Re: [Vo]:High altitude wind power

[Horace Heffner]

On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Latest info. See:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/

- Jed



The helicopter variety was discussed here in 2006 and 2007, in part  
based on Jed's reference to this article at the time:


http://tinyurl.com/2lqyyr

An edited combined version of various related posts of mine follows.

It probably isn't necessary to locate in North Dakota.   Also the  
article implies an altitude of 15,000 ft is necessary: "But how do we  
get a working turbine up to the necessary height -- at least 15,000  
ft (4600 meters) above the earth's surface? That's where helicopter  
technology comes in."  It doesn't seem likely that altitude is  
necessary either.  There is a diminishing return for higher altitudes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

at one time stated:  “The wind blows faster at higher altitudes  
because of the reduced influence of drag of the surface (sea or land)  
and the reduced viscosity of the air. The variation in velocity with  
altitude, called wind shear, is most dramatic near the surface.  
Typically, the variation follows the 1/7th power law, which predicts  
that wind speed rises proportionally to the seventh root of altitude.  
Doubling the altitude of a turbine, then, increases the expected wind  
speeds by 10% and the expected power by 34%.”


This is now more thoroughly discussed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_profile_power_law

The power from wind is proportional to the cube of the velocity, so  
the power increases with the 3/7 power of altitude. At 15,000 ft the  
power is only 60 percent more than at 5000 ft.  The majority of that  
altitude benefit can be obtained by building wind walls on high  
rugged mountain tops, which concentrate wind over their ridges.   The  
power cable, a major weight problem, is more than 3 times heavier at  
15,000 ft than 5,000 ft.  A major weight problem is associated with  
protecting the power cable from lightning strikes, which would be  
extremely frequent to say the least.


A non-economic wind power class 2 location at an altitude of 50 m has  
average wind speed of 5.6 m/s and power density of 200 W/m^2.
Applying the 1/7th power law, a 1 km tower in that location would  
experience an average wind speed of  (1000m/50m)^(1/7) *(5.6 m/s) =  
1.53*(5.6 m/s) = 8.54m/s.  This turns a useless wind class 2  
location, like the coast of Georgia,  into a wind class 6 location,  
with 600 W/m^2 wind power density.


One problem is the fundamental fact that a drag proportional to the  
square of the wind velocity is necessary to achieve the power  
proportional to the cube of velocity.  In any event, for a given  
aerodynamic configuration, drag is roughly proportional to the square  
of the velocity.  At high altitudes fast feathering and getting out  
of the sky fast to avoid tether breaking in high wind becomes an  
issue.  Staying in the sky is also a problem, as well as dealing with  
lightning and storms.


One possible solution is to utilize/hybridize solar towers instead of  
kites/helicopters.


The tops of solar towers, also known as solar chimneys, should be  
ringed with vertical layers of inverted airfoils.  In windy  
conditions, nearly always present at high altitudes in many  
locations, these inverted airfoils about the periphery, with trailing  
edges to the inside, have the effect of reducing air pressure at the  
top of the chimney.  They direct horizontal airflow upwards, thus  
reducing air pressure in the chimney.  This enhances the Bernoulli  
effect already present for such chimneys.  This pressure drop  
increases airflow and thus turbine output at the base of the  
chimney.  Use of variable pitch airfoils permits controlled  
feathering and continual operation in high winds.   The airfoils  
increase load on the structure and cost of the structure, but airfoil  
pitch control may be of use in preventing resonant vibration buildup  
in high wind conditions.  The use of such airfoils increases the  
optimal chimney aspect ratio to less than that which is optimal  
without the airfoils.  A typical (height to diameter) aspect ratio  
for solar towers is currently 6.


Suppose the effective area of the tower with respect to wind power  
extraction is roughly the diameter of the tower squared.  A 1 km high  
solar tower would thus have a useful wind cross section of (1000 m) 
^2.   However, due to pressure drop losses in the flue, and other  
inefficiencies, only about 10 percent of that power can be  
extracted.  The wind power available is then (1000 m)^2 * (600 W/m^2)  
* 0.10 = 60 MW, but this is 24 hours a day, not just through  
daylight,  providing a 120 MW solar equivalent enhancement to a 200  
MW solar tower.


Use of wind power to enhance solar tower performance has the  
advantage that wind power tends to be available when solar is not.
Coastal wind power is larger at dusk and dawn, while solar power  
peaks around noon.  Wi

Re: [Vo]:Do it backwards: added 1997-style, science-based Vortex

[John Berry]

>
> but add a "Classic Vortex:" an experiment-centered list similar to
> the way vortex once was, back in the Chris Tinsley era, a place for
> alt-science people to discuss their current work.  Build stuff.  Run tests
> on odd claims and weird devices.  It might remain pretty dead except when
> a "Mylow" event occurs ...or we'll find that plenty of experiment threads
> have always been there, but just couldn't attract a viewership.


YES!

Now that's a plan.
And with that I'd kiss this vortex good-buy and join and shiny new old style
vortex ;)



On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM, William Beaty  wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Steven Krivit wrote:
>
> > >Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?
> > pro, very pro
>
> Sometimes on-topic threads die, while off-topic threads attract
> participants and go for days.  But then, the meaning of "on topic" is
> largely decided by the group.  If alt-science experiments attract low
> interest, it suggests that such experiments are actually "off topic" in
> the present community.
>
> Also, I personally have low interest in Vortex as it stands, and haven't
> participated much in recent years.  (Someone noted that politics has been
> normal for Vortex for years.  Yep.)  The Mylow stuff was great, but
> things like it seem rare, and usually can't compete against ten other
> threads going hot and heavy.  Maybe they're rare BECAUSE they can't
> compete?
>
> The current politics ban is a blackout to remove all left/right/anarchist
> topics.  But it got me thinking.  That's why trolls are so valuable.  I
> mean, besides me being one myself. :)
>
> Someone mentioned that Vortex discusses all sorts of things between
> "Mylow" episodes.  But in my experience, the "Mylow" threads don't attract
> interest.  They usually only catch fire if the original poster pushes them
> with numerous messages, competing against other threads, until slowly the
> science thread steals participants away from all the others.  If this
> isn't done, then experimental science threads stand little chance.  The
> other stuff is more interesting.
>
> So why not give PBS its own separate science channel?
>
> Rather than VortexB, maybe we should keep the main community exactly as it
> was, but add a "Classic Vortex:" an experiment-centered list similar to
> the way vortex once was, back in the Chris Tinsley era, a place for
> alt-science people to discuss their current work.  Build stuff.  Run tests
> on odd claims and weird devices.  It might remain pretty dead except when
> a "Mylow" event occurs ...or we'll find that plenty of experiment threads
> have always been there, but just couldn't attract a viewership.
>
>
> (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
> William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
> Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
>
>

[Vo]:Do it backwards: added 1997-style, science-based Vortex

[William Beaty]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Steven Krivit wrote:

> >Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?
> pro, very pro

Sometimes on-topic threads die, while off-topic threads attract
participants and go for days.  But then, the meaning of "on topic" is
largely decided by the group.  If alt-science experiments attract low
interest, it suggests that such experiments are actually "off topic" in
the present community.

Also, I personally have low interest in Vortex as it stands, and haven't
participated much in recent years.  (Someone noted that politics has been
normal for Vortex for years.  Yep.)  The Mylow stuff was great, but
things like it seem rare, and usually can't compete against ten other
threads going hot and heavy.  Maybe they're rare BECAUSE they can't
compete?

The current politics ban is a blackout to remove all left/right/anarchist
topics.  But it got me thinking.  That's why trolls are so valuable.  I
mean, besides me being one myself. :)

Someone mentioned that Vortex discusses all sorts of things between
"Mylow" episodes.  But in my experience, the "Mylow" threads don't attract
interest.  They usually only catch fire if the original poster pushes them
with numerous messages, competing against other threads, until slowly the
science thread steals participants away from all the others.  If this
isn't done, then experimental science threads stand little chance.  The
other stuff is more interesting.

So why not give PBS its own separate science channel?

Rather than VortexB, maybe we should keep the main community exactly as it
was, but add a "Classic Vortex:" an experiment-centered list similar to
the way vortex once was, back in the Chris Tinsley era, a place for
alt-science people to discuss their current work.  Build stuff.  Run tests
on odd claims and weird devices.  It might remain pretty dead except when
a "Mylow" event occurs ...or we'll find that plenty of experiment threads
have always been there, but just couldn't attract a viewership.


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

An additional thought.

I believe that one issue would be that such an experiment might well become
"deficient" of the charge that is applied to the plasma.

So it might be an idea to either have it always grounded, although I know
some FE effects don't work when grounded so a periodic switched regrounding
might be needed. (hmmm this may be visible in Stufflers vid come to think of
it, the effect starts dying off)

Actually I have thought of a reason to believe that it is negative charges
that are distributed into the environment. (besides mere logic)

