Re: [Vo]:Bob Park's NY Times OP ED
On Dec 7, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: PARK. Not Parks! Park, Park, Park, Park, Park, Park, Park, Park, Park, Park. - Jed Well, at least I got it right in the title! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:For the resident nuclear experts...semi-OT?
Reads like you've already visited the Dime Box. One need not travel the galaxy to find truth stranger than fiction. Wall Street has it all. Peeking under the skirts of a girl like Merrill Lynch can give you the drama of a lifetime. Richard Howdy Kyle, Writing fiction requires fictional imagination. By reading your comments, you are suggesting injecting truth to make it believable... That's not the way to tell a story at the Dime Box saloon best liar's contest. Hmmm...maybe I should have my intrepid heroes visit the Dime Box Saloon at some point in their travels. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:For the resident nuclear experts...semi-OT?
Thanks for the info. You learn something new everyday. But, most of those are short term halflifes, and most of the long termers are alpha and beta emitters, so still very little long term damage there. On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fast neutrons can cause physical damage, de magnetize things, and cause other issues, but i was under the impression that it would only cause actual nuclear reactions with certain ALREADY radioactive species. and i cant find anything online to the contrary. Care to link some info on fast neutrons causing such reactions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation --Kyle
[Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update
There are a number of free-market reasons behind the recent drop in oil to a four year low: one is slightly lower demand - but demand is still way too high for this kind of drop with normal market dynamics. Demand is off maybe 5% year-to-year while the price is down to $40+ from $140+ per barrel. Actual demand was greater 4 years ago than today, yet the price is the same while output is not off at all. Go figure! or read on. [BTW: One barrel (bbl) is equivalent to 42 US gallons or 117 liters. The common word 'barrel' aka drum which is used in industry here, is a different measure and actually holds 55 gallons.] The second free-market force is that the supply of oil, which can be effectively controlled by an illegal Cartel, has not changed very much - because of Arabia and Kuwait. Their politics and other strategies are well thought-out and go beyond market forces. You have to admire the insight and sophistication of their greed. They should call it Gekko-land. The two big Arab swing producers would need to cut production far more than normal, and do it alone, to maintain a higher price - and they could easily do so - but are choosing not to for now. And they also are (probably) using this lack of action on supply front to impress a new US administration, and to ultimately influence Obama's future policy for their region (quick removal of our troops). These rich and savvy people realize that the PAC money which has flowed from oil interests to the 'other party' in the past 8 years is of no influence now, and that the first 100 days of the new administration is of highest importance - and will be when the most dramatic new legislation can come in easily - and they do not want to see that legislation be negative to OPEC, or even mention them by name. Another market reason for the price drop is that non-OPEC members in the over-populated third world still keep finding more oil, and they can ill-afford to cut output, due to debt and poverty at home. A fifth but minor reason is that coal-to-oil technology is contributing more than ever to supplies (in a few regions with lots of coal like South Africa). However, coal prices have risen like oil, but have not fallen as fast in recent months. Here is a decent article - and refinement of the expected date for Peak-Oil: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106191-peak-oil-s-bell-is-ringing A few further points to consider: Coincidentally, the best estimate for exact date of the Hubbert peak looks pretty close to December 2012 g The sixth and most important factor in oil pricing, but not a direct implication of the article above - is that the recent downturn in OPEC-permitted pricing was carefully *planned* to some extent, due to the miraculous trend in biofuels, and due to a strategy to influence that next year. This factor might override all the others in importance. IOW the present drop was planned (but may have gotten out of hand) to counteract the monster boost in biofuel production which followed the 2008 record grain harvest in the USA, and the massive amount of new money put into conversion plants here. That really means that this drop is (partly) artificial, which has some degree of real market influence as well - but accelerated for a specific anti-competitive purpose. With plausible deniability, of course. The 2008 harvest numbers are still not firm, as there was a lot of late grain crops planted, which are easier to harvest when the fields freeze, so they are still coming in at a record pace and this will be ongoing all the way up to new year's day, before the final tally is known. But even the low range of numbers is incredible. The American farmer is prospering like never before in our history and without this we would be in one hell of an economic fix. The Oil-Cartel strategy is that keeping the oil price down this winter will influence the 2009 planting season - since the price of biofuel will determine the profit potential of the crops (mainly corn) to the American farmer; or stated another way, the price of the grain crops is dependent to some extent on the pump price of petroleum. Most crops are presold, and the present price declines in corn futures for instance, are reflected directly in planning for next year's plantings - since the options price is off significantly. Bet you have not seen this suggestion in print, however, although the rumors are circulating ... But it stands to reason that if the *perception* is that low oil price will be off for several years, then that will seem too low for the farmer to profit in 2009, as they have in 2008. Ergo less acreage will be planted and some of the ethanol processors will go belly up as well. And the massive investment into biofuel processing and RD will die out. That is the hope of OPEC, and it is not unrealistic. They have done this once before. The desired effect is to put many of the higher cost producers out of business
