Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
Yes. 4 plugs in row. Sequence. Into magnetic field from coil after. use one to inject RFG power. 3 spark. Pat now applied for. Chung --- On Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 3:01 AM G'Day, Bloke witnessed this operational and said it purred like a kitten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Warm Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!]]
Chung, Are you referring to: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.html where propane bled through T, then Cu tube wrapped with coil winding where DC fed in creates magnetic field core? Warm Regards, Reliable Original Message Subject:Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! Resent-Date:Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:57:15 -0700 Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:52:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Te Chung chung...@ymail.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Yes. 4 plugs in row. Sequence. Into magnetic field from coil after. use one to inject RFG power. 3 spark. Pat now applied for. Chung --- On *Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com /integral.property.serv...@gmail.com/* wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 3:01 AM G'Day, Bloke witnessed this operational and said it purred like a kitten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Warm Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!]
Reliable, Yes. Fe pipe, 4 T's, then Cu pipe with both magnet DC coil winding for core field and Ni Cr coil winding for heat - Variac control. --- On Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 4:36 AM Chung, Are you referring to: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.html where propane bled through T, then Cu tube wrapped with coil winding where DC fed in creates magnetic field core? Warm Regards, Reliable Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! Resent-Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:57:15 -0700 Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:52:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Te Chung chung...@ymail.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Yes. 4 plugs in row. Sequence. Into magnetic field from coil after. use one to inject RFG power. 3 spark. Pat now applied for. Chung --- On Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 3:01 AM G'Day, Bloke witnessed this operational and said it purred like a kitten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Warm Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!]
Chung, You just won my $500 offer. Where can I mail Money Order? Congratulations and Warm Regards, Reliable Te Chung wrote: Reliable, Yes. Fe pipe, 4 T's, then Cu pipe with both magnet DC coil winding for core field and Ni Cr coil winding for heat - Variac control. --- On *Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com /integral.property.serv...@gmail.com/* wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 4:36 AM Chung, Are you referring to: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64616.html where propane bled through T, then Cu tube wrapped with coil winding where DC fed in creates magnetic field core? Warm Regards, Reliable Original Message Subject:Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! Resent-Date:Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:57:15 -0700 Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:52:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Te Chung chung...@ymail.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Yes. 4 plugs in row. Sequence. Into magnetic field from coil after. use one to inject RFG power. 3 spark. Pat now applied for. Chung --- On *Sun, 8/5/12, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com /integral.property.serv...@gmail.com/* wrote: From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 3:01 AM G'Day, Bloke witnessed this operational and said it purred like a kitten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Warm Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Oh good grief. This is a forum for the discussion of science, not the fantastical belief systems of illiterate, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal and religiously intolerant subsistence farmers whose ill-founded opinions on matters scientific, moral and ethical are almost entirely irrelevant to today's world. I will not be stoning people to death for shaving their beards nor for eating shellfish or pork, or for worshipping false idols, nor will I be selling, killing, or offering my children up to be raped based on the rantings of the schizophrenics and theocrats that created the various Abrahamic religions. While it is hard to shake off a belief system that has been rammed down your throat since you were a baby, ask yourself why you are an 'x' branded Christian rather than a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Confucian, Cao Daist, Chendoist, Scientologist, Morman, Shintosist, Buddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Druid, or one of the thousands of different Animist and Pantheist belief systems that have permeated the world in the last hundred thousand years and have all been to their believers the one true faith. You think they were all wrong but yet your brand is miraculously right? Can you not see how colossally ridiculous that is? If you think that living in a community where others share your beliefs makes you right then consider that christians are less than 5% of everyone who has ever lived. Classical Greeks had a far better scientific understanding of the world than any of the Abrahamic religions that came after them, and arguably better than anyone else up until the Renaissance. Amongst actual historians (not theologians) there is doubt that Jesus even existed - he is not mentioned specifically by any non-religious contemporary accounts of either the Romans or the Jewish heirachy, and contradictory accounts were systematically destroyed or edited out of existence during the Dark Ages leaving the Bible, a very small selection of some of the less silly gospels recorded decades to centuries after the supposed events that they claim to relate and only after being embellished and reconstructed and edited through numerous oral retellings by illiterates with dubious mental health. As such it contributes nothing to better understanding physics, biology, chemistry or any other branch of science. So if you want to live your life in quasi-adherence to some of the less obnoxious directives that you find in whichever version or interpretation of the Gospels that you happen to like then that is your choice, but don't presume that it gives you any authority or significant insight, because your adherence to ridiculous and demonstrably wrong scientific theories like Intelligent Design in defence of your religious dogma makes it obvious that you are badly ham-strung in discussing science. You need an open mind in order to be able contribute anything useful. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, this is just one case wherein science has verified the accounts of the Bible. There are many many many instances of this. The Bible is not a book of Science but when it does make a statement about science, it has been found to be true. Did you know that the Bible says the Earth is round, thousands of years before man discovered it is round. It is the only ancient book of its time that has made this statement. Did you know that the Bible says that the Sun has a Circuit - a pathway in which it follows, thousands of years before we discovered that the sun does indeed follow a pathway around the center of the Milky Way. There are many many many facts like this that the Bible categorically states; and science finally catches up with the Bible and verifies it. There is not a single fact in the Bible that Science has contradicted. I said Science, the real science; not the Bad Science, not the politically driven science we know today. Jojo - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Parts of the Earth may have undergone rapid catastrophic flooding thousands of years ago, but you don't have to believe in the bible to argue the case. The theory that some geological features formed very quickly instead of gradually is compatible with Earth being billions of years old. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms comments on Martin Fleischmann
Interesting. Very british. Nature, red in tooth and claw (Tennyson) Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 23:13 Samstag, 4.August 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Ed Storms comments on Martin Fleischmann A message from Ed -- Martin demonstrated that Nature has a diabolical plan.
RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Interesting video. Actually, nothing was demonstrated. We only see the prototype being assembled as the inventor rambles on about the design theory behind the device. I did enjoy listening to him. He comes across as a very personable individual... not that that proves anything either pro-or-con. Being ignorant about the alleged claims and technology behind this device I don't know what to make of it. I gather it's derived from highly controversial PAP technology. This is a topic that has been discussed within the Collective before. The demonstrator claims investors are making preparations for mass production. All an individual in the peanut gallery (like me) can do under the circumstances is simply wait and see what develops. The pessimist within me sez: I've heard claims like this before. NTL, I remain fascinated. Wouldn't it be cool if there really is something to the technology. Would appreciate some POVs on the matter. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Krivit makes you more than stop and think. A decent person would not use the death of another to further themselves. Krivit is not a decent person. Martin Fleishmann deserves better. Oh, heck, it's nothing. Krivit has done some things in the past that upset me, but this is just silly. It is bad form to put yourself in the limelight in someone else's obit, or to use it as a platform to advocate theory. But no big deal. The rest of the obit is pretty good. Nice photos. - Jed
[Vo]:Martin Fleischmann- and Dr Edward Teller
Greetings Vortex-L, I can no longer remember the source of the information, but I really believe that the approximate transcript between Fleischmann and Teller really took place in the very early days of Cold Fusion. The Phone call was initiated by Dr Teller. Fleischmann was in a hotel room in San Francisco at a very private meeting..very few people even knew of Fleischmann s trip. About 10PM after the meeting Fleishmann recieves a surprise phone call: Hi Marty..this is Ed Teller. We were wondering about your research. Can you make a bomb with it??/ MF: Reply..Hell, No. ET: Reply: Thank you , that is all that we wanted to know. How Teller knew where Fleischmann was ..is still a mystery. I believe that the conversation is correct- I am not sure if any others have heard of this story. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex I was a friend of the late Gene Mallove...perhaps it was Gene s story.
