter > diverges, with the multiplier going to infinity. The consequences to > the economy are likely to be very, very different. >
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
- Original Message > From: Jed Rothwell > The numbers on land vary from ~27% in Germany to ~33% in parts of the U.S. > Some offshore installations reach ~40%. These could be little more than imaginary numbers, without documentation. The 27% is documented for the best UK offshore sites, but I can find nothing higher. The major point of the "truth" site is that these higher numbers do NOT exist in reality and are only there to lure politicians and investors. I am no expert - but in doing as much googling as I care to do on this topic - the "truth" site in question seems to have a valid point. Apparently no one who quotes the higher numbers can show real documented results over time. Actually I truly hope you have the facts otherwise, instead of opinion which has been tainted by EPRI. Please -- Show us officially documented actual result for *a full year of operation* where the performance approached 40% load factor - even 30%. If you can provide these, as documented actual results over time - instead of EPRI hype (or as the being results of the best week of the year etc) -- then hello - we can silence "truth" sites like this - which claim otherwise - and with real facts instead of ... err... hot air ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation
Michael Foster wrote: > > Arbitrary raising of interest rates by the Fed, for example, reduces > inflation immediately by reducing the demand for borrowing. Since > commercial banks are able to lend about ten times the amount > deposited in them, Please provide a reference for this. I have as yet not come across any information indicating that commercial banks can lend out more than about 90% of their net asset value -- reserve requirements currently being around 10% -- and you are claiming they can actually lend out about 900% of their net asset value. I will continue looking around but it would save time if you could provide a link to the relevant information. Next step will be dig my old macro book out of the basement and see what they say about the detailed operation of the discount window, which is what this is all about, of course. Note well that the "money multiplier effect", which is about 10x, is quite different from the claim you are making. The "money multiplier" results from the assumption that the 90% which the bank lends out is redeposited in another bank, at which point 90% of the new deposit is again lent out, and so forth. You are claiming, on the other hand, that the original bank can lend out 900% of the original deposit amount, and that once that's deposited in another bank, another 900% can be lent out. The former converges to a multiplier of about 10x. The latter diverges, with the multiplier going to infinity. The consequences to the economy are likely to be very, very different.
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
- Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A great inventor will be one who can get our cars off of fossil fuel elegantly, and with little downside accomodation. MC: Like Randell Mills and the BLP-powered hydrogen generator module for filling stations, providing high pressure hydrogen for hydrogen-conveterd cars. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation
Michael Foster wrote: > I find it shocking that these issues are not covered in an elementary > education. They are not difficult to understand, and the average > voter could make up his mind based on information rather than the > general nonsense spewed forth by politicians. If the average person > knew how the banking system works, I doubt there would be a Federal > Reserve, and the authority to issue currency would be returned to the > Congress where it belongs. Why do you think control of the money supply should be directly in the hands of politicians, rather than under the control of a semi autonomous group run by specialists who spend their careers understanding this stuff? What is there about politicians which makes you think they'd do a better job than career economists? The Fed generally provides a certain amount of push-back when politicians want something stupid. The politicians, by definition, don't. Debtors benefit from inflation and the federal government is the world's biggest debtor. Putting the federal government in direct control of the money supply causes the incentives to be all wrong: Lots of incentive to "inflate away" all the world's problems and only indirect incentives to keep the money supply within bounds. Moving control of the money supply away from the people who benefit most strongly from inflation, and into the hands of businessmen, bankers, and economists, who are by and large opposed to inflation, doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
Jones Beene wrote: ... and even when there is "opinion" offered as opposed to fact, it is not nearly so nonsensical as the wind advocates claim of some idealized 37% load factor (in their dreams) . . . I have never seen that figure for land installations. The numbers on land vary from ~27% in Germany to ~33% in parts of the U.S. Some offshore installations reach ~40%. These numbers are accurate and well documented in dozens of studies made by EPRI, the DoE and the European energy ministries and power companies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Inflation