Lightening is the mother of all arcs and we know that lightening storms
produce negative ions, well I am sure these negative ions are distributed as
the plasma column is extinguished.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, John Berry  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Kyle Mcallister <
> kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry  wrote:
>>
>> > From: John Berry 
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
>> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 8:41 PM
>> > Too bad about the helium ;)The
>> > charecteristic we want is for the plasma to be very exact
>> > about when it is and is not a plasma.It must
>> > de-excite as rapidly as possible.
>> > I am not sure but I'd suspect that would
>> > work better at higher rather than lower pressures?
>>
>> Okay, reading your original post more carefully leads me to this
>> understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> 1. A plasma is established in a tube with a, say, glass envelope.
>
>
> Yes, though  Gray has air and hence no inner tube between the plasma and
> the metal terminal.
>
> The outside of the envelope is metal foil.
>
>
> That should work however everything indicates that the results will be
> better if wire is used as it's capacitance will not be greatly diminished
> but the contact with the escaping charges will be reduced.
>
>
>
>> The plasma (conductive) is considered one plate of a capacitor, with the
>> glass as a dielectric. The foil is the second plate.
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>> 2. The plasma is switched 'off', meaning, there is no longer a conductor
>> in the tube, just an inert gas. The 1 terminal capacitor remaining is the
>> foil plate on the outside.
>> 3. In some way power is generated by this.
>
>
> This part is not a mystery, if the gas is not in a plasma state, not a
> conductor then we have a single plate.
> This raises significantly the voltage and energy of the remaining plate.
>
> This if how electrostatic generators work, only there mechanical work is
> used to pull the plates apart.
> Here however this is achieved freely (to us) by a phenomena found in
> charged plasmas collapsing under the right conditions.
>
>
>>
>> The guy that suggested this to you has some odd stories, but that's okay,
>> we're trying to perform an experiment, which seems reasonably simple to do.
>>
>> Neon gas is pretty easily excited, and only needs a moderate voltage to be
>> excited. The higher the frequency, the better it works. A car ignition coil
>> can be used to make a decent HV supply:
>
>
>  Please note we want smooth, Stiffler used a medical HV source as noisier
> options with ripples failed.
>
>
>>
>>
>> A timer circuit, either a 4046 VCO or a 555 timer is used to trigger the
>> base of a transistor or the gate of a MOSFET. This in turn dumps 12V at
>> maybe 10A across the primary of the ignition coil. The output HV is at
>> whatever frequency the 4046 or 555 is set at. These sort of HV outputs tend
>> to be pretty fast rise and fall deals. For 60 cycles, an ignition coil can
>> be pulsed simply with a 600 watt light dimmer (DIAC-TRIAC) with a series
>> capacitor to limit current. It looks simple, but it will produce some damn
>> nasty voltages.
>
>
> I would recommend anything that can be full wave rectified and filtered, we
> want the plasma to be very stable and then be turned of very suddenly
> preferably by full disconnection at both ends.
> We then need that plasma to entirely de-excite and collapse at once.
>
>>
>>
>> At the local...uh...exotic store...they sell lights of many different
>> kinds for...well, I'm not sure exactly what they sell them for, but they do.
>> One such light bulb is like an incandescent bulb, the big globe type
>> decorative ones with the standard Edison screw base. But the inside is like
>> a giant NE-2 neon. You can get them with many different shaped electrodes...
>> 8-balls, dice, or if we want this thing to for sure be impressive, naked
>> ladies. :)
>
>
> Ah!
> One thing though, Hiddink said that bulbs with a coating would not work
> probably because the coating acts as a capacitor plate?
>
>>
>>
>> Anyhow, the entire interior of the envelope will fill with a bright orange
>> plasma if a high frequency HV AC source is connected to it between the
>> center electrode and a foil wrapping on the outside. I never noticed
>> anything particularly unusual about this setup, but perhaps I am missing
>> something. Is a DC 'cha

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Kyle Mcallister
wrote:

>
> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry  wrote:
>
> > From: John Berry 
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 8:41 PM
> > Too bad about the helium ;)The
> > charecteristic we want is for the plasma to be very exact
> > about when it is and is not a plasma.It must
> > de-excite as rapidly as possible.
> > I am not sure but I'd suspect that would
> > work better at higher rather than lower pressures?
>
> Okay, reading your original post more carefully leads me to this
> understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> 1. A plasma is established in a tube with a, say, glass envelope.


Yes, though  Gray has air and hence no inner tube between the plasma and the
metal terminal.

The outside of the envelope is metal foil.


That should work however everything indicates that the results will be
better if wire is used as it's capacitance will not be greatly diminished
but the contact with the escaping charges will be reduced.



> The plasma (conductive) is considered one plate of a capacitor, with the
> glass as a dielectric. The foil is the second plate.


Yes


> 2. The plasma is switched 'off', meaning, there is no longer a conductor in
> the tube, just an inert gas. The 1 terminal capacitor remaining is the foil
> plate on the outside.
> 3. In some way power is generated by this.


This part is not a mystery, if the gas is not in a plasma state, not a
conductor then we have a single plate.
This raises significantly the voltage and energy of the remaining plate.

This if how electrostatic generators work, only there mechanical work is
used to pull the plates apart.
Here however this is achieved freely (to us) by a phenomena found in charged
plasmas collapsing under the right conditions.


>
> The guy that suggested this to you has some odd stories, but that's okay,
> we're trying to perform an experiment, which seems reasonably simple to do.
>
> Neon gas is pretty easily excited, and only needs a moderate voltage to be
> excited. The higher the frequency, the better it works. A car ignition coil
> can be used to make a decent HV supply:


Please note we want smooth, Stiffler used a medical HV source as noisier
options with ripples failed.


>
>
> A timer circuit, either a 4046 VCO or a 555 timer is used to trigger the
> base of a transistor or the gate of a MOSFET. This in turn dumps 12V at
> maybe 10A across the primary of the ignition coil. The output HV is at
> whatever frequency the 4046 or 555 is set at. These sort of HV outputs tend
> to be pretty fast rise and fall deals. For 60 cycles, an ignition coil can
> be pulsed simply with a 600 watt light dimmer (DIAC-TRIAC) with a series
> capacitor to limit current. It looks simple, but it will produce some damn
> nasty voltages.


I would recommend anything that can be full wave rectified and filtered, we
want the plasma to be very stable and then be turned of very suddenly
preferably by full disconnection at both ends.
We then need that plasma to entirely de-excite and collapse at once.

>
>
> At the local...uh...exotic store...they sell lights of many different kinds
> for...well, I'm not sure exactly what they sell them for, but they do. One
> such light bulb is like an incandescent bulb, the big globe type decorative
> ones with the standard Edison screw base. But the inside is like a giant
> NE-2 neon. You can get them with many different shaped electrodes...
> 8-balls, dice, or if we want this thing to for sure be impressive, naked
> ladies. :)


Ah!
One thing though, Hiddink said that bulbs with a coating would not work
probably because the coating acts as a capacitor plate?

>
>
> Anyhow, the entire interior of the envelope will fill with a bright orange
> plasma if a high frequency HV AC source is connected to it between the
> center electrode and a foil wrapping on the outside. I never noticed
> anything particularly unusual about this setup, but perhaps I am missing
> something. Is a DC 'charge' potential supposed to be applied across the cap
> before the plasma collapses,


YES!

Ok, critical components:

The plasma must be charged relative to the metal "plate", this can be
achieved through a separate voltage source and in most cases is, possibly a
partial exception being Ed Gray who uses a resistor critical for mantaining
the arc at a voltage but he does use a battery too on the metal "plate".

Personally I favor the plasma having an absolute negative potential while
charged as I imagine electrons being easier to have "fly away" than a
positive charge, but for completeness both should be tried.

The metal "plate" will function better if it is a mesh or wire grid, we want
capacitance but with as little coverage as possible. (Stiffler confirmed
mesh worked better)

Stiffler initially failed to get the effect when using a regular HV source
and only when he switched to a medical HV supply for it's low ripple did he
get any results.

Finally 

Re: [Vo]:I'm back

[Harry Veeder]

> Frank sez:
> 
> > Perhaps not.  I going to suggest that only the clean shaven be 
> allowed on
> > this forem
> 
> #&^$#!
> 
> Busted!
> 
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks

...and you must be called Bruce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[Kyle Mcallister]

--- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry  wrote:

> From: John Berry 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 8:41 PM
> Too bad about the helium ;)The
> charecteristic we want is for the plasma to be very exact
> about when it is and is not a plasma.It must
> de-excite as rapidly as possible.
> I am not sure but I'd suspect that would
> work better at higher rather than lower pressures?

Okay, reading your original post more carefully leads me to this understanding, 
correct me if I'm wrong.

1. A plasma is established in a tube with a, say, glass envelope. The outside 
of the envelope is metal foil. The plasma (conductive) is considered one plate 
of a capacitor, with the glass as a dielectric. The foil is the second plate.
2. The plasma is switched 'off', meaning, there is no longer a conductor in the 
tube, just an inert gas. The 1 terminal capacitor remaining is the foil plate 
on the outside.
3. In some way power is generated by this.

The guy that suggested this to you has some odd stories, but that's okay, we're 
trying to perform an experiment, which seems reasonably simple to do.

Neon gas is pretty easily excited, and only needs a moderate voltage to be 
excited. The higher the frequency, the better it works. A car ignition coil can 
be used to make a decent HV supply:

A timer circuit, either a 4046 VCO or a 555 timer is used to trigger the base 
of a transistor or the gate of a MOSFET. This in turn dumps 12V at maybe 10A 
across the primary of the ignition coil. The output HV is at whatever frequency 
the 4046 or 555 is set at. These sort of HV outputs tend to be pretty fast rise 
and fall deals. For 60 cycles, an ignition coil can be pulsed simply with a 600 
watt light dimmer (DIAC-TRIAC) with a series capacitor to limit current. It 
looks simple, but it will produce some damn nasty voltages.

At the local...uh...exotic store...they sell lights of many different kinds 
for...well, I'm not sure exactly what they sell them for, but they do. One such 
light bulb is like an incandescent bulb, the big globe type decorative ones 
with the standard Edison screw base. But the inside is like a giant NE-2 neon. 
You can get them with many different shaped electrodes... 8-balls, dice, or if 
we want this thing to for sure be impressive, naked ladies. :)

Anyhow, the entire interior of the envelope will fill with a bright orange 
plasma if a high frequency HV AC source is connected to it between the center 
electrode and a foil wrapping on the outside. I never noticed anything 
particularly unusual about this setup, but perhaps I am missing something. Is a 
DC 'charge' potential supposed to be applied across the cap before the plasma 
collapses, to charge the thing up?

--Kyle


  

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Jed Rothwell]

(I simply can't resist . . .)

Alexander Hollins wrote:


> One, generally, reffering to someone in the third person when they are in
> the room, as it were, is considered rude.


Hollins will have to get used to being referred to in the third person,
because Rothwell often does this, and has even been known to refer to
himself in the third person, even in the privacy of his own home with
friends and family, albeit in Japanese which (as it happens) does not have
person or number, or gender or articles for that matter.

(These deficits have long puzzled linguists. E. H. Jorden speculated that
Izanami *et al.* held a meeting at the beginning of history and decided they
did need these constructs, while a more recent analysis, based on the work
of Dave Barry, suggests that when ancient Japanese migrated from the South
Pacific, these parts of speech may have been accidentally lost. *)

Hollins should be thankful that English does not include causative passive
verb conjugations.

And oh by the way, that's linguistics, which *is* science, you betcha, so
don't even start.

- Jed


* D. Barry: "Hawaii's Official State Motto is Wai'iu'a'iou'lih'aaaine," but
nobody has any idea what it means. . . . The Hawaiian language is quite
unusual because when the original Polynesians came in their canoes, most of
their consonants were washed overboard in a storm, and they arrived here
with almost nothing but vowels."