Re: [Vo]:Martin Fleischmann- and Dr Edward Teller
The way Martin told me the story, his plane was delayed for no apparent reason so he had to stay over in S.F. Soon after he got to his hotel room, the phone rang . . . Martin suspected that Teller had the plane delayed. I do not recall that Teller asked him if it could be a bomb. He did ask a lot of questions. Teller knew a lot about cold fusion. He attended the NSF conference. His comments are in the transcript. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Martin Fleischmann- and Dr Edward Teller
I do not know if Teller asked a lot of questions on that occasion. I meant that he was well-informed about the subject. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
I wanted to replay my posting in an effort to get some intelligent responses from the vortex. Unfortunately, that posting was the last one before we found out the bad news about Dr. Fleischmann and it rightfully was overlooked. I had hoped that my arguments would start a discussion about the effects of global warming mitigation attempts and to frame the information in a manner that would clarify any solutions based upon the underlying problem. If actually global heating is the issue, then the discussion should be directed toward comparing current technology with what is expected once LENR products come on line. In my opinion, this is a very valid series of comparisons and I had assumed that others would share that thought. The lack of response from you gentlemen leaves me baffled. Do not hesitate to let me know that my ideas are nonsense if you feel that way as I am prepared to listen to your complaints. But if you sense some logic, then by all means express that instead of just standing by and letting me wonder if the concept has merit. Please take a moment to express your opinions as I will not be offended. Perhaps the inputs of other members of the vortex will initiate discussions that need to be aired. Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 4, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat Hello vortex members. I have long solved difficult problems by trying to get to the bottom of the issue, particularly by looking at experiments from an alternate perspective. I have been thinking about the global warming problem for some time and think that a good thought experiment might shed light upon the facts. It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. We know that this is true since the purpose of burning these fuels is to generate heat which then can be converted into other useful forms of energy. Once heat has been released, I propose that the behavior of this heat is constant regardless of whether it was generated by fossil fuel burning or LENR or other technologies. Thus, for a thought experiment let us burn a kilogram of solid coal which yields a certain calculatable quantity of heat and the associated carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I am leaving the detailed calculations for other vortex members for the time being to make the argument simple. The gas released due to our combustion then diffused randomly throughout the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming according to popular theory. This gas that we released also has a certain probability of being absorbed by growing plants or other means of sequestration. Since several mechanisms exist to take our carbon out of the atmosphere, then there must be some time constant associated with the process that defines the half life for it to remain active. Now, while the gas resides within the atmosphere it can act as an agent to trap additional energy according to various theories. So, how much additional heat does our emission ultimately trap? A process such as the one outlined would be used to define an effective energy multiplier. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. Here is where I am counting upon the knowledge of our members, for whom I have the highest respect. Let's come up with the factor X in some manner as it will allow us to compare LENR devices to fossil fuel burning ones as they relate to heating of our planet. This is true since the efficiency of nuclear reactions is so much beyond chemical ones, that we can assume that they only contribute heat to the earth and little else of consequence. It is important to give the proper consideration to the X factor that I am proposing for at least one very interesting reason. Consider, if X is a thousand to 1 then we could gain a moderate amount of margin for earth heating as we move forward. The numbers suggest that we not recklessly throw energy at every process as has been mentioned by many on this forum. If heating is the final product, then we can not afford to do that unless we want to find ourselves right back in the middle of a major energy issue. It will take untold number of joules to bring the poor of the world up to reasonable standards and this will rapidly eat at our newly gained margin. In a much worse case we might calculate that X is far lower. As example, if X is 10 then our conversion from fossil fuels to LENR will buy us precious little time. In this case, the earth is going to continue to heat up due to man made effects with only a slight delay. The good news is that the cost of energy will be low enough that we can mitigate the heating problems without starving. I am afraid that
RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
Fascinating technology! My first thoughts mirror Feynman's -- impossible -- how could this possibly work? Since it generates no heat, the pressure must come from something else. Upon reflection, using the ideal gas law pv=nRT, the way to get pressure without heat would be to increase n, the number of particles in the cylinder (moles) so pv ~n . Maybe each gas atom splits into multiple particles ( or virtual particles; non local particles? ). Each new particle must have the same average kinetic energy as the original. What are your thoughts? Hoyt Stearns -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 7:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Interesting video. Actually, nothing was demonstrated. We only see the prototype being assembled as the inventor rambles on about the design theory behind the device. I did enjoy listening to him. He comes across as a very personable individual... not that that proves anything either pro-or-con. Being ignorant about the alleged claims and technology behind this device I don't know what to make of it. I gather it's derived from highly controversial PAP technology. This is a topic that has been discussed within the Collective before. ...
Re: [Vo]:Martin Fleischmann- and Dr Edward Teller
Not considering the dangerous lunacy of Teller, it seems that not only he was not well informed, but he had connection with spy services. 2012/8/5 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I do not know if Teller asked a lot of questions on that occasion. I meant that he was well-informed about the subject. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. No one responded because your basic premise is incorrect. It is not the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels that is the problem. It is the albedo of the earth and the reflectivity of the upper atmosphere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The energy falling on earth from the sun is far greater than the heat of mankind. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. No one responded because your basic premise is incorrect. It is not the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels that is the problem. It is the albedo of the earth and the reflectivity of the upper atmosphere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The energy falling on earth from the sun is far greater than the heat of mankind. I see Jed beat me to it. Anyway here's a little more: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html Albedo The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming. more The hyperphysics page from Georgia State University if a fountain of knowledge. Amazing from what I always thought of as a urban business college. T
Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
Nature knows nothing of work. Nature has tendencies and proclivities. Man gets nature to work for him. The questions are 1) what are the tendencies and proclivities 2) how do you harness them to perform work? There are no mechanisms in nature, except for the harness (and possibly the whip). harry On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Fascinating technology! My first thoughts mirror Feynman's -- impossible -- how could this possibly work? Since it generates no heat, the pressure must come from something else. Upon reflection, using the ideal gas law pv=nRT, the way to get pressure without heat would be to increase n, the number of particles in the cylinder (moles) so pv ~n . Maybe each gas atom splits into multiple particles ( or virtual particles; non local particles? ). Each new particle must have the same average kinetic energy as the original. What are your thoughts? Hoyt Stearns -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 7:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Interesting video. Actually, nothing was demonstrated. We only see the prototype being assembled as the inventor rambles on about the design theory behind the device. I did enjoy listening to him. He comes across as a very personable individual... not that that proves anything either pro-or-con. Being ignorant about the alleged claims and technology behind this device I don't know what to make of it. I gather it's derived from highly controversial PAP technology. This is a topic that has been discussed within the Collective before. ...