Robin wrote: > Can someone explain to me how raising interest rates is > supposed to reduce > inflation? > > (I presume that the logic goes like this:- higher interest > rates mean borrowing > is more expensive, hence less will be borrowed, which in > turn means lower > investment and less economic activity). > > What I fail to see is why one would want to suppress > economic activity, as a > means of fighting inflation. It seems like a blunt > instrument to me. Arbitrary raising of interest rates by the Fed, for example, reduces inflation immediately by reducing the demand for borrowing. Since commercial banks are able to lend about ten times the amount deposited in them, then less money is created as debt, with reduced inflation as the result. There is only so much the Fed can do, when interest rates in the long run operate on supply and demand, just like everything else. The problem in the U.S. right now is that we have been gutting our manufacturing base to the point where less than 10% of employment is in manufacturing. Hence, the financial sector is the tail wagging the dog. Not good. Secondary effects as you describe also reduce inflation, but as you say, it reduces economic activity. The trick is to find a balance for a healthy economy. The Fed was created to maximize the profits of banks, which usually corresponds to a good economy. As we see now, that is not always the case, especially when so much financial mischief is allowed. I find it shocking that these issues are not covered in an elementary education. They are not difficult to understand, and the average voter could make up his mind based on information rather than the general nonsense spewed forth by politicians. If the average person knew how the banking system works, I doubt there would be a Federal Reserve, and the authority to issue currency would be returned to the Congress where it belongs. As we see from his recent appointments, Mr. Obama was running for Bush's third term just like Mr. McCain, at least from a financial standpoint. Actually, it seems we are going to be treated to Carter's second term, while experiencing both Clinton's and Bush's third term. Who'da thunk it? M.
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
- Original Message > From: Jed Rothwell >http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Wind.htm > This web site is full of nonsense Not really. It is generally factual and accurate, overall, and especially given the circumstance of not being promoted and funded by those with some overriding social engineering agenda (i.e. anti-nuke etc.)... ... and even when there is "opinion" offered as opposed to fact, it is not nearly so nonsensical as the wind advocates claim of some idealized 37% load factor (in their dreams) when in fact there is no actual report (at least I cannot find one) in the USA for any wind farm exceeding 25% actual load factor for operation over a full year
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
Jones Beene wrote: And only recently has reliable actual results from the larger wind farms been available without some glossing over the problems of mechanical failure - which has been severe up to 2000. No one is "glossing over" mechanical failures in wind turbines. EPRI, the DoE and the insurance industry have written thousands of pages of analysis of equipment failure and maintenance costs. These costs have been taken into account. These institutions have also carefully studied worker accidents and fatalities, which are mainly from falling and electrocution. "Analysis of Load Factors at Nuclear Power Plants" by Michael T. Maloney is one of several articles which has looked at this - followed by an "truth" site about wind costing: http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Wind.htm This web site is full of nonsense, such as: "The cost of energy generated by the machines is inversely to the capacity factor. Thus the advertised cost of wind energy will be about twice the advertised price." As I said, the advertised cost of wind energy is based on actual performance, not projected performance. Obviously, the actual cost takes into account the ratio of actual to nameplate performance. Note that computer controls have improved the output from wind turbines even more than from nuclear plants. (By a larger percent.) - Jed
[Vo]:Nuclear vs Wind Load factor
Let me state up front that (old wind-bag or not) I am not in any way "anti" wind energy, nor an advocate for nuclear. Actually I would like to be more pro-wind, but the numbers keep getting in the way. IOW, I am a strong advocate for trying to get a true picture of the comparative cost situation, since I consider both of these potential solutions to our energy crisis as "green" and both are *highly preferable* to burning coal, natural gas or any fossil fuel. One interesting point about comparative load factors - which can make cross-comparison for (wind vs nuclear) "challenging" is that from the mid-nineties on, which is roughly the time that computer controls were widely implemented in the nuclear industry, and demand began to peak for all energy - the average load factor for nuclear has made a rather dramatic year-to-year gain. And also it should be noted that the older wind turbines were not as efficient as they are now. If you compare "old vs new", or "budgeted" instead of "actual" you can put a lot of "spin" on the numbers (pun intended). And only recently has reliable actual results from the larger wind farms been available without some glossing over the problems of mechanical failure - which has been severe up to 2000. Here is the story for nuclear: "Analysis of Load Factors at Nuclear Power Plants" by Michael T. Maloney is one of several articles which has looked at this - followed by an "truth" site about wind costing: http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Wind.htm It is a "truth" site because in contrast to the wind advocacy groups - which this site claims are trying to present a distorted "socila engineering" picture of what wind energy "should cost" - they strive (claim to strive) to find actual costs, as opposed to budgeted costs. The world-wide historical experience for the past half century in nuclear load factor is 69.4% for reactors currently operating, and 68.3 percent for all commercial reactors over all time. Often one will see 70% as the average which is used in planning. However, in 2002 all reactors currently operating in the world hit an average of 85%. Since this is an average, it includes down time for refueling and since most of these reactors are older, it is a rather meaningful indicator that it is now high time to use the newer