Re: [Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update
The concept of market saturation should apply as much to the demand for oil as it does for any other product in demand. Harry - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, December 8, 2008 12:07 pm Subject: [Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update There are a number of free-market reasons behind the recent drop in oil to a four year low: one is slightly lower demand - but demand is still way too high for this kind of drop with normal market dynamics. Demand is off maybe 5% year-to-year while the price is down to $40+ from $140+ per barrel. Actual demand was greater 4 years ago than today, yet the price is the same while output is not off at all. Go figure! or read on. [BTW: One barrel (bbl) is equivalent to 42 US gallons or 117 liters. The common word 'barrel' aka drum which is used in industry here, is a different measure and actually holds 55 gallons.] The second free-market force is that the supply of oil, which can be effectively controlled by an illegal Cartel, has not changed very much - because of Arabia and Kuwait. Their politics and other strategies are well thought-out and go beyond market forces. You have to admire the insight and sophistication of their greed. They should call it Gekko-land. The two big Arab swing producers would need to cut production far more than normal, and do it alone, to maintain a higher price - and they could easily do so - but are choosing not to for now. And they also are (probably) using this lack of action on supply front to impress a new US administration, and to ultimately influence Obama's future policy for their region (quick removal of our troops). These rich and savvy people realize that the PAC money which has flowed from oil interests to the 'other party' in the past 8 years is of no influence now, and that the first 100 days of the new administration is of highest importance - and will be when the most dramatic new legislation can come in easily - and they do not want to see that legislation be negative to OPEC, or even mention them by name. Another market reason for the price drop is that non-OPEC members in the over-populated third world still keep finding more oil, and they can ill-afford to cut output, due to debt and poverty at home. A fifth but minor reason is that coal-to-oil technology is contributing more than ever to supplies (in a few regions with lots of coal like South Africa). However, coal prices have risen like oil, but have not fallen as fast in recent months. Here is a decent article - and refinement of the expected date for Peak-Oil: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106191-peak-oil-s-bell-is-ringing A few further points to consider: Coincidentally, the best estimate for exact date of the Hubbert peak looks pretty close to December 2012 g The sixth and most important factor in oil pricing, but not a direct implication of the article above - is that the recent downturn in OPEC-permitted pricing was carefully *planned* to some extent, due to the miraculous trend in biofuels, and due to a strategy to influence that next year. This factor might override all the others in importance. IOW the present drop was planned (but may have gotten out of hand) to counteract the monster boost in biofuel production which followed the 2008 record grain harvest in the USA, and the massive amount of new money put into conversion plants here. That really means that this drop is (partly) artificial, which has some degree of real market influence as well - but accelerated for a specific anti-competitive purpose. With plausible deniability, of course. The 2008 harvest numbers are still not firm, as there was a lot of late grain crops planted, which are easier to harvest when the fields freeze, so they are still coming in at a record pace and this will be ongoing all the way up to new year's day, before the final tally is known. But even the low range of numbers is incredible. The American farmer is prospering like never before in our history and without this we would be in one hell of an economic fix. The Oil-Cartel strategy is that keeping the oil price down this winter will influence the 2009 planting season - since the price of biofuel will determine the profit potential of the crops (mainly corn) to the American farmer; or stated another way, the price of the grain crops is dependent to some extent on the pump price of petroleum. Most crops are presold, and the present price declines in corn futures for instance, are reflected directly in planning for next year's plantings - since the options price is off significantly. Bet you have not seen this suggestion in print, however, although the rumors are circulating ... But it stands to reason that if the *perception* is that low oil price will be off for several years, then that will seem too low for
Re: [Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update