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[OrionWorks]

>From John Berry:

> I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due to
> inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general 
> interest.
>
> I think it got some attention.  We just don’t know what to make of it.  The
> part about the jet fighters and flying saucers may cause some of us to be a 
> little
> standoffish. Ok, I want to take another run at this one...
>
> This group is for people who are open minded, it said so on the door, well
> first if someone has some beliefs you may think are far out that does not make
> them a liar and to propose ignoring something because your belief system 
> disagrees
> with only one of many sources is merely an attack of unbalanced skepticism.
>
> Also while I have not read the post recently (I just forwarded it) just based
> on what you say above may I say Eh?
>
> The majority of people (the more educated the more likely) accept that there 
> is
> something to "flying saucers", and I include myself in that majority.
> The evidence is significant.
>
> No they are not a part of every day reality, I can't explain what they are
> and I would resist presenting an idea based on them as Hiddink does.
>
> It is possible for a list to be "too open minded" but I believe that this one
> has a tendency to become a bit too stuffy, scared of any truth that might be
> ridiculed.

I think you are in good company. I also suspect your brief soliloquy
is not violating Mr. Beaty's rules as currently stated:

See:  http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html


The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of
professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which
exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer,
Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved
into a discussion on "taboo" physics reports and research. SKEPTICS
BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess
energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection,
reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of
supposedly crackpot claims. Before you subscribe, please see the rules
below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist list. There is
no charge, but donations towards expenses are recommended.


Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Alexander Hollins:

> Everything about the list says it was intended to discuss SCIENCE.

It seems to me that science -is- discussed here.

In addition to pure science I think many of us would also like
vortex-l to continue to include discussions concerning the politics
behind why science is occasionally derailed in undignified ways.
Unfortunately, religion can also play a role in the derailment of
science – which is why religion occasionally crops up as well. Being
able to occasionally discuss these OT matters can help us all
understand better what can be done about why science is occasionally
hijacked or derailed.

According to Jed, who has been a Vortex-l participant far longer than
I, the pros and cons of discussing related political "policy" which
have influenced scientific progress has always been an integral part
of what has been discussed within Vortex-l. Ed Storms has also made
several succinct comments to the effect and the importance of
understanding the occasionally scrappy world of politics and religion
and how they can affect the progress (or lack) of scientific research.

I would point out that few have ever complained about this dynamic
arrangement, at least not until recently. It seems to me that it has
only come up as an apparent issue for certain vort participants
because he-who-shall-remain-nameless arrived on the scene and started
trashing the complex dynamics of the vortex-l environment. But now
that so-and-so has been banned from vortex-l there is every reason to
assume that a healthy amount of dynamic stability will once again be
restored to vortex-l.

I also think it's important not to gloss over the fact that
Individuals like Jed Rothwell and Steven Krivit (as well as others)
have, IMO, performed an invaluable service of bringing to our
attention some of the idiotic things the "politics" of the situation
have done to the scientific community and also to specific scientists
who have had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong
time in history.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

Too bad about the helium ;)The charecteristic we want is for the plasma to
be very exact about when it is and is not a plasma.
It must de-excite as rapidly as possible.

I am not sure but I'd suspect that would work better at higher rather than
lower pressures?

We want a sudden collapse not a slow fade.

It seems like you are well suited, just start of with charging the capacitor
to a low voltage to be on the safe side.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kyle Mcallister
wrote:

>
>
> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry  wrote:
>
> > From: John Berry 
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 6:43 PM
> > Hopefully though it is the end of this
> > whole affair as it is about finding a resolution.
> > It is still interesting how many are putting
> > their energies into that.
> > I am afraid my specifically "On Topic"
> > thread looks like it will die due to inattention, version
> > 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general
> > interest.
>
> Nope, not dead. I'm gonna go over this more thoroughly tonight after I take
> care of a few family things and solder together a circuit I've been working
> on for a couple days.
>
> I only glanced over it briefly, but if a plasma is needed, well, I happen
> to have a nice two stage dual rotary vane vacuum pump. Have made homegrown
> CRT's, which produce a nice beam of lovely blue through the tube's length,
> can heat and ultimately shatter the glass 'faceplate', and do give off soft
> X-rays. A simple plasma jar is very simple.
>
> As a mechanic working with welding machines, argon is easy to get, and
> makes a nice plasma. I *had* some helium, until some of my nefarious cohorts
> came over on Friday night, drank a large quantity of Guinness, and proceeded
> to use said helium to talk like chipmunks.
>
> I will return to this, as I might be able to build something to test. Stay
> tuned.
>
> --Kyle
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Fink  wrote:

>
>  I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due
> to inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of
> general interest.
>
>
>
> I think it got some attention.  We just don’t know what to make of it.  The
> part about the jet fighters and flying saucers may cause some of us to be a
> little standoffish.
>
Ok, I want to take another run at this one...

This group is for people who are open minded, it said so on the door, well
first if someone has some beliefs you may think are far out that does not
make them a liar and to propose ignoring something because your belief
system disagrees with only one of many sources is merely an attack of
unbalanced skepticism.

Also while I have not read the post recently (I just forwarded it) just
based on what you say above may I say Eh?

The majority of people (the more educated the more likely) accept that there
is something to "flying saucers", and I include myself in that majority.
 The evidence is significant.

No they are not a part of every day reality, I can't explain what they are
and I would resist presenting an idea based on them as Hiddink does.

It is possible for a list to be "too open minded" but I believe that this
one has a tendency to become a bit too stuffy, scared of any truth that
might be ridiculed.

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[Kyle Mcallister]

--- On Tue, 6/16/09, John Berry  wrote:

> From: John Berry 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 6:43 PM
> Hopefully though it is the end of this
> whole affair as it is about finding a resolution.
> It is still interesting how many are putting
> their energies into that.
> I am afraid my specifically "On Topic"
> thread looks like it will die due to inattention, version
> 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general
> interest.

Nope, not dead. I'm gonna go over this more thoroughly tonight after I take 
care of a few family things and solder together a circuit I've been working on 
for a couple days.

I only glanced over it briefly, but if a plasma is needed, well, I happen to 
have a nice two stage dual rotary vane vacuum pump. Have made homegrown CRT's, 
which produce a nice beam of lovely blue through the tube's length, can heat 
and ultimately shatter the glass 'faceplate', and do give off soft X-rays. A 
simple plasma jar is very simple.

As a mechanic working with welding machines, argon is easy to get, and makes a 
nice plasma. I *had* some helium, until some of my nefarious cohorts came over 
on Friday night, drank a large quantity of Guinness, and proceeded to use said 
helium to talk like chipmunks.

I will return to this, as I might be able to build something to test. Stay 
tuned.

--Kyle


  

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Alexander Hollins]

Everything about the list says it was intended to discuss SCIENCE.

One, generally, reffering to someone in the third person when they are
in the room, as it were, is considered rude.

Two, most water always includes impurities.  does this mean that
distilling water is turning water into something it was never meant to
be?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> For reasons too complicated to explain, it would be easier for me to modify
> the message heading with some sort of code, rather than to redirect messages
> to another list. I mean a code such as [OFF TOPIC] or [OT] or [POLITICS] or
> what-have-you.
>
> Alexander Hollins should be aware that this list has always included
> politics. That does not mean it should in the future. That is up to Bill
> Beaty to decide. However, it is incorrect to say that Vortex is turning into
> "something it never was intended to be." Politics are central to this topic.
> If it were not for politics, we would probably have cold fusion powered cars
> by now.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM, John Berry wrote:
> AGREED!

I object!  :-)

Terry

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM,  wrote

> I was going to use that! :(

The early bird gets the worm; but, the second mouse gets the cheese.  :-)

Terry

Re: [Vo]:I'm back

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM,  wrote:
> Perhaps not.  I going to suggest that only the clean shaven be allowed on
> this forem

We now exclude the Mennonites?

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

Yes.
You form a capacitor between a thread of plasma and a plate or cylinder.

When you turn off the plasma it becomes a 1 terminal capacitor which greatly
raises the voltage and energy.

Read the post again, ask questions.

And yes Hiddink has some crazy ideas, so?!
I don't agree with some of his beliefs but you aren't being asked to only
believe Hiddink.

I am happy to explain anything you may not get, though the idea is very
simple.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Fink  wrote:

>
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:43 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Enough Already
>
>
>
>
>
> I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due to
> inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general
> interest.
>
>
>
> I think it got some attention.  We just don’t know what to make of it.  The
> part about the jet fighters and flying saucers may cause some of us to be a
> little standoffish.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure I understand exactly what is being described here.  Is the
> outer plate a metal cylinder while the inner plate consists only of ionized
> gas?
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[Alexander Hollins]

and now we are debating about debating about debating

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Chris Zell wrote:
> So, now we're debating about debating about religion and politics?
>
> Jeez Louise guys,  Our Founding Fathers taught us that politics exists
> because of the limits/failures of religion (Tom Paine) and both religion and
> politics exist largely because of the present limits of technology.
>
> Free energy would go a long way to de-emphasizing both religion and
> politics.  If everyone has enough,  how much churchiness and partisan
> nonsense will we want?  If there are any Zeta Reticulans out there in the
> starry void,  I gotta think that technology has settled their opinions about
> the afterlife or who should be Grand PooBah this year.
>
> Now, about those charge clusters...
>

RE: [Vo]:Enough Already

[Jeff Fink]

 

 

  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

 

 

I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due to
inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general
interest.

 

I think it got some attention.  We just don't know what to make of it.  The
part about the jet fighters and flying saucers may cause some of us to be a
little standoffish.

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly what is being described here.  Is the
outer plate a metal cylinder while the inner plate consists only of ionized
gas?

 

Jeff

 

Re: [Vo]:Enough Already

[John Berry]

Hopefully though it is the end of this whole affair as it is about finding a
resolution.
It is still interesting how many are putting their energies into that.

I am afraid my specifically "On Topic" thread looks like it will die due to
inattention, version 1.0 died over at Overunity.com due to lack of general
interest.