figures in planning - when we want to compare true costs vs. wind or solar. This is a rather spectacular difference since 85% compared to 70% (if 70% was used in the planning stages) is not merely an improvement of 15% towards a goal of full optimization (which is impossible due to refueling) but is a comparative increase of actual over planned of 15/70 or 21+ percent. With the emphasis on *actual* as opposed to "budgeted" or "faceplate." So lets say we use the 85% number since it is actual. What is the actual number for wind energy? Best I can tell it is not known and very site dependent. There is a maximum of 27+%. I have never seen a higher reported actual number for the average over one year for any site. In Italy, the government reports actual at 19% for last year. In California, where the foothills are extraordinarily windy, and you have the largest wind farms in the USA, and you can see from the table a quarter of the way down this page that the actual figure is 22.2% http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/Wind.htm Bottom line: when you compare **actual load factor** for recent years of wind energy vs. nuclear energy -- there is generally a 4:1 advantage for nuclear in the load-factor category. Like it or not - there is no better way to state it than a four to one difference in load factor as things stand now in terms of *actual* performance based on modern recent yearly result - so why fight it with meaningless "spin"? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
Jones Beene wrote: > JR: This makes no sense Everyone knows that actual power generated is less than nameplate capacity. Yes, of course they do, but the devil is in the details - and one point of the article is that the performance seems to have been badly miscalculated by the "experts". I don't see that part of the article, but that seems highly unlikely. People have been doing this worldwide for decades and the methods are mature and highly reliable. They set up towers and measure wind for months or years before committing to a site. There is never any doubt what the ratio will be. From the report it appears that this could be an endemic problem going all the way back to the planning stages - i.e. that some sites can have such a surprisingly low load factor - makes one wonder if they they not bother to test them thoroughly in advance. 27.4% average is not surprisingly low for land based installations. It is about the same as the German average. It is not as high as the best U.S. locations in the Dakotas or Texas, but well within expectations. Offshore installations do much better. The article says: "The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent." That one may need to be moved, but I would like to know: Over what period of time, under what conditions? The load factor for nuclear, by comparison, often exceeds 100% since the planners tend to be rather more cautious from the start in stating capacity - whereas the promoters of wind have apparently erred on the side of optimism. The only time I have heard it was over 100% was when Connecticut Yankee was run for nearly two years without refueling or maintenance, in a tour de force. It was also leaking and self destructing the whole time, and when the run came to an end it was a "de facto nuclear waste dump" as the state Attorney General put it. The plant was broken up and the site cleaned up at enormous expense. The was the fifth U.S. nuclear plant to self-destruct or burn, counting Enrico Fermi. Rancho Seco was destroyed by a light bulb in the control panel, perhaps the most ignominious demise. Davis-Besse has not actually destroyed at present, but it was off line for years, it was the source of "two of the top five most dangerous incidents" in U.S. history. It is presently back on line. Nuclear plants tend to be either up and working, or disastrously disabled. With a nuke, you put all your eggs in one basket, and when it goes down for any reason a large fraction of the entire national generating capacity goes down with it. This is the case in Japan where an earthquake took down the world's largest nuke last year. It is still not fixed. The actual numbers do not lie. The problem is in reconciling them with what had been predicted in the planning stages - and then in using that knowledge for future planning. I doubt there was a discrepancy. The article does not say there was. It just points out that there is a difference between actual and nameplate, which is common knowledge, although perhaps not to this author. If energy from either wind or nuclear cost $4 watt (faceplate) installed, and wind delivers only one fourth of that as the load factor, then it is a minimum or four times more costly, and it is hard to paint that picture any other way... That is NOT the case! People would have noticed by now. The actual cost of electricity is closely monitored and reported. ... except to say that it is actually worse for the users, in practice, because the peak usage for consumers is at mid-day to mid afternoon, and that tends to be the time of day when wind is the least reliable. Where does it say that? That's news to sailors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
Harry Veeder wrote: Didn't you say yourself that the future of profits in the energy sector will mainly derive from the hardware and peripheral side of the business and not from the sale of energy? I was talking about cold fusion energy, which will be thousands or hundreds of thousands of times cheaper than present-day energy. I did not mean wind or solar. They will always be expensive, although I am sure the price will fall. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Sterling Segue