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Thanks for the comment Jed. I was afraid that my attempt at defining the problem was difficult to follow and you have confirmed that worry. What should we consider as global warming if it is not the actual heating of the globe? If excess heat is not ultimately the result of the release of carbon dioxide and its partner compounds then I do not understand how to define the phenomenon. I am looking at the problem from the viewpoint that coal in this case effectively keeps on burning for many years. Of course the initial heat release rate is far more intense than the relatively slow process of trapping sunlight over many years during which the gas resides within the atmosphere. Never the less, the final tally associated with burning of a finite quantity of coal should be the equivalent to a multiple of the initial heat released when that quantity burns. Now, if the carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere does not have a finite lifetime of existence, then my assumption is not true. Radiated heat that escapes during the night has to be associated with the earth temperature as the source. I am suggesting the initial fuel burning heat as well as sunlight contributed heat that is trapped by the released gas will contribute to (increase) this initial black body earth temperature that leads to radiation into space. Global warming would mean that the temperature overall is hotter and consequentially more heat must be radiated if we are to maintain status quo. The two are by necessity connected and one can not be separated from the other. If we make the assumption that waste heat does not matter in our effort to confront global warming, then why would we not just define heat trapped by the global warming gasses as waste heat? Joules are joules in my opinion. Actually I think that we have to confront the entire heating process that the earth faces if we are to make headway. This has to include all sources of heat, including any new heat that arises out of the usage of LENR technology. LENR technology might very well allow us to dispose of the current heat trapping gases as you seem to be suggesting. LENR does not suffer from any heat multiplication effects that are obvious. I bet my thoughts are still not entirely clear. Sorry about the poor wording of my answer as it has been a long day. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I had hoped that my arguments would start a discussion about the effects of global warming mitigation attempts and to frame the information in a manner that would clarify any solutions based upon the underlying problem. I was thinking of commenting on this but I am busy preparing for ICCF17. I am not sure I understand your assumptions. Global warming is caused by CO2, not by waste heat from energy generation. Waste heat does cause heat islands in cities, and this does affect the weather. It also makes things several degrees hotter locally, in some urban areas. But that has nothing to do with global warming. Waste heat from energy generation -- cars, factories, electric power, cooking and everything else -- quickly escapes from the atmosphere. I think it takes about a half hour. After the sun goes down in the Sahara desert, the air cools down in about a half hour. The sand does not trap and radiate much heat. By midnight it is actually cold. If we were to increase total energy output by a large factor with cold fusion, it might cause more heat islands and other disruptions. However, I think it is likely that cold fusion will lead to less primary heat generation overall. It will be more efficient, because of things like cogeneration. Even if we end up using more energy, there will less primary generation. For a while, anyway. You have to realize that our present energy systems are incredibly inefficient. Especially electric power. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf If primary energy generation increases too much I hope we will move heavy industry into space, with space elevators. That will free up the land now taken up by factories -- another bonus. I would like to see all blast furnaces, automobile plants, semiconductor plants and so on located 35,000 km away. A lot of that stuff probably works better in a vacuum anyway. The ultimate clean room! Or in pure nitrogen. We will never run out of industrial real estate up there. Loud noise and disruption do not travel far in a vacuum. There is plenty of room at the top -- to reverse Feynman's dictum. There is also unlimited amounts of raw material. Probably a trillion times more easily accessible material than there is on earth. So we should transfer all mining and refining up there too. I discussed this in my book after consulting with
RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
From Hoyt: ... Maybe each gas atom splits into multiple particles ( or virtual particles; non local particles? ). Each new particle must have the same average kinetic energy as the original. What are your thoughts? Heh! My thoughts revolve around the fact of how little I understand about what's allegedly happening here! ;-) However, with that in mind, even if these noble gas atoms are for a brief period of time splitting into multiple particles, (virtual or real) it seems to me that a lot of heat ought to be generated in the form of kinetic energy. No? Wondering out loud here... Maybe a great deal of heat actually IS being generated. However, after the expansion cycle completes its cycle (and where temperature might be at the maximum value), it is followed by a contraction cycle of comparable force and duration in the opposite direction. However, during the contraction cycle all the generated heat is gobbled-up, so-to-speak, so that afterwards it would appear to an external observer as if no heat had actually been generated. Kind of like: What the Lord giveth... and the Lord taketh away. ;-) I wonder if there might be a way to collect a series of rapid temperature measurements during the expansion and contraction phases. It's possible there might be some interesting surprises in store if that were don. This is just speculation on my part. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was driven and used by others in the science world to further their own careers and to promote “big science” experiments with “hot fusion.” Who ever said that FP were trying to promote hot fusion? T
RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!
If they're going to use plastic pistons, I doubt it gets hot at all, in fact it's hard to imagine a plastic surviving inside a plasma at all unless it's coated with a ceramic top. Since the gas law assumes particles are billiard balls, another possibility is an atom becomes severly non-spherical or something like a starfish, spinning very rapidly. Hoyt Stearns -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 10:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please! From Hoyt: ... Maybe each gas atom splits into multiple particles ( or virtual particles; non local particles? ). Each new particle must have the same average kinetic energy as the original. What are your thoughts? Heh! My thoughts revolve around the fact of how little I understand about what's allegedly happening here! ;-) However, with that in mind, even if these noble gas atoms are for a brief period of time splitting into multiple particles, (virtual or real) it seems to me that a lot of heat ought to be generated in the form of kinetic energy. No? Wondering out loud here... Maybe a great deal of heat actually IS being generated. However, after the expansion cycle completes its cycle (and where temperature might be at the maximum value), it is followed by a contraction cycle of comparable force and duration in the opposite direction. However, during the contraction cycle all the generated heat is gobbled-up, so-to-speak, so that afterwards it would appear to an external observer as if no heat had actually been generated. Kind of like: What the Lord giveth... and the Lord taketh away. ;-) I wonder if there might be a way to collect a series of rapid temperature measurements during the expansion and contraction phases. It's possible there might be some interesting surprises in store if that were don. This is just speculation on my part. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (/really /wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. [Mark Gibbs] On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was driven and used by others in the science world to further their own careers and to promote “big science” experiments with “hot fusion.” Who ever said that FP were trying to promote hot fusion? T
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
I agree with Mark on this one and credit him with a more balanced summary of the state of things this go around On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was driven and used by others in the science world to further their own careers and to promote “big science” experiments with “hot fusion.” Who ever said that FP were trying to promote hot fusion? T
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Le Aug 5, 2012 à 12:21 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com a écrit : Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. [Mark Gibbs] Hi Mark, Good to see you on this list. Your articles have been the subject of several extended threads and of no small amount of controversy. But I think people like a diversity of views here. One question I had about the recent article was the inclusion of NanoSpire in the list. I know next to nothing about their technology, although the one description I have read of some of the theory behind it seemed fanciful. Perhaps it is legitimate technology that will stand the test of time, but nonetheless I would have hesitated to mention it in an article as a LENR-related company without doing a great deal of vetting. Can you comment on what you know about them? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Now, if the laws of thermodynamics are absolutely true (or if we simply believe they are absolutely true) and we also believe economic growth is good, then we *must* move out into space. I prefer to question all these truths, so we don't do things or force or coerce other people to do things out of a false sense of necessity. Harry On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