Of course if I thought it would have worked I wouldn't have waited so long
to post it here.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> So, now we're debating *about debating about *religion* and politics? *
> **
> Jeez Louise guys,  Our Founding Fathers taught us that politics exists
> because of the limits/failures of religion (Tom Paine) *and both religion
> and politics exist largely because of the present limits of technology.*
> **
> Free energy would go a long way to de-emphasizing both religion and
> politics.  If everyone has enough,  how much churchiness and partisan
> nonsense will we want?  If there are any Zeta Reticulans out there in the
> starry void,  I gotta think that technology has settled their opinions about
> the afterlife or who should be Grand PooBah this year.
>
> Now, about those charge clusters...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[John Berry]

Good idea Ed.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the
> objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can make
> their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the cc of the
> private exchange.  If no one makes such a request, the discussion stops. Of
> course, anyone would be free to contact the person who made the off-topic
> comment initially and continue the discussion by private e-mail, but without
> additional contributors.  I'm sure this is done often, but I'm suggesting
> this method be  acknowledged formally as a way to satisfy the requirements
> of the list.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks wrote:
>
>  From Ed:
>>
>>  While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best
>>> discussed
>>> in private with the people who are interested.  I suggest if a a subject
>>> comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like to
>>> explore the idea further make their wish known so that the discussion can
>>> move to private e-mail involving each interested person without having to
>>> get involved with another list or cause consternation to people who are
>>> not
>>> interested. How does this sound?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds sensible to me.
>>
>> In fact, I'm sure we do this all the time!
>>
>> I guess the 64 dollar question might be: How one might go about
>> determining if the subject matter being discussed (and also being
>> considered for private exchange) would be of general interest to
>> others or not. I think I'm being nit picky here... Probably not that
>> big of a deal. ;-)
>>
>> Regards
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> www.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[John Berry]

AGREED!

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> *Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can
> be handled without Bill having to get involved at all.*
>
> Ed
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
>
>  And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
>> stop completely.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edmund Storms
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find normal?  Of
>>> course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency of
>>> these
>>> characteristics.  In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall.
>>> Insanity
>>> has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is only
>>> that
>>> Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be changed
>>> by
>>> rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very characteristic
>>> pattern of behavior.  While more information is needed to discover if he
>>> is
>>> physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his harm in
>>> the
>>> circumstance we experienced is obvious.  Of course, he might just be a
>>> jerk
>>> who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather treat
>>> him
>>> as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>>
>>>

 - Original Message -
 From: Edmund Storms 
 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
 discussions.

  I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
> enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
> people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
> something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets
> to
> be too much without forcing a total ban on both.
>
> I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging.
> If
> one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to
> intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the
> world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.
>
> Ed
>


 Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
 Harry



>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:High altitude wind power

[Jeff Fink]

Wouldn't these things be a delight to pilots?  And, imagine the wreckage
raining down on the city when something structural goes wrong.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High altitude wind power

>From Jed:

> Latest info. See:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/

High Altitude wind power generation is indeed an intriguing concept.
According to this article:

> Startups like KiteGen, Sky Windpower, Magenn, and Makani
> (Google's secretive fundee) have come into the space over
> the last several years, and they seem to be working on
> much shorter timelines.
>
> "We are not that far from working prototypes," Archer said,
> though she noted that the companies are all incredibly
> secretive about the data from their testing.

Without question this is a topic worthy of vortex-l discussion!

I seem to recall Ed Storms once commenting on this topic. Please
correct me if I'm wrong but I gathered Ed thought the logistics of
constructing high altitude wind farms was simply be too impractical.

I don't know what to think about this matter other than it intrigues
the hell out of me. Being able to tap into the huge reservoir of high
altitude wind that can easily exceed speeds of 100 mph is certainly
something to consider. I also gather high altitude wind speeds tend to
be more consistent day in and day out. On the down side, one can only
imagine the horror of watching an ugly cold front suddenly move across
the surface of a high altitude wind farm, a front loaded with
shattering bolts of deadly lightning. Ok, Ben... go on out there with
your key and see if you can get a spark off one of those cables.

I would hope that these aspects of Nature have been taken into
consideration in the design of POCs.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Enough Already

[Chris Zell]

So, now we're debating about debating about religion and politics? 
 
Jeez Louise guys,  Our Founding Fathers taught us that politics exists because 
of the limits/failures of religion (Tom Paine) and both religion and politics 
exist largely because of the present limits of technology.
 
Free energy would go a long way to de-emphasizing both religion and politics.  
If everyone has enough,  how much churchiness and partisan nonsense will we 
want?  If there are any Zeta Reticulans out there in the starry void,  I gotta 
think that technology has settled their opinions about the afterlife or who 
should be Grand PooBah this year.
 
Now, about those charge clusters...


  

[Vo]:Googe patents

[mixent]

Hi,

I'm probably the last to discover this, but I just found Google Patents
(http://www.google.com/patents), and am very impressed. It's much easier viewing
than using Alternatiff with the US patent office web site.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[Chris Zell]

Lemme get this straight, you wanna build fusion reactors to make gasoline?
 
OK,  so economic development isn't always linear.  Maybe if you reduce energy 
inputs to nearly zero cost,  the other costs of labor and equipment still give 
you cheap gasoline. 
 
But first the minor hurdle of achieving practical fusion has to get done.  
Details, details...


  

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[mixent]

In reply to  David Jonsson's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:36:11 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Wait a moment. The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. When you pick it
>up to earth it will expand and cool.
[snip]
Volcano.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Help Vortex

[mixent]

In reply to  John Berry's message of Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:50:57 +1200:
Hi,
[snip]
>3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.

Not necessarily. You can set the filter rules in your email client to send them
both to the same folder, and you wouldn't notice the difference. When you click
on reply it automatically goes to the right list. 

>Better is a rule of thumb, politics
>should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't
>causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to
>go to B.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:27:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
>> "we will shortly conquer fusion"
>>
>> Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered?  How do you make
>> energy portable or put fusion in a car?

That how this thread started off. Once sufficient cheap energy is available, you
can make your own gasoline (or any other appropriate carbon based fuel) from CO2
in the air.

>
>
>Mr. Fusion?
>
>http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/2070049523_385bca185b_o.jpg

I was going to use that! :(

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[mixent]

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:40:46 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:17 am
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
>
>> 
>> The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer 
>> fusion,making it available as an energy source. 
>
>Is fusion the enemy?

Ok, Harry, conquer the problems involved in harnessing fusion. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:High altitude wind power

[Edmund Storms]

On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:05 PM, OrionWorks wrote:


From Jed:


Latest info. See:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/


High Altitude wind power generation is indeed an intriguing concept.
According to this article:


Startups like KiteGen, Sky Windpower, Magenn, and Makani
(Google’s secretive fundee) have come into the space over
the last several years, and they seem to be working on
much shorter timelines.

“We are not that far from working prototypes,” Archer said,
though she noted that the companies are all incredibly
secretive about the data from their testing.


Without question this is a topic worthy of vortex-l discussion!

I seem to recall Ed Storms once commenting on this topic. Please
correct me if I'm wrong but I gathered Ed thought the logistics of
constructing high altitude wind farms was simply be too impractical.


You are right. This is a really bad idea, in the same category of  
putting solar cells in orbit and beaming the energy to the ground  
using lasers or microwaves.  People love imaginative ideas, which keep  
many people occupied in such discussion groups as this one.   
Unfortunately, the ideas will never be implemented either because they  
are impractical or are, to pardon the expression, not political.


Ed


I don't know what to think about this matter other than it intrigues
the hell out of me. Being able to tap into the huge reservoir of high
altitude wind that can easily exceed speeds of 100 mph is certainly
something to consider. I also gather high altitude wind speeds tend to
be more consistent day in and day out. On the down side, one can only
imagine the horror of watching an ugly cold front suddenly move across
the surface of a high altitude wind farm, a front loaded with
shattering bolts of deadly lightning. Ok, Ben... go on out there with
your key and see if you can get a spark off one of those cables.

I would hope that these aspects of Nature have been taken into
consideration in the design of POCs.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:High altitude wind power

[OrionWorks]

>From Jed:

> Latest info. See:
>
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/

High Altitude wind power generation is indeed an intriguing concept.
According to this article:

> Startups like KiteGen, Sky Windpower, Magenn, and Makani
> (Google’s secretive fundee) have come into the space over
> the last several years, and they seem to be working on
> much shorter timelines.
>
> “We are not that far from working prototypes,” Archer said,
> though she noted that the companies are all incredibly
> secretive about the data from their testing.

Without question this is a topic worthy of vortex-l discussion!

I seem to recall Ed Storms once commenting on this topic. Please
correct me if I'm wrong but I gathered Ed thought the logistics of
constructing high altitude wind farms was simply be too impractical.

I don't know what to think about this matter other than it intrigues
the hell out of me. Being able to tap into the huge reservoir of high
altitude wind that can easily exceed speeds of 100 mph is certainly
something to consider. I also gather high altitude wind speeds tend to
be more consistent day in and day out. On the down side, one can only
imagine the horror of watching an ugly cold front suddenly move across
the surface of a high altitude wind farm, a front loaded with
shattering bolts of deadly lightning. Ok, Ben... go on out there with
your key and see if you can get a spark off one of those cables.

I would hope that these aspects of Nature have been taken into
consideration in the design of POCs.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Edmund Storms]

I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the  
objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can  
make their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the cc of  
the private exchange.  If no one makes such a request, the discussion  
stops. Of course, anyone would be free to contact the person who made  
the off-topic comment initially and continue the discussion by private  
e-mail, but without additional contributors.  I'm sure this is done  
often, but I'm suggesting this method be  acknowledged formally as a  
way to satisfy the requirements of the list.


Ed


On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks wrote:


From Ed:

While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best  
discussed
in private with the people who are interested.  I suggest if a a  
subject
comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like  
to
explore the idea further make their wish known so that the  
discussion can
move to private e-mail involving each interested person without  
having to
get involved with another list or cause consternation to people who  
are not

interested. How does this sound?


Sounds sensible to me.

In fact, I'm sure we do this all the time!

I guess the 64 dollar question might be: How one might go about
determining if the subject matter being discussed (and also being
considered for private exchange) would be of general interest to
others or not. I think I'm being nit picky here... Probably not that
big of a deal. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:High altitude wind power

[Jed Rothwell]

Latest info. See:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I'm back

[Jed Rothwell]

Frank Z wrote:

Perhaps not.  I going to suggest that only the clean shaven be 
allowed on this forem


That's the funniest comment I have read here in weeks.

The Inverse-Taliban strikes again!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I'm back

[OrionWorks]

Frank sez:

> Perhaps not.  I going to suggest that only the clean shaven be allowed on
> this forem

#&^$#!

Busted!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:I'm back

[fznidarsic]

Perhaps not.? I going to suggest that only the clean shaven be allowed on this 
forem

Frank Z






?

RE: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Jed Rothwell]

For reasons too complicated to explain, it would be easier for me to 
modify the message heading with some sort of code, rather than to 
redirect messages to another list. I mean a code such as [OFF TOPIC] 
or [OT] or [POLITICS] or what-have-you.