Interesting thing is the increase of 6.5% in transit ridership: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94UISMG0.htm has not declined with the falling prices. In fact, MARTA's ridership has risen in the 4th quarter. As the Cartel's learned, all too painfully, during the embargo of the 70s, once people exchange one behavior for another, many do not return. Then people learned that they really did not need a land yacht to cruise to work every day. Now they are riding the state's boats and napping, reading and even surfing with a stressless commute. A company which provides vans to commuters who share in the driving and fuel has used 3G routers and WIFI on the bus to provide internet access to laptops of those who are not driving that day. The individual cost is about $40 per week for a full van. And looming on the horizon are the PHEV and BEVs which will really put a dent in the oil barrell. Market manipulating can be a very dangerous whose outcomes might be quite unexpected. Terry On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a number of free-market reasons behind the recent drop in oil to a four year low: one is slightly lower demand - but demand is still way too high for this kind of drop with normal market dynamics. Demand is off maybe 5% year-to-year while the price is down to $40+ from $140+ per barrel. Actual demand was greater 4 years ago than today, yet the price is the same while output is not off at all. Go figure! or read on. [BTW: One barrel (bbl) is equivalent to 42 US gallons or 117 liters. The common word 'barrel' aka drum which is used in industry here, is a different measure and actually holds 55 gallons.] The second free-market force is that the supply of oil, which can be effectively controlled by an illegal Cartel, has not changed very much - because of Arabia and Kuwait. Their politics and other strategies are well thought-out and go beyond market forces. You have to admire the insight and sophistication of their greed. They should call it Gekko-land. The two big Arab swing producers would need to cut production far more than normal, and do it alone, to maintain a higher price - and they could easily do so - but are choosing not to for now. And they also are (probably) using this lack of action on supply front to impress a new US administration, and to ultimately influence Obama's future policy for their region (quick removal of our troops). These rich and savvy people realize that the PAC money which has flowed from oil interests to the 'other party' in the past 8 years is of no influence now, and that the first 100 days of the new administration is of highest importance - and will be when the most dramatic new legislation can come in easily - and they do not want to see that legislation be negative to OPEC, or even mention them by name. Another market reason for the price drop is that non-OPEC members in the over-populated third world still keep finding more oil, and they can ill-afford to cut output, due to debt and poverty at home. A fifth but minor reason is that coal-to-oil technology is contributing more than ever to supplies (in a few regions with lots of coal like South Africa). However, coal prices have risen like oil, but have not fallen as fast in recent months. Here is a decent article - and refinement of the expected date for Peak-Oil: http://seekingalpha.com/article/106191-peak-oil-s-bell-is-ringing A few further points to consider: Coincidentally, the best estimate for exact date of the Hubbert peak looks pretty close to December 2012 g The sixth and most important factor in oil pricing, but not a direct implication of the article above - is that the recent downturn in OPEC-permitted pricing was carefully *planned* to some extent, due to the miraculous trend in biofuels, and due to a strategy to influence that next year. This factor might override all the others in importance. IOW the present drop was planned (but may have gotten out of hand) to counteract the monster boost in biofuel production which followed the 2008 record grain harvest in the USA, and the massive amount of new money put into conversion plants here. That really means that this drop is (partly) artificial, which has some degree of real market influence as well - but accelerated for a specific anti-competitive purpose. With plausible deniability, of course. The 2008 harvest numbers are still not firm, as there was a lot of late grain crops planted, which are easier to harvest when the fields freeze, so they are still coming in at a record pace and this will be ongoing all the way up to new year's day, before the final tally is known. But even the low range of numbers is incredible. The American farmer is prospering like never before in our history and without this we would be in one hell of an economic fix. The Oil-Cartel strategy is that keeping the oil price down this winter
Re: [Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update
Terry Blanton writes, A company which provides vans to commuters who share in the driving and fuel has used 3G routers and WIFI on the bus to provide internet access to laptops of those who are not driving that day. The individual cost is about $40 per week for a full van. That is a fabulous idea- the airport shuttle on steroids, so to speak, but turned into the shared commute vehicle of choice. Especially since these big vans can now be had (probably) at a deep discount nowadays. Maybe this concept should go into the new energy plan - as a major way to increase sales for Detroit - yet without retooling - and using the big engines they already have available - but at the same time, economize by putting 4 or more commuters in the same vehicle where they can actually earn billable hours (if the are attorneys for instance). Win-Win. 4 riders at 12 mpg is actually better in many ways that 4 Priuses (Prii ?) carrying a lone commuter. It would be an even better idea if the van could be leased to other (responsible) parties during work hours as in the some of the other programs, and there was some kind of intelligent computer able to provide flexibility to those who had to veer from a schedule. Win-win-win. Are there any startup companies doing this in a big way already? Jones
[Vo]:OT: IOUs and market saturation.