a 1°C increase in the earth's temperature increases the energy radiated away by about 1.5%. Using your 6000:1 figure for current human energy releases we could increase our energy consumption by about 100 times (ie 1/60th of suns input energy) and only increase the Earths temperature by 1°C on average, and at that sort of energy consumption we could all live permanently in aircraft flying around the world. 1°C isn't very significant next to the 3°C temperature variation we have had during the current interglacial (the Holocene over the last 1 years, most of which was hotter than today). Or next to the 8-10°C variation we get between the normal ice-age state and the brief interglacials that we have had over the last few million years. Solar variation appears to be relatively minor, perhaps about 0.1% in terms of total incident energy (though we don't have good information before the satellite era - the sun could be long-term variable and we wouldn't know), but is perhaps much more significant in terms of how the spectrum of that energy is distributed, with possibly small variations in higher frequencies, solar magnetic field and charged particles producing large effects via subtle changes in atmospheric chemistry and cloud nucleation. So there are obviously natural effects that massively overwhelm our present ability to affect the earth's temperature, even if doubling CO2 does ultimately increase temperature by 1-2°C Luckily there are relatively subtle ways where we can input a small amounts of energy and produce bigger effects on the earth's temperature. In particular using distributed water turbines or erecting barriers in the ocean to modify oceanic circulation and heat transport between poles and equator (can magnify the effect of your input energy by 1000's of times). Or melting icecaps, or growing them by pumping water onto them. Hopefully we will be able to use such tricks to prevent the oncoming iceage that is otherwise due to start sometime in the next 2000 years. On 5 August 2012 20:14, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (*really *wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Le Aug 5, 2012 à 12:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com a écrit : I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. My sense is that waste heat from LENR will only be an issue if there is sufficient albedo from increased CO2 to prevent it from radiating back into space. This brings us back to the greenhouse effect, which is not specific to heat generated by LENR. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Thanks for the welcome. Comments inline ... [mg] On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Eric Walker wrote: Le Aug 5, 2012 à 12:21 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com javascript:; a écrit : Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. [Mark Gibbs] Hi Mark, Good to see you on this list. Your articles have been the subject of several extended threads and of no small amount of controversy. But I think people like a diversity of views here. One question I had about the recent article was the inclusion of NanoSpire in the list. I know next to nothing about their technology, although the one description I have read of some of the theory behind it seemed fanciful. Perhaps it is legitimate technology that will stand the test of time, but nonetheless I would have hesitated to mention it in an article as a LENR-related company without doing a great deal of vetting. Can you comment on what you know about them? All I know about their technology is that I don't understand much of the 'theory' behind it and the comments I've read on various blogs including my own - most of which have been very and surprisingly positive - seem a little over the top (the process is supposed to generate a whole range of valuable elements and if the hype is to be believed, that probably includes unicorns as well). Nanospire makes claims of fusion being involved and as they are the most vIsible of the less well known players I thought they were worth including ... Your mileage, etc. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Nope. That would make refrigerators impossible. The Second Law states that heat cannot *of itself* go from one body to a hotter body. It *can* go but you need an external mechanism. Such as compressed and expanded gas moving around a loop. Since heat escapes in about a half hour, and since total the heat release from machines is far less than solar energy, I do not think this will ever be a problem. However, suppose we find too much waste heat at ground level from energy production is trapped in the atmosphere. It causes heat islands and even contributes to global warming. In that case, we need to build a gigantic refrigerator coil that dumps the heat outside the atmosphere. That is to say, something like space elevator, or at least a tower maybe 100 km high. Air temperature refrigerator fluid is pumped up the tower, out of the atmosphere, and then compressed. It is decompressed on the down loop. You might just pump ocean water temperature water up the tower and let it cool in space. I am not sure if that would work. It would work at night. Plan B would be a gigantic thin film parasol, to intercept sunlight. If we have a space elevator, I think it would make more sense to transfer heavy industry up, away from the atmosphere. I guess right up to the Clarke orbit (geosynchronous). You put the waste heat, noise and pollution 35,000 km away. You have to Think Big. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Good response Terry. I can see that this is going to be a grand learning opportunity for me and also I think some of my friends on vortex will modify the way they think of this particular issue. The articles you point out quite nicely show that the green house warming process is due to the albedo of the Earth becoming less. To me, this is the final process that takes place which demonstrates the problem. When we burn a quantity of coal or similar fossil fuel completely the carbon dioxide (especially with coal) is released along with a fixed quantity of heat. We then might attempt to understand why this combination is a problem and it becomes evident that the heat dissipates into the environment in one form or another while the gas becomes randomly distributed into the atmosphere. There are no other products of consequence involved for us to become concerned about to the first order. Why does the carbon dioxide cause problems? It does this by allowing visible light to pass through relatively freely to strike the Earth. The sun warmed Earth attempts to radiate the heat into space as a semi blackbody. The gas that we emitted intercepts this stream of infrared energy and spreads it randomly. Some of the energy finds its way back to Earth and some remains within the atmosphere so they become warmer than without the gas. The net effect is that an observer outside of the Earth's atmosphere sees less energy radiated into space and hence the albedo measures less. So, when we speak of the albedo as being less, it is code for CO2 or other greenhouse gasses warming the Earth. Water vapor and clouds should be discussed some day, but lets leave it simple for now. I am making an attempt to quantify the process in a manner that is capable of being calculated so that we can compare apples to apples. In this case it would be joules to joules. It would be a major fallacy if we discover that our reckless use of LENR for every conceivable process gets us back into a dangerous heating environment. I am confident that we will be intelligent enough to avert this catastrophe. I would honestly like to see a well conceived comparison between fossil fuels and LENR that is free of emotional distortion. The recent responses that I have received so far are very encouraging. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 12:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. No one responded because your basic premise is incorrect. It is not the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels that is the problem. It is the albedo of the earth and the reflectivity of the upper atmosphere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The energy falling on earth from the sun is far greater than the heat of mankind. I see Jed beat me to it. Anyway here's a little more: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html Albedo The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming. more The hyperphysics page from Georgia State University if a fountain of knowledge. Amazing from what I always thought of as a urban business college. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
I agree that it is important that we be careful in our actions toward global warming and other problems that keep arising as a result of our population growth and technology. One way that we can us LENR to our advantage against global warming it to put it to work removing some of the heat trapping gases from the air. I just read that CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of between 30 and 95 years. Other gases are much worse at retaining heat and would be ideal to sequester if at sufficient concentration.According to the premise that I suggested and under discussion, LENR only releases its waste heat once and there is no atmospheric multiplication. If it can be used to absorb long lasting and heat retaining gases to place them in a safe place, then the long term problems associated with these gases can be mitigated. I guess you could look at this as a reverse global warming process with a modest amount of waste heat release. I am getting used to living on the earth and would hate to relocate without a major fight. I am thus far convinced that we can keep our home for a very long time into the future. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Now, if the laws of thermodynamics are absolutely true (or if we simply believe they are absolutely true) and we also believe economic growth is good, then we *must* move out into space. I prefer to question all these truths, so we don't do things or force or coerce other people to do things out of a false sense of necessity. Harry On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Plan B looks like a good one Jed. It might be difficult to construct, but if we could engineer into it the ability to adjust the amount of light we allow to pass, then it might last for generations. I recall seeing someone mention a technique to increase cloud seeding in regions as required to reflect incoming sunlight to achieve similar things. With our low cost LENR systems of the future this might quickly become practical. LENR powered airships might be able to park in the area for long stretches as they do their magic. Harry, you could consider your plan to cancel waste heat with cold in a slightly different manner. The sequestration of global warming gasses with a long lifetime would most likely result in a significant net saving in total heating if the process utilized LENR power. This is one reason I am attempting to get a comparison of green house gas energy production versus LENR energy production. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Nope. That would make refrigerators impossible. The Second Law states that heat cannot of itself go from one body to a hotter body. It can go but you need an external mechanism. Such as compressed and expanded gas moving around a loop. Since heat escapes in about a half hour, and since total the heat release from machines is far less than solar energy, I do not think this will ever be a problem. However, suppose we find too much waste heat at ground level from energy production is trapped in the atmosphere. It causes heat islands and even contributes to global warming. In that case, we need to build a gigantic refrigerator coil that dumps the heat outside the atmosphere. That is to say, something like space elevator, or at least a tower maybe 100 km high. Air temperature refrigerator fluid is pumped up the tower, out of the atmosphere, and then compressed. It is decompressed on the down loop. You might just pump ocean water temperature water up the tower and let it cool in space. I am not sure if that would work. It would work at night. Plan B would be a gigantic thin film parasol, to intercept sunlight. If we have a space elevator, I think it would make more sense to transfer heavy industry up, away from the atmosphere. I guess right up to the Clarke orbit (geosynchronous). You put the waste heat, noise and pollution 35,000 km away. You have to Think Big. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
You have made an interesting WAG Bab. I intend to give it a lot of consideration as I try to understand your derivation better. I had hoped that the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they all get sold out! Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places. I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so. If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further investigation. Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us? Dave -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results inthe net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: Theratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to allthe energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy thatinvolved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is causedby (really wild guess) 1% more retention ofsolar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 timesmore than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. Ifyou diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts itwon't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, allco2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloodyunlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in totalenergy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Robert, you are in charge of the computer model that determines how to modify the ocean currents in our favor. Can you imagine the controversy that will arise if some group decides that this must be done to save the Earth? But of course computers are becoming immensely more powerful as time progresses and one day even the IPCC models will be honest. Is it possible to read between the lines of your input to determine that we should be seriously considering limiting the total waste energy originating from future LENR devices to no more than 100 times the current energy consumption with fossil fuels? What if we figure a way to sequester the bad gasses now causing the problems with LENR devices to gain back much of what has been lost up to this time? I have noticed that nothing is generally discussed about the most important green house gas, water vapor. It is also known that the tops of clouds can reflect a lot of light back into space. Perhaps some serious study needs to be directed toward using cloud modification to reflect incoming light as an insurance policy Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat a 1°C increase in the earth's temperature increases the energy radiated away by about 1.5%. Using your 6000:1 figure for current human energy releases we could increase our energy consumption by about 100 times (ie 1/60th of suns input energy) and only increase the Earths temperature by 1°C on average, and at that sort of energy consumption we could all live permanently in aircraft flying around the world. 1°C isn't very significant next to the 3°C temperature variation we have had during the current interglacial (the Holocene over the last 1 years, most of which was hotter than today). Or next to the 8-10°C variation we get between the normal ice-age state and the brief interglacials that we have had over the last few million years. Solar variation appears to be relatively minor, perhaps about 0.1% in terms of total incident energy (though we don't have good information before the satellite era - the sun could be long-term variable and we wouldn't know), but is perhaps much more significant in terms of how the spectrum of that energy is distributed, with possibly small variations in higher frequencies, solar magnetic field and charged particles producing large effects via subtle changes in atmospheric chemistry and cloud nucleation. So there are obviously natural effects that massively overwhelm our present ability to affect the earth's temperature, even if doubling CO2 does ultimately increase temperature by 1-2°C Luckily there are relatively subtle ways where we can input a small amounts of energy and produce bigger effects on the earth's temperature. In particular using distributed water turbines or erecting barriers in the ocean to modify oceanic circulation and heat transport between poles and equator (can magnify the effect of your input energy by 1000's of times). Or melting icecaps, or growing them by pumping water onto them. Hopefully we will be able to use such tricks to prevent the oncoming iceage that is otherwise due to start sometime in the next 2000 years. On 5 August 2012 20:14, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results inthe net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: Theratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to allthe energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy thatinvolved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is causedby (really wild guess) 1% more retention ofsolar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 timesmore than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. Ifyou diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts itwon't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, allco2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloodyunlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in totalenergy usage, exponential, year after year after
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
This is something hard to swallow for most CF researches because it would generate radioactive leftovers, mostly. All attempts that I takes more seriously are the ones that deal only with D/H fusion as due some sort of recoil effect from the lattice, concentrated in a few, like 2 up to 4, of the fusion elements. The low energy photon emission, to explain the absence of gamma rays, vary, but the ones I think should be taken more seriously is either the result of a many body interaction of nuclei, which is something unlikely to happen in hot environment, so it is a slow fusion, or it is due a recoil from the fused elements within the lattice, since the alpha particles have very small penetrating range, even at MeV. 2012/8/5 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com seem a little over the top (the process is supposed to generate a whole range of valuable elements -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Since the energy radiated from a black body (StefanBoltzmann law) is proportional to T^4, all one need do is heat pump the energy into an area on the ground such that it is white hot. The IR will radiate into space. I don't think that'll ever be necessary, though. Hoyt Stearns -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Nope. That would make refrigerators impossible. The Second Law states that heat cannot of itself go from one body to a hotter body. It can go but you need an external mechanism. Such as compressed and expanded gas moving around a loop. Since heat escapes in about a half hour, and since total the heat release from machines is far less than solar energy, I do not think this will ever be a problem. However, suppose we find too much waste heat at ground level from energy production is trapped in the atmosphere. It causes heat islands and even contributes to global warming. In that case, we need to build a gigantic refrigerator coil that dumps the heat outside the atmosphere. That is to say, something like space elevator, or at least a tower maybe 100 km high. Air temperature refrigerator fluid is pumped up the tower, out of the atmosphere, and then compressed. It is decompressed on the down loop. You might just pump ocean water temperature water up the tower and let it cool in space. I am not sure if that would work. It would work at night. Plan B would be a gigantic thin film parasol, to intercept sunlight. If we have a space elevator, I think it would make more sense to transfer heavy industry up, away from the atmosphere. I guess right up to the Clarke orbit (geosynchronous). You put the waste heat, noise and pollution 35,000 km away. You have to Think Big. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. Ah, the antecedent was others. Man, that was quick. You must come here a lot. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Le Aug 5, 2012 à 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com a écrit : I have noticed that nothing is generally discussed about the most important green house gas, water vapor. It is also known that the tops of clouds can reflect a lot of light back into space. Perhaps some serious study needs to be directed toward using cloud modification to reflect incoming light as an insurance policy According to Wikipedia, water vapor responds to and amplifies effects of the other greenhouse gases. Additional water vapor could be a two-edged sword. It may have the effect of reflecting more radiation back into space while simultaneously trapping heat. The net effect could be the opposite of the one that is desired, unless Robert is correct, and what we really want to be doing is to melt the ice caps in order to avert the next ice age. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