Alexander Hollins should be aware that this list has always included 
politics. That does not mean it should in the future. That is up to 
Bill Beaty to decide. However, it is incorrect to say that Vortex is 
turning into "something it never was intended to be." Politics are 
central to this topic. If it were not for politics, we would probably 
have cold fusion powered cars by now.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Agreed. If there is a general will to ban trolls from our discussions, why
feel obligated to provide them with a list of their own?

Clearly, there is a desire to have a list that is able to go beyond specific
science and research discussions--and VoB, troll-less, could be readily used
for this purpose.

I unsubscribed to VoB when it seemed that it had been turned over to the
trolls, and I wouldn't be surprised if others had too, so it may be
underutilized and awaiting re-invigoration.

My 2-cents worth.

Lawrence



-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 


I'll just say that IMO, I think [VoB] is currently underutilized. I
think it could be used for far more noble purposes than as a "shunt".

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Lawrence de Bivort:

> Or, one could run VoB by the rules you are proposing for VoT,
> and not run any list at all for trolls posters.

Agreed. In fact, I had first considered this option before coming up
with the controversial suggestion of creating yet another Vort list,
the [VoT] group. One would assume that there would be less
modifications needed to manage a list group that already exists.

However, pursuing such an option would, as you have pointed out,
change the intent of what [VoB] is currently designed to take care of.
Currently it's not just a place for the handling of OT discussions. It
also a place for fistfights and flame wars. In a sense [VoB] was
designed to help shunt off the vestiges of aggressive posting behavior
from [Vo]. Personally, I'm ALL FOR changing the rules in [VoB] so that
there are civilized rules one must follow - or else be prepared to
experience the wrath of the god of Vortex at your own peril. ;-)

But again, that is a decision Mr. Beaty would need to ponder.

I'll just say that IMO, I think [VoB] is currently underutilized. I
think it could be used for far more noble purposes than as a "shunt".

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[David Jonsson]

OK, I put the latest versions here
http://djk.se/The%20adiabatic%20heat%20gradient%20for%20solids%20and%20the%20heat%20conduction%20through%20the%20earth%20crust.pdf

Tell me what you think. The correspondence was remarkably high, especially
since I only have one figures precisions in two of the constants used.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:15 PM, David Jonsson  wrote:

> Wait with reading this. I found some minor errors. I will repost later.
> Maybe i put this on ArXiv, what do you say?
>
> David
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:26 PM, David Jonsson <
> davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here I show that there is no heat production in the earth interior. If you
>> build power plants to extract the heat you basically shrink the globe. You
>> only use potential energy or elastic energy.
>>
>> The calculation also nullifies a source of global heating. The heat flow
>> through the earth crust was assumed to be around twice the human energy
>> consumption ( 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology)#Heat_flow).
>>
>> David
>>
>> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Nick Palmer wrote:
>>
>>> Re: the extra heat into the environment if we use deep geothermal wells.
>>>
>>> I wrote the following in my "Cold Fusion - an environmentalist's
>>> perspective" article for Infinite Energy magazine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "The human population is forecast to stabilise at around 11 billion by
>>> the middle of the next century and if each human was then using a constant
>>> 30 kilowatts, which may very well happen if we have unlimited energy to run
>>> our homes, transport and manufacturing processes etc, then we would be
>>> adding around an extra 1/750 of the heat that Earth intercepts from the sun.
>>> This might be insignificant globally but, as the climate seems to have a
>>> fractal nature and be vulnerable to the "butterfly effect", it may
>>> conversely have large effects. Fractional changes in the solar insolation
>>> due to tiny variations in Earth's orbit are thought to account for the
>>> periodicity of ice ages. In any event, the outpouring of so much waste heat
>>> in areas of high population density would certainly have an effect on the
>>> local microclimate and so this effect should be guarded against - it may be
>>> that we will need to radiate the waste heat into the night sky to get rid of
>>> it."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If geothermal proved to be a problem, I think it would be easily soluble.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Palmer
>>>
>>> On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[David Jonsson]

Wait with reading this. I found some minor errors. I will repost later.
Maybe i put this on ArXiv, what do you say?

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:26 PM, David Jonsson  wrote:

> Here I show that there is no heat production in the earth interior. If you
> build power plants to extract the heat you basically shrink the globe. You
> only use potential energy or elastic energy.
>
> The calculation also nullifies a source of global heating. The heat flow
> through the earth crust was assumed to be around twice the human energy
> consumption ( 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology)#Heat_flow).
>
> David
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Nick Palmer wrote:
>
>> Re: the extra heat into the environment if we use deep geothermal wells.
>>
>> I wrote the following in my "Cold Fusion - an environmentalist's
>> perspective" article for Infinite Energy magazine.
>>
>>
>>
>> "The human population is forecast to stabilise at around 11 billion by the
>> middle of the next century and if each human was then using a constant 30
>> kilowatts, which may very well happen if we have unlimited energy to run our
>> homes, transport and manufacturing processes etc, then we would be adding
>> around an extra 1/750 of the heat that Earth intercepts from the sun. This
>> might be insignificant globally but, as the climate seems to have a fractal
>> nature and be vulnerable to the "butterfly effect", it may conversely have
>> large effects. Fractional changes in the solar insolation due to tiny
>> variations in Earth's orbit are thought to account for the periodicity of
>> ice ages. In any event, the outpouring of so much waste heat in areas of
>> high population density would certainly have an effect on the local
>> microclimate and so this effect should be guarded against - it may be that
>> we will need to radiate the waste heat into the night sky to get rid of it."
>>
>>
>>
>> If geothermal proved to be a problem, I think it would be easily soluble.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Palmer
>>
>> On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Or, one could run VoB by the rules you are proposing for VoT, and not run
any list at all for trolls posters.

Lawrence


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.

>From Alexander and Ed:

> Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be
> handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
>
> Ed
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
>
>> And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
>> stop completely.

Ed, didn't you unsubscribe from [VoB]?

This is precisely why I brought up my original suggestion: Is it
possible to make available a safe and supportive environment where OT
discussions CAN be worked out, be allowed to flourish in peace. I
would argue that [VoB] is an unacceptable environment. [VoB] has
turned into a cesspool where trolls are allowed to thrive and trash
the place with impunity.

Why should such relevant OT discussions be relegated to the back of the bus?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:I'm back

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Welcome back, Jed.

I'm hoping for clarification, too, on the appropriateness of discussion
regarding the political management of CF, vs the appropriately banned
general political discussion.

Lawrence

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:46 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:I'm back

I am back, but I think I shall refrain from posting messages until 
Bill Beaty has had time to mull things over and clarify his policies.

Regarding this kerfuffle, I wrote to Bill:

". . . If you decide to permanently move the standard toward 
apolitical postings only, I do not think I have anything worthwhile 
to contribute.

A person running a web page or discussion group has every right to 
change the standards or focus of the discussion. If you were running 
a discussion on Japanese grammar, for example, I might well 
participate. But if you decided to limit the focus to early-Edo 
period Japanese (circa 1600), while that is a perfectly legitimate 
topic, I know little about it, so I would withdraw."

Regarding the Washington Times author James Robbins, he told me he 
was serious and not sarcastic about cold fusion.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Rick Monteverde]

As you said, but also gas emissions from the geothermal wells have proven to
be a far greater problem than waste heat. They had a big problem with
hydrogen sulfide and other stuff in Puna, Hawaii. There can also be ground
water changes and other issues when a near-surface source is tapped. Deeper
wells might be different on that count, but in any case if the system
doesn't use some sort of closed loop generation, toxic gasses will be an
issue. Not to mention splitting the earth in half, etc.

- Rick

> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Palmer [mailto:ni...@wynterwood.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:22 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier



> If geothermal proved to be a problem, I think it would be 
> easily soluble.
> 
> Nick Palmer
> 
> On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it 
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Ed:

> While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best discussed
> in private with the people who are interested.  I suggest if a a subject
> comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like to
> explore the idea further make their wish known so that the discussion can
> move to private e-mail involving each interested person without having to
> get involved with another list or cause consternation to people who are not
> interested. How does this sound?

Sounds sensible to me.

In fact, I'm sure we do this all the time!

I guess the 64 dollar question might be: How one might go about
determining if the subject matter being discussed (and also being
considered for private exchange) would be of general interest to
others or not. I think I'm being nit picky here... Probably not that
big of a deal. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:I'm back

[Jed Rothwell]

I am back, but I think I shall refrain from posting messages until 
Bill Beaty has had time to mull things over and clarify his policies.


Regarding this kerfuffle, I wrote to Bill:

". . . If you decide to permanently move the standard toward 
apolitical postings only, I do not think I have anything worthwhile 
to contribute.


A person running a web page or discussion group has every right to 
change the standards or focus of the discussion. If you were running 
a discussion on Japanese grammar, for example, I might well 
participate. But if you decided to limit the focus to early-Edo 
period Japanese (circa 1600), while that is a perfectly legitimate 
topic, I know little about it, so I would withdraw."


Regarding the Washington Times author James Robbins, he told me he 
was serious and not sarcastic about cold fusion.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Alexander:

> because if its ot, its NOT relevant, and because if
> you dont like certain people, or the things they say,
> you should be an adult and just ignore all posts from
> them

In theory, I agree with you 100%. "Adults" should simply ignore
troll-bait posts. However, when dealing with practical matters this is
not always so easy to follow or even maneuver through, particularly
when troll-bating begins to filter into the discussion format of
others. It's not always so easy to ignore and/or filter out such
static.

Again, this is one of the major reasons why I've fielded the query as
to whether it might be useful to establish a [VoT] alternate group
where there ARE rules to follow, just like the rules everyone is
expected to follow within [Vo].

I'm not trying to be a pest about this matter. I simply want the
matter to get a fair shake at the table.

In the end, if it's determined that setting up a [VoT] list is
impractical, ESPECIALLY if Mr. Beaty sez so, I can live with that.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Edmund Storms]

While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best  
discussed in private with the people who are interested.  I suggest if  
a a subject comes up that is not of general interest, the people who  
would like to explore the idea further make their wish known so that  
the discussion can move to private e-mail involving each interested  
person without having to get involved with another list or cause  
consternation to people who are not interested. How does this sound?


Ed


On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:23 AM, OrionWorks wrote:


From Alexander and Ed:

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list  
can be

handled without Bill having to get involved at all.

Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:


And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
stop completely.


Ed, didn't you unsubscribe from [VoB]?