If the attached chart is accurate, then IMO it shows the market is saturated with IOUs. The demand rises gradually at first then accelerates and then begins to decelerate. Just as it levels off a crisis is declared and the fed suddenly begins issuing a lot more debt. The fed is only doing what comes naturally, but is it the best response? Harry attachment: USMonetaryBase-nov08.png
Re: [Vo]:For the resident nuclear experts...semi-OT?
In reply to leaking pen's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:10:18 -0700: Hi, Thanks for the info. You learn something new everyday. But, most of those are short term halflifes, and most of the long termers are alpha and beta emitters, so still very little long term damage there. Almost all radioactive substances are alpha and beta emitters, and the beta emitters are frequently also gamma-sources. Any of these three forms of ionizing radiation can cause biological damage, particularly when the substance makes up a part of your body. That's precisely why radioactive substances are dangerous. What else do you think causes long term damage? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Beyond Hubbert: Peak-Oil Update
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:07:26 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] There are a number of free-market reasons behind the recent drop in oil to a four year low: one is slightly lower demand - but demand is still way too high for this kind of drop with normal market dynamics. I suspect that the main reason is that the $147 price was driven too far up by speculators, when it looked like future demand would seriously outstrip supply, and now with a recession taking hold, is being driven too far down by speculators, who are guessing that the recession will bring demand well below supply. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
The related SPAWAR work has now been published in two peer-reviewed journals, replicated by SRI and confirmed by RAS. Do the SRI replications include replication of the Forsley's observation of backside tracks being correlated with the frontside tracks? That looked like an *extremely* compelling bit of evidence! (Apologies if you've already answered this!) Stephen, Good question. To my knowledge, such an assessment has not yet been done. Though it certainly could be, as the evidence is semi-permanent. However, SRI would not have the capability. It requires a TASL scanning system. The repl only includes 1) neutron data from SRI's BF3 and 2) RAS's sequential-etch and 3) an image of a triple-track. Steve
Re: [Vo]:For the resident nuclear experts...semi-OT?
alpha's are generally pretty tame. large sources of alpha can cause skin damage, but thats about as deep as it gets. Same with beta. Its the gamma that are a big issue. gamma goes through everything, alpha and beta get blocked by just about everything. On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to leaking pen's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:10:18 -0700: Hi, Thanks for the info. You learn something new everyday. But, most of those are short term halflifes, and most of the long termers are alpha and beta emitters, so still very little long term damage there. Almost all radioactive substances are alpha and beta emitters, and the beta emitters are frequently also gamma-sources. Any of these three forms of ionizing radiation can cause biological damage, particularly when the substance makes up a part of your body. That's precisely why radioactive substances are dangerous. What else do you think causes long term damage? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
I sent Mizuno a short message partly in English, including this sentence regarding the C-13 -- or whatever it is: . . . the more mundane explanation is that the mass spec is seeing C-H molecules. He responded in Japanese. Below is a partial translation. A CH fragment is not possible . . . products with M/e = 5 ~ 11 do not exist as organic matter. Furthermore there are no organic ions of mass 13. What combination of atoms would constitute a CH^+ ion? C2H2^2+ might be a possibility, but there is no way you could synthesize this as a fragment . . . If you want a bulletproof analysis I suppose it would be best to oxidize the materials to make H2O and CO2. He used the English word fragment here. I believe what he means is that C2H2^2 can be synthesized or built up (perhaps in multiple steps?) but it cannot be a fragment created by breaking down organic molecules. I will ask him if that is what he means. If it is, maybe we should add a sentence or two along these lines to the paper: The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule created in the mass spectrometer because when organic molecules are broken down, products with M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. C2H2^2+ might be a possible candidate, but this cannot appear as a fragment from decomposed organic molecules, but only from synthesis. To change the subject, Ed Storms and others here have commented that this experiment is somewhat crude or unready for publication. I agree, and I think Mizuno would also agree. However, I have been pushing him for many months to publish it anyway, ready or not. I should explain why. Mizuno faces mandatory retirement in April 2009, the end of the academic year in Japan. The university is trying to push him out of his office by the end of December because they