DaveR wrote: “I have noticed that nothing is generally discussed about the most important green house gas, water vapor. It is also known that the tops of clouds can reflect a lot of light back into space. Perhaps some serious study needs to be directed toward using cloud modification to reflect incoming light as an insurance policy.” Yes, water vapor is indeed a very important variable since, “They reflect about 20 to 25 percent of the incoming radiation our planet receives from the Sun, while absorbing only 3 percent of that radiation” http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/climate-change-cool-clouds Below is a very recent paper in the journal, Atmospheric Research which discusses how some GCMs underestimate cloud cover, which would result in warmer temperatures since more of the sun’s energy is NOT being reflected into space, and is hitting the surface causing warming of oceans and land: Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models by: P. Probst, R. Rizzi, E. Tosi, V. Lucarini, T. Maestri Atmospheric Research, Vol. 107 (April 2012), pp. 161-170, doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.01.005 Key: citeulike:10279862 Abstract Global and zonal monthly means of cloud cover fraction for total cloudiness (CF) from the ISCCP D2 dataset are compared to same quantities produced by the 20th century simulations of 21 climate models from the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP's) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3). The comparison spans the time frame from January 1984 to December 1999 and the global and zonal averages of CF are studied. It is shown that the global mean of CF for the PCMDI-CMIP3 models, averaged over the whole period, exhibits a considerable variance and generally underestimates the ISCCP value. Large differences among models, and between models and observations, are found in the polar areas, where both models and satellite observations are less reliable, and especially near Antarctica. For this reason the zonal analysis is focused over the 60° S–60° N latitudinal belt, which includes the tropical area and mid-latitudes. The two hemispheres are analysed separately to show the variation of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle. Most models underestimate the yearly averaged values of CF over all the analysed areas, whilst they capture, in a qualitatively correct way, the magnitude and the sign of the seasonal cycle over the whole geographical domain, but overestimate the amplitude of the seasonal cycle in the tropical areas and at mid-latitudes, when taken separately. The interannual variability of the yearly averages is underestimated by all models in each area analysed, and also the interannual variability of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle is underestimated, but to a lesser extent. This work shows that the climate models have a heterogeneous behaviour in simulating the CF over different areas of the Globe, with a very wide span both with observed CF and among themselves. Some models agree quite well with the observations in one or more of the metrics employed in this analysis, but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of CF and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle over all analysed areas. And below is a summary of why this is important in the debate over global climate models: A recent paper published in Atmospheric Research suggests that 20 of the 21 global climate models (GCMs) used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may underestimate cloud cover percentages over the Earth’s surface. Such a discrepancy implies an overall warm temperature bias in the models. The paper authors operated these 21 GCMs for the years 1984 to 1999 and compared the model-estimated cloud cover to actual observations derived from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). Largely ignoring polar clouds, which are less accurately measured, the authors found that all but one of the 21 GCMs underestimated annual cloud cover amounts between 1 to 19 percent. Although the models were qualitatively correct in terms of the cloud cover’s geographic distribution , the modeled cloud cover averaged 7 percent less than observations recorded during the 15-year sample period. Model performance was somewhat better in the tropics (30°N to 30°S), but exhibited more error in the mid-latitudes (30°N to 60°N and 30°S to 60°S). In addition, all of the GCMs underestimated the clouds’ seasonal variability. Src: http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/climate-change-cool-clouds -Mark
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Two important numbers to keep in mind: The solar energy falling on earth is about a thousan times the energy contemplated to fulfill all the electrical generation of the planet if fully economically developed (to US standards of consumption). If you electrified all transportation at rail efficiencies it wouldn't increase that much -- and you can do that for even intercontinental flights via vacum tunnels. Electricity cost from coal fire power plants mostly (quite a bit more than 50%) payments to loans for the capital cost of the plant. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Hello vortex members. I have long solved difficult problems by trying to get to the bottom of the issue, particularly by looking at experiments from an alternate perspective. I have been thinking about the global warming problem for some time and think that a good thought experiment might shed light upon the facts. It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. We know that this is true since the purpose of burning these fuels is to generate heat which then can be converted into other useful forms of energy. Once heat has been released, I propose that the behavior of this heat is constant regardless of whether it was generated by fossil fuel burning or LENR or other technologies. Thus, for a thought experiment let us burn a kilogram of solid coal which yields a certain calculatable quantity of heat and the associated carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I am leaving the detailed calculations for other vortex members for the time being to make the argument simple. The gas released due to our combustion then diffused randomly throughout the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming according to popular theory. This gas that we released also has a certain probability of being absorbed by growing plants or other means of sequestration. Since several mechanisms exist to take our carbon out of the atmosphere, then there must be some time constant associated with the process that defines the half life for it to remain active. Now, while the gas resides within the atmosphere it can act as an agent to trap additional energy according to various theories. So, how much additional heat does our emission ultimately trap? A process such as the one outlined would be used to define an effective energy multiplier. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. Here is where I am counting upon the knowledge of our members, for whom I have the highest respect. Let's come up with the factor X in some manner as it will allow us to compare LENR devices to fossil fuel burning ones as they relate to heating of our planet. This is true since the efficiency of nuclear reactions is so much beyond chemical ones, that we can assume that they only contribute heat to the earth and little else of consequence. It is important to give the proper consideration to the X factor that I am proposing for at least one very interesting reason. Consider, if X is a thousand to 1 then we could gain a moderate amount of margin for earth heating as we move forward. The numbers suggest that we not recklessly throw energy at every process as has been mentioned by many on this forum. If heating is the final product, then we can not afford to do that unless we want to find ourselves right back in the middle of a major energy issue. It will take untold number of joules to bring the poor of the world up to reasonable standards and this will rapidly eat at our newly gained margin. In a much worse case we might calculate that X is far lower. As example, if X is 10 then our conversion from fossil fuels to LENR will buy us precious little time. In this case, the earth is going to continue to heat up due to man made effects with only a slight delay. The good news is that the cost of energy will be low enough that we can mitigate the heating problems without starving. I am afraid that vast areas of the earth will become inundated by the rising sea levels, but we have demonstrated the ability to adapt provided the change does not occur to rapidly. Perhaps new building codes come into play that restrict the construction and maintenance of buildings that are deemed too low relative to sea level. I guess it is more like you build them once and move inland instead of rebuilding. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