This is precisely why I brought up my original suggestion: Is it
possible to make available a safe and supportive environment where OT
discussions CAN be worked out, be allowed to flourish in peace. I
would argue that [VoB] is an unacceptable environment. [VoB] has
turned into a cesspool where trolls are allowed to thrive and trash
the place with impunity.

Why should such relevant OT discussions be relegated to the back of  
the bus?


Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Alexander Hollins]

because if its ot, its NOT relevant, and because if you dont like
certain people, or the things they say, you should be an adult and
just ignore all posts from them

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM, OrionWorks wrote:
> From Alexander and Ed:
>
>> Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be
>> handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
>>
>> Ed
>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
>>
>>> And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
>>> stop completely.
>
> Ed, didn't you unsubscribe from [VoB]?
>
> This is precisely why I brought up my original suggestion: Is it
> possible to make available a safe and supportive environment where OT
> discussions CAN be worked out, be allowed to flourish in peace. I
> would argue that [VoB] is an unacceptable environment. [VoB] has
> turned into a cesspool where trolls are allowed to thrive and trash
> the place with impunity.
>
> Why should such relevant OT discussions be relegated to the back of the bus?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Alexander and Ed:

> Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be
> handled without Bill having to get involved at all.
>
> Ed
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
>
>> And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
>> stop completely.

Ed, didn't you unsubscribe from [VoB]?

This is precisely why I brought up my original suggestion: Is it
possible to make available a safe and supportive environment where OT
discussions CAN be worked out, be allowed to flourish in peace. I
would argue that [VoB] is an unacceptable environment. [VoB] has
turned into a cesspool where trolls are allowed to thrive and trash
the place with impunity.

Why should such relevant OT discussions be relegated to the back of the bus?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Nick Palmer]

Re: the extra heat into the environment if we use deep geothermal wells.

I wrote the following in my "Cold Fusion - an environmentalist's 
perspective" article for Infinite Energy magazine.




"The human population is forecast to stabilise at around 11 billion by the 
middle of the next century and if each human was then using a constant 30 
kilowatts, which may very well happen if we have unlimited energy to run our 
homes, transport and manufacturing processes etc, then we would be adding 
around an extra 1/750 of the heat that Earth intercepts from the sun. This 
might be insignificant globally but, as the climate seems to have a fractal 
nature and be vulnerable to the "butterfly effect", it may conversely have 
large effects. Fractional changes in the solar insolation due to tiny 
variations in Earth's orbit are thought to account for the periodicity of 
ice ages. In any event, the outpouring of so much waste heat in areas of 
high population density would certainly have an effect on the local 
microclimate and so this effect should be guarded against - it may be that 
we will need to radiate the waste heat into the night sky to get rid of it."




If geothermal proved to be a problem, I think it would be easily soluble.



Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it 

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Edmund Storms]

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list  
can be handled without Bill having to get involved at all.


Ed
On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:


And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
stop completely.


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edmund  
Storms wrote:
How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find  
normal?  Of
course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency  
of these
characteristics.  In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall.  
Insanity
has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is  
only that
Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be  
changed by
rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very  
characteristic
pattern of behavior.  While more information is needed to discover  
if he is
physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his  
harm in the
circumstance we experienced is obvious.  Of course, he might just  
be a jerk
who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather  
treat him

as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.

Ed

On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:




- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms 
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.


I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets
to
be too much without forcing a total ban on both.

I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging.
If
one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to
intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the
world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.

Ed



Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Alexander Hollins]

And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or
stop completely.


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find normal?  Of
> course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency of these
> characteristics.  In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall. Insanity
> has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is only that
> Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be changed by
> rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very characteristic
> pattern of behavior.  While more information is needed to discover if he is
> physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his harm in the
> circumstance we experienced is obvious.  Of course, he might just be a jerk
> who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather treat him
> as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.
>
> Ed
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Edmund Storms 
>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
>> discussions.
>>
>>> I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
>>> enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
>>> people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
>>> something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets
>>> to
>>> be too much without forcing a total ban on both.
>>>
>>> I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging.
>>> If
>>> one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to
>>> intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the
>>> world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>>
>> Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
>> Harry
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Steven Krivit]

Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?


pro, very pro

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Edmund Storms]

How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find normal?   
Of course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency  
of these characteristics.  In addition, I'm using this word as a  
catchall. Insanity has many characteristics too numerous to discuss  
here. My point is only that Grok does not show normal behavior in that  
his reality cannot be changed by rational discussion and he shows an  
addiction to a very characteristic pattern of behavior.  While more  
information is needed to discover if he is physically harmful to  
himself and others, the usual concern, his harm in the circumstance we  
experienced is obvious.  Of course, he might just be a jerk who likes  
to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather treat him as if  
he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him.


Ed

On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:




- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms 
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.


I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on
something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets
to
be too much without forcing a total ban on both.

I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging.
If
one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to
intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the
world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.

Ed



Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Alexander Hollins]

its a semisolid fluidic mess down there, though, at just inside the
mantle, how much can it really be pressurized?  under pressure yes,
but how condensed?  I a biologist and biochemist mostly, im not sure
the math TO do in this instance, But if we pump fluid down, and it
cools too much on the way back up, that would be pretty worthless to
us, right?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:36 AM, David
Jonsson wrote:
> Wait a moment. The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. When you pick it
> up to earth it will expand and cool.
>
> Do some calculation on it and see how much heat is left.
>
> There is no difference if you pump a fluid down to the magma. It will get
> pressurized as it go down and will heat up because of that. It will coll
> when rising.
>
> That there is an energy source to keep the heat in the interior is not well
> proven. It could just be a pressure effect. In fluids this heat gradient is
> well known but almost entirely ignored for solids.
>
> David
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hollins
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real
>>
>> Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
>> heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
>>  we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
>> to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
>>  wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
>> well?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Alexander Hollins]

Basically, you want to add a branch of vortex turning it into
something it never was intended to be, as a way of preventing what was
never intended to be posted to be posted?  I dunno, seems kinda
skeevy.

Personally, I'd suggest just making a discussion forum instead of an
email list, but i understand why some people prefer email lists.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:39 AM, OrionWorks wrote:
> Recent debates about the need to stay more focused on on-topic
> scientific related discussions within vortex-l prime [Vo] have raised
> the hackles of certain participants, and might I mention here that
> some of those individuals who have expressed their concerns are
> considered respected long-term heavy weights.
>
> I would like to propose that, if it is within Mr. Beaty's power (and
> desire) to do so, he might create another alternative vortex list, a
> new and improved OFF TOPIC Vortex-LoT list group, one where the
> subject line is prefixed with: [VoT].
>
> I would like to suggest several useful reasons why it might be useful to do 
> so:
>
> (A) It would take the tension off maintaining the purity of discussing
> scientific-only subject material within [Vo] prime. If certain
> long-term discussions (as many naturally tend to do) begin evolving
> and splitting off into matters concerning politics and/or religion or
> perhaps something else entirely [Vo] participants can quickly state,
> Hey, we're beginning to get off-topic here, it's time to move this
> particularly thread over to [VoT] where those who are still interested
> can resume lively discussions.
>
> (B) I am suggesting the creation of a new and improved off-topic
> Vortex list where ETIQUETTE RULES ARE APPLIED in the same manner they
> are followed within Vortex-l prime. IMO, Vortex-b [VoB] is NOT a fair
> and/or healthy environment for the discussion of off-topic subject
> material that may have originated within Vortex-l prime. There ARE no
> rules for maintaining any semblance of etiquette within VoB. It's my
> understanding that that is precisely why VoB was created in the first
> place, so that anyone who felt the need to engage in verbal fist
> fights could do so without any fear of reprisals from Mr. Beaty, the
> god of Vortex-l. Unfortunately, and IMHO, the fallout of such stop-gap
> measures is that [VoB] is NOT a healthy environment for the discussion
> of lively and/or spirited OT subjects. [VoB] has instead transformed
> into a perfect breading ground for the attraction of all sorts of
> despicable troll personas who will implant themselves and begin
> advertising their services. [VoB] has transformed into a cesspool
> filled with vitriol. Not surprisingly many who would have wanted to
> continue discussing serious and creative OT subjects that might have
> originated as "scientific" discussion in [Vo] are loath to discuss
> matters within [VoB]. They have unsubscribed from [VoB], and so have
> I.
>
> (C) Another point is that for many vortex-l individuals there almost
> seems to be a negative stigma attached to the discussion of OT subject
> material. It's as if OT discussions are almost considered second-class
> material, that they are beneath vortex-l, that such discussions are
> second-tier and don't deserve the same rights of etiquette or
> protection that those who wish to engage in pure scientific
> discussion. This is a form of prejudice and not a very fair one IMHO.
> Granted this may NOT actually be what most feel about the discussion
> of OT subjects, but I think it's a legitimate perception and a
> concern.
>
> (D) The point of creating [VoT] would be to create a good, strong and
> healthy environment for the discussion of OT subjects that may have
> originated within [Vo] but are now no longer precisely defined in
> scientific terms. Such OT discussions should IMHO still be able to
> enjoy the same rights and protections that vortex-l prime participants
> enjoy.
>
> Therefore, I would like to propose that if it is at all feasible for
> Mr. Beaty to create an alternative Off Topic List groups, the
> Vortex-LoT group [VoT] where Off-Topic discussions can be discussed
> but with the same degree of net etiquette, civility, and protections
> granted to those within vortex-l prime. Granted, and this should be
> obvious to many, [VoT] discussions are likely to occasionally get a
> tad more lively, and possibly even contentious at times. Nevertheless,
> AND THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT: Anyone who begins to misbehave
> incessantly or in a chronic way can be given a time-out or, if there
> is no other recourse, permanently barred in order to maintain the
> health and safe civility of [VoT].
>
> Mr. Beaty, is this possible to do something like this? Would it be too
> difficult to do?
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Alexander Hollins]

I didn't say it wouldnt work.  I know it would work.  But, heat gets
dissapated into the atmosphere, yes? In terms of existing wells, its
capping places that are already spilling heat into the atmosphere.
Now, if we make a bunch of new ones  are we adding too much extra
heat?  of course, we spill heat into the atmosphere with nukes and
with burning plants as well, so it may be a very small net difference,
and with less gases that hold in heat, the point may be moot.  But im
just worried that no one involved has thought of it and done the math
to see.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Rick Monteverde wrote:
> Geothermal wells are in place today where the heat source is nearer to the
> surface, and have been for some time. Water goes down the pipe, picks up
> heat, comes up steam. Why do you think that wouldn't work?
>
> - Rick
>
> 
> From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:36 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier
>
> Wait a moment. The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. When you pick it
> up to earth it will expand and cool.
>
> Do some calculation on it and see how much heat is left.
>
> There is no difference if you pump a fluid down to the magma. It will get
> pressurized as it go down and will heat up because of that. It will coll
> when rising.
>
> That there is an energy source to keep the heat in the interior is not well
> proven. It could just be a pressure effect. In fluids this heat gradient is
> well known but almost entirely ignored for solids.
>
> David
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hollins
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real
>>
>> Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
>> heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
>>  we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
>> to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
>>  wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
>> well?
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Rick Monteverde]

Geothermal wells are in place today where the heat source is nearer to the
surface, and have been for some time. Water goes down the pipe, picks up
heat, comes up steam. Why do you think that wouldn't work?
 