- Original Message > From: Terry Blanton > Or should I say a "Stirling Segway". If it burns, it's biofuel: > http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/11/being-dean-kamen.html This is only mildly creative, since there is no true spark of genius - yet. There is little doubt that Kamen is a good inventor - "good but not great" perhaps - but this episode may be rather telling for how he is remembered by history, since the Segway is/was such a yawner; ... and it could end up as reminiscent of something that happened forty years ago - with no less a great inventor than Bill Lear. In 1968, Lear began pumping money into a steam turbine to power cars - what was he thinking? - and he did build a steam-powered bus that nobody wanted. And in the end, he had blown millions (of profits from the Lear Jet, etc) on this failed venture, back when a million was really worth something . It was clear to almost everyone in Detroit that yes, steam would work if it was closed-cycle, so that you did not need to carry 50 gallons of water to get to Wal-Mart - but where are you going to place 100 square feet of radiators on the family car? ... plus even if you could find the space for radiators - what have you really gained? The diesel is almost as efficient as the steam turbine to begin with. Maybe, in retrospect I should restate the above - to opine that Lear was a good inventor, like Kamen in many ways, but not a great inventor. A great inventor will be one who can get our cars off of fossil fuel elegantly, and with little downside accomodation. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
Jed, Didn't you say yourself that the future of profits in the energy sector will mainly derive from the hardware and peripheral side of the business and not from the sale of energy? Harry - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits? > Quoting the article: > > "Oswald's report highlights the key issue of load factor, the > actual > power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how > critical > it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, > according > to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind > turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 > megawatt > turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. > The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 > percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment." > > This makes no sense. > > Everyone knows that actual power generated is less than nameplate > capacity. (This is true for all electric power generator types, > including even nuclear power, which has the highest ratio of actual > to nameplate.) They know this at the planning and financing phase, > and they know it in more detail when they measure the wind before > installing. If the actual to nameplate ratio is going to generate a > poor return on investment, this will be obvious before the first > dollar is spent. They would not build a wind farm if they knew it > was > a poor investment. > > Many other technical points in this article are either bogus, or > common knowledge that has been taken into account. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
- Original Message From: Jed Rothwell > The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These > figures reflect a poor return on investment." > JR: This makes no sense Everyone knows that actual power generated is > less than nameplate capacity. Yes, of course they do, but the devil is in the details - and one point of the article is that the performance seems to have been badly miscalculated by the "experts". From the report it appears that this could be an endemic problem going all the way back to the planning stages - i.e. that some sites can have such a surprisingly low load factor - makes one wonder if they they not bother to test them thoroughly in advance. If they had known the actual load factor (as opposed to the predicted) was going to be so low in advance, they probably would not have invested in wind energy at all. The load factor for nuclear, by comparison, often exceeds 100% since the planners tend to be rather more cautious from the start in stating capacity - whereas the promoters of wind have apparently erred on the side of optimism. The actual numbers do not lie. The problem is in reconciling them with what had been predicted in the planning stages - and then in using that knowledge for future planning. If energy from either wind or nuclear cost $4 watt (faceplate) installed, and wind delivers only one fourth of that as the load factor, then it is a minimum or four times more costly, and it is hard to paint that picture any other way... ... except to say that it is actually worse for the users, in practice, because the peak usage for consumers is at mid-day to mid afternoon, and that tends to be the time of day when wind is the least reliable. Jones
[Vo]:A Sterling Segue
Or should I say a "Stirling Segway". If it burns, it's biofuel: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/11/being-dean-kamen.html http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/11/11/the-2008-deka-revolt/ But I think I'd change the name. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
Jed sez: ... > Many other technical points in this article are either bogus, or common > knowledge that has been taken into account. > > - Jed As DT once said: Follow the money? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
Quoting the article: "Oswald's report highlights the key issue of load factor, the actual power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how critical it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 megawatt turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment." This makes no sense. Everyone knows that actual power generated is less than nameplate capacity. (This is true for all electric power generator types, including even nuclear power, which has the highest ratio of actual to nameplate.) They know this at the planning and financing phase, and they know it in more detail when they measure the wind before installing. If the actual to nameplate ratio is going to generate a poor return on investment, this will be obvious before the first dollar is spent. They would not build a wind farm if they knew it was a poor investment. Many other technical points in this article are either bogus, or common knowledge that has been taken into account. - Jed
[Vo]:Ill Wind for green Brits?