I was a little too fast on the Send button… Yes, water vapor is indeed a very important variable since, CLOUDS reflect… not water vapor. Water vapor *below* cloud-condensation-level (CCL) is visually *invisible*, so it is reasonable to assume that it would be absorbing more of the sun’s energy and reflecting less, which would act as a latent heat reservoir. However, moist air is less dense than dry air, so the moist air rises and when reaching CCL, will condense out as clouds. (Reminds me of an interesting story of my former Research Advisor, Dr. Telford, in a top secret meeting with hi-level military brass and other scientists and engineers from a TS passive instrumentation project, trying to find a solution to very difficult problem which had eluded the gathered ‘experts’). There was a group somewhere that was proposing to make small, man-made islands which would be floated in the oceans and all they would do is pump streams of water high into the air to try to increase atmospheric water vapor, and ultimately cloud cover to increase the planet’s albedo… I read about this in the last few years. LENR would certainly be able to supply the power to run the pumps and station-keeping of the islands. -Mark From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat DaveR wrote: “I have noticed that nothing is generally discussed about the most important green house gas, water vapor. It is also known that the tops of clouds can reflect a lot of light back into space. Perhaps some serious study needs to be directed toward using cloud modification to reflect incoming light as an insurance policy.” Yes, water vapor is indeed a very important variable since, “They reflect about 20 to 25 percent of the incoming radiation our planet receives from the Sun, while absorbing only 3 percent of that radiation” http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/climate-change-cool-clouds Below is a very recent paper in the journal, Atmospheric Research which discusses how some GCMs underestimate cloud cover, which would result in warmer temperatures since more of the sun’s energy is NOT being reflected into space, and is hitting the surface causing warming of oceans and land: Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models by: P. Probst, R. Rizzi, E. Tosi, V. Lucarini, T. Maestri Atmospheric Research, Vol. 107 (April 2012), pp. 161-170, doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.01.005 Key: citeulike:10279862 Abstract Global and zonal monthly means of cloud cover fraction for total cloudiness (CF) from the ISCCP D2 dataset are compared to same quantities produced by the 20th century simulations of 21 climate models from the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP's) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3). The comparison spans the time frame from January 1984 to December 1999 and the global and zonal averages of CF are studied. It is shown that the global mean of CF for the PCMDI-CMIP3 models, averaged over the whole period, exhibits a considerable variance and generally underestimates the ISCCP value. Large differences among models, and between models and observations, are found in the polar areas, where both models and satellite observations are less reliable, and especially near Antarctica. For this reason the zonal analysis is focused over the 60° S–60° N latitudinal belt, which includes the tropical area and mid-latitudes. The two hemispheres are analysed separately to show the variation of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle. Most models underestimate the yearly averaged values of CF over all the analysed areas, whilst they capture, in a qualitatively correct way, the magnitude and the sign of the seasonal cycle over the whole geographical domain, but overestimate the amplitude of the seasonal cycle in the tropical areas and at mid-latitudes, when taken separately. The interannual variability of the yearly averages is underestimated by all models in each area analysed, and also the interannual variability of the amplitude of the seasonal cycle is underestimated, but to a lesser extent. This work shows that the climate models have a heterogeneous behaviour in simulating the CF over different areas of the Globe, with a very wide span both with observed CF and among themselves. Some models agree quite well with the observations in one or more of the metrics employed in this analysis, but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of CF and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle over all analysed areas. And below is a summary of why this is important in the debate over global climate models: A recent paper published in Atmospheric Research suggests that 20 of the 21 global climate models (GCMs) used by the
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory... He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad form. I'm going to disagree. If this was the only obituary, okay, bad form. But this is Krivit's blog, and he has a story which is important to him. If we were to buy that New Energy Times is some kind of neutral publication, objectively reporting, it would be a problem. But this isn't even a formal NET issue. It's his blog entry. He didn't put himself front and center, quite. I told the story from his perspective, and, as we all know, Krivit has a perspective, a point of view, on cold fusion theory. So by mentioning Martin's willingness to consider alternatives to the fusion theory -- as Krivit has it -- he was simply praising the man, according to his lights. However, this did cause me to look at what he linked, the 2009 interview, and how he presented it in 2010. There is definitely a problem there. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35910fleischmann.shtml The title of the page is Fleischmann: It Must be Neutrons. Really. Did Fleischmann say that? Not quite. Krivit's transcript of the dialog shows a discussion of how Fleischmann came to call the reaction fusion, even though he knew there were problems with that. At the end, there was this interchange: SK: Yeah, that seems understandable. I was wondering whether you had a chance to catch wind of the ideas in the last few years about neutron-catalyzed reactions? MF: Yes, it must be. You know, the neutron is not very strongly bound in deuterium so maybe there is some substance to those thoughts. Krivit, then, has plausible deniability for his claim in the title. However, notice that the answer Yes, it must be is not exactly to a question Is it neutrons? Krivit apparently heard it that way, or interpreted it that way later, in 2010. Rather, they were talking about what had been raised before. Here is the full relevant dialogue: SK: I suppose you probably had no idea what the reaction was going to be like. MF: No. It seemed to me that calling it fusion drew attention to the type of process which it could be, you see. It seemed reasonable to call it that at that time. SK: I suppose there was nothing else, to your awareness, from which to categorize it? MF: No, it was a type of process to which one could refer. SK: Yes, certainly. Well, 20 years later, now it seems like that distinction is much easier to see. Ive seen other ideas that relate to neutron-related processes that could be not perhaps as simple and direct as D+D 4He but other more-complex processes, perhaps other alternative pathways to getting to heat and helium. MF: Yes, it seems reasonable to have called it that, but perhaps one shouldnt have called it that. SK: Yeah, that seems understandable. I was wondering whether you had a chance to catch wind of the ideas in the last few years about neutron-catalyzed reactions? MF: Yes, it must be. You know, the neutron is not very strongly bound in deuterium so maybe there is some substance to those thoughts. Remember, Martin was about 83 when this was recorded. His comments sound like those of a man of 83, still clear, but slower. He was not, in the first wors of his last comment, responding to neutrons specifically, but to the general issue raised before, of other alternative pathways of getting to heat and helium. His it must be is then a reference to other pathways than the simple d+d - 4He concept. Not neutrons, per se. Those thoughts, however, is about neutrons because of his reference to the binding of neutrons in deuterium. Krivit, in his headline, reduces this to something that Fleischmann did not say, quite clearly. However, that is something Krivit did in 2010. The death announcement is actually fine, except for a tiny piece of this, where he repeats his error from 2010. The last time I spoke with Martin was June 3, 2009. He expressed his regret about calling his and Pons discovery cold fusion. He acknowledged for the first time that neutrons must be the key to understanding low-energy nuclear reactions, rather than the hypothesis of deuterons or protons somehow overcoming the extremely energetic Coulomb barrier at room temperature. With his must be, he forgets that other possibilities were raised, and that, in context, Martin was agreeing with other, not neutrons specifically. Krivit, I'm sure, understands the danger of collapsing what actually happened with our interpretations of it. It leads us to then build on our own fantasies. It leads us to overlook alternate interpretations of text and life. The most that one can derive out of Fleischmann's comments, without projecting the conclusion onto them, would be that neutrons *may* be involved. For
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 1:25:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85 Thanks for the Obit ... at present the ONLY main-stream media mention. Also picked up by the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/nsc-the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market-20120805,0,2242916.story The only other MSM-ish ecognition is a tweet from my co-wellian Steve Silberman (often seen on Salon, Wired..) I wonder if others don't care, or if they're avoiding it because they'd have to pick up the current CF/LENR story. the process is supposed to generate a whole range of valuable elements and if the hype is to be believed, that probably includes unicorns as well Any transmutation products (particularly for Nickel/Hydrogen) are un-economical, and of scientific interest only. As for the economic value of Unicorns, it depends greatly on the color. White for Unicorns, Black for Swans, I think. One comment on your generally fair review, in The dog that didn't bark category --- Rossi presently offers the 1MW (original 120C version) unit for $1.5M, delivery 3 months ARO. Put the money in escrow and run all the acceptance tests you want (presumably with the restriction that you're not allowed to open the units). So why hasn't the dog barked? I would have expected a fairly loud bark if Rossi refused to take an order, or if it had been ordered but failed its acceptance test.