- Rick


  _  

From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier


Wait a moment. The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. When you pick it
up to earth it will expand and cool.

Do some calculation on it and see how much heat is left. 

There is no difference if you pump a fluid down to the magma. It will get
pressurized as it go down and will heat up because of that. It will coll
when rising. 

That there is an energy source to keep the heat in the interior is not well
proven. It could just be a pressure effect. In fluids this heat gradient is
well known but almost entirely ignored for solids. 

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hollins
 wrote:


http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-re
al

Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
 we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
 wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
well?

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms 
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT
discussions.

> I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard  
> enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most  
> people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on  
> something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets 
> to  
> be too much without forcing a total ban on both.
> 
>  I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging. 
> If  
> one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to  
> intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the  
> world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.
> 
> Ed


Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[OrionWorks]

>From Alexander:

> http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real
>
> Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
> heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
>  we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
> to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
>  wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
> well?

Oh dear me!

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World

On the positive side, we could end up with too moons!

Could be romantic!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[David Jonsson]

Wait a moment. The magma is hot becasue it is pressurised. When you pick it
up to earth it will expand and cool.

Do some calculation on it and see how much heat is left.

There is no difference if you pump a fluid down to the magma. It will get
pressurized as it go down and will heat up because of that. It will coll
when rising.

That there is an energy source to keep the heat in the interior is not well
proven. It could just be a pressure effect. In fluids this heat gradient is
well known but almost entirely ignored for solids.

David

David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hollins <
alexander.holl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real
>
> Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
> heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
>  we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
> to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
>  wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
> well?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From Ed Storm:

My follow-up thoughts dispersed between Ed's:

> I agree with John, managing and contributing to
> one list is hard enough without adding to the
> problem by using multiple lists. Most people on
> this list are adults and should be able to agree
> on something so simple as when political or
> religious discussion gets to be too much without
> forcing a total ban on both.

But we have multiple lists now! [Vo] and [VoB]. I'm suggesting the
addition of a third list: [VoT]. Would it be THAT much more difficult
to maintain a third list? Personally, I dunno. John and Ed have said,
yes, it would be, and maybe they are absolutely right. I would,
however like Mr. Beaty to weigh in on this matter.

OTOH, I would like to agree with the belief that most here are adults
and as such should be able to agree on something so simple as when
political or religious discussion are getting out of hand. I would
like to believe that adulthood will prevail. ;-)

> I find the effect that Grok had on this group to
> be discouraging. If one insane person can cause
> such turmoil on such a small scale to intelligent
> people, I rest my case about the damage they do
> to the world in general and the need to
> understand this type of behavior.

Indeed, I find the "grok" fallout effect disturbing as well. But it
seems to me that what you are describing here are the symptoms of a
problem. What's the solution? What do we do after we "...understand
this type of behavior?" I am trying to suggest one potential solution,
hopefully a practical way to deal with such problems so that such
calamities DON'T get out of hand in the future.

In the end, I think it comes down to what Mr. Beaty has to say about the matter.

In the end it's quite possible that my suggestion is not practical,
but at least it's a suggestion!

My two cents.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

>From John Berry:

My follow-up thoughts placed between yours:

> 3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.

Well... that is what is being questioned here. Would it really? I
dunnno. Mr. Beaty, can you let us know your thoughts on the matter?

> Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed
> as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't
> causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off
> topic subject it ought to go to B.

>From what I have seen it can be difficult at times to determine
precisely what is "...strictly on topic" and more to the point, what
isn't. You say po-tay-toe... I say pa-tau-toe.

> Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill.

Indeed, this is a legitimate concern of mine as well. I have no desire
to fleece the pocket of Mr. Beaty anymore than we have already done
so. I also don't want to make any more maintenance work for Bill to
manage either. I was hoping that the creation of a [VoT] group might
be, more or less, an automated procedure. I could be wrong on this
however.

> Anyway if a political portion of an on topic post causes
> the entire post needing to be posted to a different list
> that's a mess too.

It's especially a mess if that means willing participants must fend
their way through a cesspool of [VoB] vitrol. Personally, I don't
think that is fair choice. It's almost a form of prejudice... go to
the back of the bus.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:New drill to make geothermal easier

[Alexander Hollins]

http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real

Now, I've got a question.  If we drill down to magma, and use that
heat for power generation...   aren't all powerplants just heat pumps?
 we generate the power while letting heat flow naturally down the line
to colder climes.  which would be.  the crust,the ground, the air?
 wouldn't that cause a global warming if done on a large scale as
well?

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[Edmund Storms]

I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard  
enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most  
people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on  
something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets to  
be too much without forcing a total ban on both.


 I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging. If  
one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to  
intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the  
world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior.


Ed


On Jun 16, 2009, at 8:54 AM, John Berry wrote:


3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.
Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed as long as it  
is strictly on topic politics that isn't causing a problem,  
otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to go to B.


Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill.

Anyway if a political portion of an on topic post causes the entire  
post needing to be posted to a different list that's a mess too.



On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 AM, OrionWorks  
 wrote:

Recent debates about the need to stay more focused on on-topic
scientific related discussions within vortex-l prime [Vo] have raised
the hackles of certain participants, and might I mention here that
some of those individuals who have expressed their concerns are
considered respected long-term heavy weights.

I would like to propose that, if it is within Mr. Beaty's power (and
desire) to do so, he might create another alternative vortex list, a
new and improved OFF TOPIC Vortex-LoT list group, one where the
subject line is prefixed with: [VoT].

I would like to suggest several useful reasons why it might be  
useful to do so:


(A) It would take the tension off maintaining the purity of discussing
scientific-only subject material within [Vo] prime. If certain
long-term discussions (as many naturally tend to do) begin evolving
and splitting off into matters concerning politics and/or religion or
perhaps something else entirely [Vo] participants can quickly state,
Hey, we're beginning to get off-topic here, it's time to move this
particularly thread over to [VoT] where those who are still interested
can resume lively discussions.

(B) I am suggesting the creation of a new and improved off-topic
Vortex list where ETIQUETTE RULES ARE APPLIED in the same manner they
are followed within Vortex-l prime. IMO, Vortex-b [VoB] is NOT a fair
and/or healthy environment for the discussion of off-topic subject
material that may have originated within Vortex-l prime. There ARE no
rules for maintaining any semblance of etiquette within VoB. It's my
understanding that that is precisely why VoB was created in the first
place, so that anyone who felt the need to engage in verbal fist
fights could do so without any fear of reprisals from Mr. Beaty, the
god of Vortex-l. Unfortunately, and IMHO, the fallout of such stop-gap
measures is that [VoB] is NOT a healthy environment for the discussion
of lively and/or spirited OT subjects. [VoB] has instead transformed
into a perfect breading ground for the attraction of all sorts of
despicable troll personas who will implant themselves and begin
advertising their services. [VoB] has transformed into a cesspool
filled with vitriol. Not surprisingly many who would have wanted to
continue discussing serious and creative OT subjects that might have
originated as "scientific" discussion in [Vo] are loath to discuss
matters within [VoB]. They have unsubscribed from [VoB], and so have
I.

(C) Another point is that for many vortex-l individuals there almost
seems to be a negative stigma attached to the discussion of OT subject
material. It's as if OT discussions are almost considered second-class
material, that they are beneath vortex-l, that such discussions are
second-tier and don't deserve the same rights of etiquette or
protection that those who wish to engage in pure scientific
discussion. This is a form of prejudice and not a very fair one IMHO.
Granted this may NOT actually be what most feel about the discussion
of OT subjects, but I think it's a legitimate perception and a
concern.

(D) The point of creating [VoT] would be to create a good, strong and
healthy environment for the discussion of OT subjects that may have
originated within [Vo] but are now no longer precisely defined in
scientific terms. Such OT discussions should IMHO still be able to
enjoy the same rights and protections that vortex-l prime participants
enjoy.

Therefore, I would like to propose that if it is at all feasible for
Mr. Beaty to create an alternative Off Topic List groups, the
Vortex-LoT group [VoT] where Off-Topic discussions can be discussed
but with the same degree of net etiquette, civility, and protections
granted to those within vortex-l prime. Granted, and this should be
obvious to many, [VoT] discussions are likely to occasionally get a
tad more lively, and possibly even c

Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[John Berry]

3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.Better is a rule of thumb, politics
should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't
causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to
go to B.

Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill.

Anyway if a political portion of an on topic post causes the entire post
needing to be posted to a different list that's a mess too.