want to renovate the space for the next researcher. He has already had to pack up most of his equipment, and move some of the instruments that he personally purchased to his house. There is not room for all of the instruments, books and materials. He went around sounding out other professors asking if they want experimental equipment. Most of them do not because, he explained, nowadays people do not do experiments. I do not know what these other professors do instead of experiments. Computer simulations? He is saving many of his papers notebooks by scanning them into PDF format. Anyway, a large chunk of 40 years of work is going into the dumpster. There may be a way for him to continue with this research after he retires, but I would not bet on it, so this is the last chance he will have to reveal this research. You have to realize that Mizuno teaches a full load of courses in conventional electrochemistry. He has full-time employment. You also have to realize that the university and the Ministry of Education despise cold fusion and together they have done everything short of firing him to prevent him from doing this research. In the upcoming ICCF-14 Japan country history, Kasagi and Iwamura point out that there are now only three groups in Japan still allowed to do cold fusion: Kasagi, Arata, and Mizuno. The Min. of Ed. is trying to shut them all down, once and for all. The official reasons are the same as those given in the U.S.: they have committed to plasma fusion; cold fusion is pathological science; it has never been replicated; etc. They even cite the DoE. Mizuno has been working with creosote for five or 10 years, but this along with all of his cold fusion research has been strictly on the side, during his nonexistent spare time, paid for and conducted entirely with his nonexistent spare personal funds. He conducted the creosote experiments using left-over equipment from old experiments. He started out with a large cell which is far from ideal for this purpose -- actually it is rather dangerous -- but it was available, so he used it. The calorimetry is still not great, but it is better than it was a few years ago. It was improved by doing a calibration with the heater inside the cell stimulating heat from a reaction. Storms and I suggested this, and Mizuno agreed it is a good idea. That particular change was harder to make than you might think, for various reasons I will not get into. The mass spectroscopy probably has many open questions, but I think it is unlikely he will be able to afford an outsourced analysis of this material in the future, even if he can continue with research somehow. So this is probably the best we are going to get. As I see it, it is better to publish something than nothing. This research was lost for 60 years, and it will be lost forever unless someone pays attention to Mizuno. So anyway, there he is surrounded by boxes of who knows what. Jones Beene and Brian Ahern asked him for a sample of the material. He responded: Regarding leftover sample materials, I am looking through the boxes now to see if I have any. I
Re: [Vo]:For the resident nuclear experts...semi-OT?
In reply to leaking pen's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:29:34 -0700: Hi, [snip] alpha's are generally pretty tame. large sources of alpha can cause skin damage, but thats about as deep as it gets. Same with beta. Its the gamma that are a big issue. gamma goes through everything, alpha and beta get blocked by just about everything. This is largely true when the source of radiation is outside the body, but a very different story when the source is part of your body chemistry. Radioactive iron in particular would be a problem, because it gets taken up as part of the haemoglobin in your blood, and transported to every nook and cranny. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:37 -0500: Hi, [snip] The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule created in the mass spectrometer because when organic molecules are broken down, products with M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. ...but we are looking at 13 here, not 5-11. It should be obvious that if you hit phenanthrene or a derivative hard enough, you can break just about any sized chunk off it. As I pointed out on this list twice already, the CH combination is just about all phenanthrene is made of (10 or the 14 C atoms have a single H attached, and the other 4 have none at all), so it stands to reason that when you forcefully break up the molecule, you are going to get lots of CH radicals. Perhaps the confusion arises because he is expecting a molecule and not considering a radical. C2H2^2+ might be a possible candidate, but this cannot appear as a fragment from decomposed organic molecules, but only from synthesis. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Earlier I suggested checking for C14 by liquid scintillation checking of the residue in the subject experiment because: (1) it is cheap, (2) it is quantitatively very accurate to incredibly small quantities, (3) it can be accomplished after the fact, and (4) the probability of increased C14 may be small but finding it could have dramatic consequences. It provides a check for C13+p+e - C14 and C12 +D+e - C14 reactions. These reactions are reasonable to check for provided C13 is actually being created in the large quantities suggested without a positron signature. If C13 is not being created then most of this discussion is moot. On a similar basis, I would like to suggest NMR analysis of the residue because: (1) it is cheap though not as cheap as C14 counting, (2) it is quantitatively very accurate to incredibly small quantities (and sample size), (3) it can be accomplished after the fact, and (4) proving the synthesis of large amounts of C13 from C12 by chemical means could have dramatic consequences. This should put an end to all speculation. C13 is readily distinguished from C12 because it has a nuclear magnetic moment, and is sensitive enough to NMR to distinguish chemical bonds in which it is involved. C13 NMR is a well developed technology commonly used to determine organic molecular structure due to the fact C13 is 1.1 % abundant, thus the needed signals are readily acquired. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Robin, You have backed into what I have been saying all along i.e. that there is way to little hydrogen available for a substantial part of what is reported not to be 13C... ie. the H:C ratio is 10:14 at best - but since in the table near the end of the experiment, he sees some methane, some CH3 and other aromatic compound which take away the small amount of H which is there at the beginning -- then the tiny amount of hydrogen left over is simply not enough to account for the fact that something like 10^20 atoms of 12C must have been converted to 13C. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Free Energy Intentionally Put Off?
By the way, the subject of this thread is intentionally put off. I gather this refers to the notion that Scott Little and Earthtech have deliberately screwed up cold fusion experiments or taken steps not to find excess heat. I think there is no chance they have done anything like that. They have made some errors -- as all researchers do -- but as far as I know they have been 100% honest and their motivation is just what they say it is. My only quibble with Scott Little is that on some occasions he has held himself to be the standard by which cold fusion should be judged. He has sometimes felt that if he personally cannot replicate an effect, that means it is not real. That is ridiculous. I have written many Pascal programs but that does not mean I can write any program to accomplish any task, or that my programs are as elegant as Niclaus Wirth's. (Wirth writes programs the way Mozart wrote music.) As far as I know, there have only been a handful of dishonest or fake results in the history of cold fusion. - Jed
[Vo]:New Energy Secretary
This is not exactly what many in alternative energy circles had in mind... Dr. Steven Chu of LBNL and Stanford University (Nobel laureate)is apparently the Obama choice for Secretary of Energy. Chu made following comment on the Mills' and BLP : It is extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the people who are backing this. I suspect this reflects his sentiments on all of LENR as well. Too bad. To which ignorance, BTW Gene Mallove replied with an out-of-context rewording of one of Robert Park’s many foolish lines (Infinite Energy No.28): As far as new energy is concerned, a PhD and a Nobel Prize is no inoculation against foot-in-mouth disease, nor a guarantee against uttering foolishness. In Gene's memory, we will probably need to modify that to include the new Chu responsibilities: As far as new energy is concerned, a PhD and a Nobel Prize, or appointment to Secretary of Energy is no inoculation against foot-in-mouth disease, nor a guarantee against uttering the same kind of foolishness of the ordinary bimbo secretary on her coffee break. Guess that is not exactly Politically Correct in many ways ... but hey, I luv the bovine word-play and if I had a little more time I would try to shoehorn 'Chu' and 'cud' (cudderance ?) in there somehow. Jones
[Vo]:Wagoner Fesses Up
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463804,00.html Rick Wagoner calls the cancellation of the EV1 program the worst mistake the company made on his watch. Instead of being a decade ahead of what has now become the game, GM is years behind and scrambling to play catch up with the much ballyhooed Chevrolet Volt. Off with his head!! Terry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:32:08 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. Robin, You have backed into what I have been saying all along i.e. that there is way to little hydrogen available for a substantial part of what is reported not to be 13C... ie. the H:C ratio is 10:14 at best - but since in the table near the end of the experiment, he sees some methane, some CH3 and other aromatic compound which take away the small amount of H which is there at the beginning -- then the tiny amount of hydrogen left over is simply not enough to account for the fact that something like 10^20 atoms of 12C must have been converted to 13C. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:37 -0500: Hi, [snip] The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule created in the mass spectrometer because when organic molecules are broken down, products with M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. ...but we are looking at 13 here, not 5-11. It should be obvious that if you hit phenanthrene or a derivative hard enough, you can break just about any sized chunk off it. Maybe. On the other hand, organic molecules apparently cleave into characteristic chunks, rather than just blowing apart into all possible combinations. See, for example, a page of example cleavage points for selected molecules: http://www.chem.arizona.edu/massspec/example_html/examples.html Based on that, it seems possible that Mizuna may be stating a well known fact (well known among certain organic chemists, I mean) when he says you won't see CH as a breakdown product from phenanthrene. Note particularly carboxylic acid, which contains two CH groups, yet apparently doesn't show a peak at 13. (OTOH, come to think of it, if they're splitting out individual atoms, they must be hitting the molecules really hard rather than just cleaving them into a few big pieces. Hmmm.) As I pointed out on this list twice already, the CH combination is just about all phenanthrene is made of (10 or the 14 C atoms have a single H attached, and the other 4 have none at all), so it stands to reason that when you forcefully break up the molecule, you are going to get lots of CH radicals. Perhaps the confusion arises because he is expecting a molecule and not considering a radical. C2H2^2+ might be a possible candidate, but this cannot appear as a fragment from decomposed organic molecules, but only from synthesis. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Hi Robin, Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. Yes indeed - but if I am not mistaken he clearly states that there was NO significant hydrogenation, meaning of course that the phenanthrene remained largely unaffected chemically; and that the second (outsourced) MS was performed on the black residue. Possibly it was even slightly hydrogen depleted by then, since in the ongoing gas MS, some methane was seen. Doesn't he state somewhere very specifically that there was little hydrogenation ? I found it most surprising that he would claim a rather massive nuclear transmutation but almost no chemical change after that many days under heat and pressure. OTOH the triple benzene ring must be exceptionally stable over time for this exact chemical to appear in coal, crude oil and creosote; since some of those deposits are from fossils which were once living a billion years years ago. I suppose if the moleucle will last a billion years unchanged in coal, then 10 days in a hot reactor is not too much of a stretch. It would be easy to write this off as bunko if it were coming from a lesser experimenter, and I cannot blame anyone, even the open-minded folks on this forum, for thinking that it is a huge leap of faith to accept it on face value. I am glad to see from the Mizuno message back to Jed that he had considered the obvious objections, even though I believe he is wrong about some details there. This one begs for a quick replication attempt with no calorimetry, looking solely for the end product transmutation to 13C. Heck it would be pretty big news if he got only 10^19 transmuted atoms instead of over 10^20 or whatever g Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:31:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] (OTOH, come to think of it, if they're splitting out individual atoms, they must be hitting the molecules really hard rather than just cleaving them into a few big pieces. Hmmm.) [snip] Indeed. I'm not up to date on all the different varieties of MS that are currently available, but I believe that particle energies on the order of 10's of keV are not uncommon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Has anyone considered that if C12 were converted to C13, the 4.9 MeV of energy released would break any chemical bond the C12 had within the compound as well as many other chemical bonds in the vicinity? Such a transformation should result in a large amount of pure carbon. Consequently, the chemical structure would be clearly altered by as much transformation that is claimed. Ed On Dec 8, 2008, at 8:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:32:07 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Hi Robin, Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. Yes indeed - but if I am not mistaken he clearly states that there was NO significant hydrogenation, meaning of course that the phenanthrene remained largely unaffected chemically; and that the second (outsourced) MS was performed on the black residue. Possibly it was even slightly hydrogen depleted by then, since in the ongoing gas MS, some methane was seen. [snip] Only about half the C12 is purported to have converted to C13, which means that the remainder was methane and higher hydrocarbons, or just plain C12. The proportion that was plain C12 could easily have provided sufficient H for the other substances (even without the H2 gas). Furthermore, production of C13 would also entail consumption of an H atom, so a scarcity of H would also limit the amount of C13 produced. In short, I don't think H scarcity was a limiting factor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
One suggestion is that most of the excess was borrowed in advance, in the QM sense, to convert a proton into a virtual neutron. Jones - Original Message From: Edmund Storms Has anyone considered that if C12 were converted to C13, the 4.9 MeV of energy released would break any chemical bond the C12 had within the compound as well as many other chemical bonds in the vicinity? Such a transformation should result in a large amount of pure carbon. Consequently, the chemical structure would be clearly altered by as much transformation that is claimed. Ed