The UK has the best wind sites in Europe, but can they afford it? http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1029 Its looking more and more like only the "big breakthrough" in alternative energy can deliver us from a return to more nuclear
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Clap On, Clap Off!
This is hysterical! Turn capitalism on and off! See: http://www.sfgate.com/comics/fiore/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:quantum fusion
That sure is a hell of a lot of money and time to do calorimetry. Either the effect is extremely small, or the apparatus to produce it is extremely complex, or there may be some misrepresentation going on (to put it very politely). On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 02:29:40PM +, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > >Hi All, 12-1-08 > >What are your thoughts on "The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis" >by Robert E. Godes in ISSUE 82, November/December 2008, >of "Infinite Energy"? > >http://www.infinite-energy.com/ > >The article is not online, where all I could find is the >enclosed below. > >Jack Smith > >-- > >http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm'AD=1&ArticleID=15870 > >Robert Godes of http://profusionenergy.com/ wrote: > >``Here is some food for thought. The DOE has established a >huge feeding trough full of Other Peoples Money, (OPM) >pronounced opium, to which they are fully addicted. >There are more promising alternative paths to hot fusion >than ITER. See work involving Boron 11 +H and there is >even more progress being made in LENR reactors. > >Try as they did, they did not completely kill the misnamed >'Cold Fusion' technology. I say misnamed because the >physics underlying it is fully described in a patent >application publishing on September 6th 2007, U.S. Patent >Application No. 11/617,632. > >I quit my day job in 2005 to start Profusion Energy, which >will license the IP to build and produce products that >will use what Profusion Energy calls 'Quantum Fusion'. We >already have devices; yes multiple repeatable devices, >that work reliably in an open container. We are currently >looking for someone who can work out the math involved >with the molecular Hamiltonian, for a white paper on >the subject. > >We are also looking for an angel ... investor, as family >and friends ... have taken it about as far as it can be >taken in an open container. An investment of $2M will get >my team in to an adequately equipped lab and allow us to >collect hard calorimeter data on energy production in 12 >to 18 months. An investment of $500K would allow me to >rent lab space and get the equipment necessary to start >collecting data by myself. At this level of funding it will >take two to three years to collect the required data.'' > >Robert Godes, August 30, 2007 >
[Vo]:quantum fusion
Hi All, 12-1-08 What are your thoughts on "The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis" by Robert E. Godes in ISSUE 82, November/December 2008, of "Infinite Energy"? http://www.infinite-energy.com/ The article is not online, where all I could find is the enclosed below. Jack Smith -- http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm'AD=1&ArticleID=15870 Robert Godes of http://profusionenergy.com/ wrote: ``Here is some food for thought. The DOE has established a huge feeding trough full of Other Peoples Money, (OPM) pronounced opium, to which they are fully addicted. There are more promising alternative paths to hot fusion than ITER. See work involving Boron 11 +H and there is even more progress being made in LENR reactors. Try as they did, they did not completely kill the misnamed 'Cold Fusion' technology. I say misnamed because the physics underlying it is fully described in a patent application publishing on September 6th 2007, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/617,632. I quit my day job in 2005 to start Profusion Energy, which will license the IP to build and produce products that will use what Profusion Energy calls 'Quantum Fusion'. We already have devices; yes multiple repeatable devices, that work reliably in an open container. We are currently looking for someone who can work out the math involved with the molecular Hamiltonian, for a white paper on the subject. We are also looking for an angel ... investor, as family and friends ... have taken it about as far as it can be taken in an open container. An investment of $2M will get my team in to an adequately equipped lab and allow us to collect hard calorimeter data on energy production in 12 to 18 months. An investment of $500K would allow me to rent lab space and get the equipment necessary to start collecting data by myself. At this level of funding it will take two to three years to collect the required data.'' Robert Godes, August 30, 2007