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 AM, OrionWorks wrote:

> Recent debates about the need to stay more focused on on-topic
> scientific related discussions within vortex-l prime [Vo] have raised
> the hackles of certain participants, and might I mention here that
> some of those individuals who have expressed their concerns are
> considered respected long-term heavy weights.
>
> I would like to propose that, if it is within Mr. Beaty's power (and
> desire) to do so, he might create another alternative vortex list, a
> new and improved OFF TOPIC Vortex-LoT list group, one where the
> subject line is prefixed with: [VoT].
>
> I would like to suggest several useful reasons why it might be useful to do
> so:
>
> (A) It would take the tension off maintaining the purity of discussing
> scientific-only subject material within [Vo] prime. If certain
> long-term discussions (as many naturally tend to do) begin evolving
> and splitting off into matters concerning politics and/or religion or
> perhaps something else entirely [Vo] participants can quickly state,
> Hey, we're beginning to get off-topic here, it's time to move this
> particularly thread over to [VoT] where those who are still interested
> can resume lively discussions.
>
> (B) I am suggesting the creation of a new and improved off-topic
> Vortex list where ETIQUETTE RULES ARE APPLIED in the same manner they
> are followed within Vortex-l prime. IMO, Vortex-b [VoB] is NOT a fair
> and/or healthy environment for the discussion of off-topic subject
> material that may have originated within Vortex-l prime. There ARE no
> rules for maintaining any semblance of etiquette within VoB. It's my
> understanding that that is precisely why VoB was created in the first
> place, so that anyone who felt the need to engage in verbal fist
> fights could do so without any fear of reprisals from Mr. Beaty, the
> god of Vortex-l. Unfortunately, and IMHO, the fallout of such stop-gap
> measures is that [VoB] is NOT a healthy environment for the discussion
> of lively and/or spirited OT subjects. [VoB] has instead transformed
> into a perfect breading ground for the attraction of all sorts of
> despicable troll personas who will implant themselves and begin
> advertising their services. [VoB] has transformed into a cesspool
> filled with vitriol. Not surprisingly many who would have wanted to
> continue discussing serious and creative OT subjects that might have
> originated as "scientific" discussion in [Vo] are loath to discuss
> matters within [VoB]. They have unsubscribed from [VoB], and so have
> I.
>
> (C) Another point is that for many vortex-l individuals there almost
> seems to be a negative stigma attached to the discussion of OT subject
> material. It's as if OT discussions are almost considered second-class
> material, that they are beneath vortex-l, that such discussions are
> second-tier and don't deserve the same rights of etiquette or
> protection that those who wish to engage in pure scientific
> discussion. This is a form of prejudice and not a very fair one IMHO.
> Granted this may NOT actually be what most feel about the discussion
> of OT subjects, but I think it's a legitimate perception and a
> concern.
>
> (D) The point of creating [VoT] would be to create a good, strong and
> healthy environment for the discussion of OT subjects that may have
> originated within [Vo] but are now no longer precisely defined in
> scientific terms. Such OT discussions should IMHO still be able to
> enjoy the same rights and protections that vortex-l prime participants
> enjoy.
>
> Therefore, I would like to propose that if it is at all feasible for
> Mr. Beaty to create an alternative Off Topic List groups, the
> Vortex-LoT group [VoT] where Off-Topic discussions can be discussed
> but with the same degree of net etiquette, civility, and protections
> granted to those within vortex-l prime. Granted, and this should be
> obvious to many, [VoT] discussions are likely to occasionally get a
> tad more lively, and possibly even contentious at times. Nevertheless,
> AND THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT: Anyone who begins to misbehave
> incessantly or in a chronic way can be given a time-out or, if there
> is no other recourse, permanently barred in order to maintain the
> health and safe civility of [VoT].
>
> Mr. Beaty, is this possible to do something like this? Would it be too
> difficult to do?
>
> Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Help Vortex

[John Berry]

3 lists, that would just be unmanageable.Better is a rule of thumb, politics
should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't
causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to
go to B.



On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:42 AM, OrionWorks wrote:

> From Steven Krivit:
>
> > Any or all of us could take responsibility in helping to
> > maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the list.
> >
> > I was not acutely aware that RELIGION and POLITICS were
> > inappropriate subjects here until this recent flare-up. I,
> > of course, thought they were OT, but tolerated.
> >
> > Now if the word from our sponsor (Bill) says that, in
> > fact, RELIGION and POLITICS are inappropriate here, then
> > I won't hesitate to jump in and remind someone about that
> > if I notice it. Nor should anyone else, IMO.
> >
> > Once the reminder is placed in the thread, a yellow (or
> > red) flag is raised. The person is reminded that they have
> > the option to move the thread over to the other forum.
> > Simple and polite. If they don't move it, or they argue,
> > they're bucking for a ban.
> >
> > It is our way of helping Bill to provide this service for
> > us. This is how community works. We make and abide by
> > certain rules and we collectively support them.
> >
> > Yes?
> > Anybody else agree with this?
> >
> >
> > Anybody else willing to help watch the list for (purely)
> > RELIGION and POLITIC threads? (I presume that threads about
> > energy politics are acceptable.)
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve, I'm under the impression that some participants continue to
> debate whether politics of any kind are acceptable within vortex-l
> prime. If so that would mean many of your valuable contributions would
> be considered inappropriate as well.
>
> I have just posted another topic, a proposal to consider the creation
> of a new discussion group, Vortex-LoT [VoT] for the specific purpose
> of discussing OT views that may have possibly originated within
> vortex-l prime [Vo]. But with one major difference from [VoB]: The new
> [VoT] group would be where the same netiquette rules apply. Please
> see:
>
> "Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions"
>
> And please feel free to comment, pro or con, on the matter.
>
> I'm just trying to find out if some might think that such a proposal
> could turn out to be a good solution...or not.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

[Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.

[OrionWorks]

Recent debates about the need to stay more focused on on-topic
scientific related discussions within vortex-l prime [Vo] have raised
the hackles of certain participants, and might I mention here that
some of those individuals who have expressed their concerns are
considered respected long-term heavy weights.

I would like to propose that, if it is within Mr. Beaty's power (and
desire) to do so, he might create another alternative vortex list, a
new and improved OFF TOPIC Vortex-LoT list group, one where the
subject line is prefixed with: [VoT].

I would like to suggest several useful reasons why it might be useful to do so:

(A) It would take the tension off maintaining the purity of discussing
scientific-only subject material within [Vo] prime. If certain
long-term discussions (as many naturally tend to do) begin evolving
and splitting off into matters concerning politics and/or religion or
perhaps something else entirely [Vo] participants can quickly state,
Hey, we're beginning to get off-topic here, it's time to move this
particularly thread over to [VoT] where those who are still interested
can resume lively discussions.

(B) I am suggesting the creation of a new and improved off-topic
Vortex list where ETIQUETTE RULES ARE APPLIED in the same manner they
are followed within Vortex-l prime. IMO, Vortex-b [VoB] is NOT a fair
and/or healthy environment for the discussion of off-topic subject
material that may have originated within Vortex-l prime. There ARE no
rules for maintaining any semblance of etiquette within VoB. It's my
understanding that that is precisely why VoB was created in the first
place, so that anyone who felt the need to engage in verbal fist
fights could do so without any fear of reprisals from Mr. Beaty, the
god of Vortex-l. Unfortunately, and IMHO, the fallout of such stop-gap
measures is that [VoB] is NOT a healthy environment for the discussion
of lively and/or spirited OT subjects. [VoB] has instead transformed
into a perfect breading ground for the attraction of all sorts of
despicable troll personas who will implant themselves and begin
advertising their services. [VoB] has transformed into a cesspool
filled with vitriol. Not surprisingly many who would have wanted to
continue discussing serious and creative OT subjects that might have
originated as "scientific" discussion in [Vo] are loath to discuss
matters within [VoB]. They have unsubscribed from [VoB], and so have
I.

(C) Another point is that for many vortex-l individuals there almost
seems to be a negative stigma attached to the discussion of OT subject
material. It's as if OT discussions are almost considered second-class
material, that they are beneath vortex-l, that such discussions are
second-tier and don't deserve the same rights of etiquette or
protection that those who wish to engage in pure scientific
discussion. This is a form of prejudice and not a very fair one IMHO.
Granted this may NOT actually be what most feel about the discussion
of OT subjects, but I think it's a legitimate perception and a
concern.

(D) The point of creating [VoT] would be to create a good, strong and
healthy environment for the discussion of OT subjects that may have
originated within [Vo] but are now no longer precisely defined in
scientific terms. Such OT discussions should IMHO still be able to
enjoy the same rights and protections that vortex-l prime participants
enjoy.

Therefore, I would like to propose that if it is at all feasible for
Mr. Beaty to create an alternative Off Topic List groups, the
Vortex-LoT group [VoT] where Off-Topic discussions can be discussed
but with the same degree of net etiquette, civility, and protections
granted to those within vortex-l prime. Granted, and this should be
obvious to many, [VoT] discussions are likely to occasionally get a
tad more lively, and possibly even contentious at times. Nevertheless,
AND THIS IS THE CRUCIAL POINT: Anyone who begins to misbehave
incessantly or in a chronic way can be given a time-out or, if there
is no other recourse, permanently barred in order to maintain the
health and safe civility of [VoT].

Mr. Beaty, is this possible to do something like this? Would it be too
difficult to do?

Does anyone else have any thoughts, pro or con, on this matter?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Help Vortex

[OrionWorks]

>From Steven Krivit:

> Any or all of us could take responsibility in helping to
> maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the list.
>
> I was not acutely aware that RELIGION and POLITICS were
> inappropriate subjects here until this recent flare-up. I,
> of course, thought they were OT, but tolerated.
>
> Now if the word from our sponsor (Bill) says that, in
> fact, RELIGION and POLITICS are inappropriate here, then
> I won't hesitate to jump in and remind someone about that
> if I notice it. Nor should anyone else, IMO.
>
> Once the reminder is placed in the thread, a yellow (or
> red) flag is raised. The person is reminded that they have
> the option to move the thread over to the other forum.
> Simple and polite. If they don't move it, or they argue,
> they're bucking for a ban.
>
> It is our way of helping Bill to provide this service for
> us. This is how community works. We make and abide by
> certain rules and we collectively support them.
>
> Yes?
> Anybody else agree with this?
>
>
> Anybody else willing to help watch the list for (purely)
> RELIGION and POLITIC threads? (I presume that threads about
> energy politics are acceptable.)
>
> Steve

Steve, I'm under the impression that some participants continue to
debate whether politics of any kind are acceptable within vortex-l
prime. If so that would mean many of your valuable contributions would
be considered inappropriate as well.

I have just posted another topic, a proposal to consider the creation
of a new discussion group, Vortex-LoT [VoT] for the specific purpose
of discussing OT views that may have possibly originated within
vortex-l prime [Vo]. But with one major difference from [VoB]: The new
[VoT] group would be where the same netiquette rules apply. Please
see:

"Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions"

And please feel free to comment, pro or con, on the matter.

I'm just trying to find out if some might think that such a proposal
could turn out to be a good solution...or not.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
From: mix...@bigpond.com
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:17 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

> 
> The difference between us is that I believe we will shortly conquer 
> fusion,making it available as an energy source. 

Is fusion the enemy?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
> "we will shortly conquer fusion"
>
> Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered?  How do you make
> energy portable or put fusion in a car?


Mr. Fusion?

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/photos/2070049523_385bca185b_o.jpg

Terry

Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear

[Chris Zell]

"we will shortly conquer fusion"
 
Next question is, what do you do with it, once conquered?  How do you make 
energy portable or put fusion in a car?