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
I wrote: Marianne and Mike saw him this spring. Correction: this winter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
Mark, I have always considered humid air as being more dense than dry air due to the weight of the water. I assumed that as a small volume of moist air rose inside dry air that the heat released by the water within would tend to make the column rise. Normally air being subject to expansion as the pressure is reduced with altitude would cool off in a well defined manner. It is the heat retained by the water that keeps this rising plume of air moving upward in a positive feedback mode. Once I had a brilliant idea. I would pump cool mountain air from above through a large pipe to make ground level air conditioning. As I considered the process it occurred to me that the compression of the air as it came to ground level would raise the temperature until it was the same as the surrounding air. I believe that the temperature versus pressure with altitude defines a stable atmosphere as long as it has the correct curve shape. Nature loves to trump most of my ideas. Dave [snip\] Water vapor *below* cloud-condensation-level (CCL) is visually *invisible*, so it is reasonable to assume that it would be absorbing more of the sun’s energy and reflecting less, which would act as a latent heat reservoir. However, moist air is less dense than dry air, so the moist air rises and when reaching CCL, will condense out as clouds. (Reminds me of an interesting story of my former Research Advisor, Dr. Telford, in a top secret meeting with hi-level military brass and other scientists and engineers from a TS passive instrumentation project, trying to find a solution to very difficult problem which had eluded the gathered ‘experts’). -Mark
[Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed, He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than is put in... which is good enough for me. What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call it cold fusion. Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than is put in... which is good enough for me. Not good enough! 1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical reactions. That is too vague. He should have said there are various reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash. 2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate! What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call it cold fusion. Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as folders in computers. Nothing is folded in a folder. Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become known by that name. That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not.
Which is It?
Actually I think you call it cold fusion to promote your book else you will
need to change the name...
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than
is put in... which is good enough for me.
Not good enough!
1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical
reactions. That is too vague. He should have said there are various
reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical
reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash.
2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next
question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is
sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask
another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate!
What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call
it cold fusion.
Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually
fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are
called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as folders in
computers. Nothing is folded in a folder.
Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read.
He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become
known by that name.
That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Abd, I didn`t complain about the format. That was Jed`s part. I don`t know why his comment is doing beside mine in your quote. 2012/8/5 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com**danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory... He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad form. I'm going to disagree. If this was the only obituary, okay, bad form. But this is Krivit's blog, and he has a story which is important to him. If we were to buy that New Energy Times is some kind of neutral publication, objectively reporting, it would be a problem. But this isn't even a formal NET issue. It's his blog entry. alist, one would think, would open up all these questions and bring the range of informed comment to us. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not. Which is It? There is no confusion. A discussion as to whether cold fusion produces heat and helium is technical. A discussion about the name -- cold fusion -- is semantic nitpicking. There are countless words in English, Japanese and all other languages which are technically inaccurate, obsolete, confusing, obscure or in some other way not a good one-for-one logical description. Language is not a good description of reality. Words are arbitrary symbols. The word is not itself the thing it represents. The word taken literally may well be absurd. Folder meaning for a collection of computer files is a good example. It is not even a little like a manila folder. For that matter, manila folders have little to do with the Philippines. Word definitions wander around and are forever in flux. Cold fusion or LENR or the F-P effect all refer to the same thing. They refer to the phenomenon characterized by heat without a chemical reaction that far exceeds the limits of chemical reaction; helium; sporadic tritium, and so on. The experimental results define what the phenomenon is. The name is merely a tag or placeholder used to indicate the phenomenon. A person who would argue which of these various designations is best, based on the word root (the literal meaning), does not understand how language works. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant.
I will await the next edition of your book, Anomalous Heat and the Future
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote
On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not.
Which is It?
There is no confusion. A discussion as to whether cold fusion produces
heat and helium is technical.
A discussion about the name -- cold fusion -- is semantic nitpicking.
There are countless words in English, Japanese and all other languages
which are technically inaccurate, obsolete, confusing, obscure or in some
other way not a good one-for-one logical description. Language is not a
good description of reality. Words are arbitrary symbols. The word is not
itself the thing it represents. The word taken literally may well be
absurd. Folder meaning for a collection of computer files is a good
example. It is not even a little like a manila folder. For that matter,
manila folders have little to do with the Philippines. Word definitions
wander around and are forever in flux.
Cold fusion or LENR or the F-P effect all refer to the same thing.
They refer to the phenomenon characterized by heat without a chemical
reaction that far exceeds the limits of chemical reaction; helium; sporadic
tritium, and so on. The experimental results define what the phenomenon is.
The name is merely a tag or placeholder used to indicate the phenomenon. A
person who would argue which of these various designations is best, based
on the word root (the literal meaning), does not understand how language
works.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant. No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking a match to fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions tells us nothing. Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose. He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high school or at least they used to and they darn well should now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point.
I am going to tune out now and get an update on one of your robots landing
on Mars in T-3:45.
Let's all pray for that dude coming in hot at 13,000 mph
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant.
No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output
more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking match to
fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions
tells us nothing.
Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose.
He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two
unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to
one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences
with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high
school or at least they used to and they darn well should now.
- Jed
[Vo]:Curiosity
Due to land at 1:31 am EDT. I'll be asleep; but, you can watch it live at: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html I'll be back at 5:30 am EDT and maybe some left coasters can post on this thread if Curiosity survives the SEVEN MINUTES OF TERROR! T
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Gibbs should cease writing about cold fusion and stick to writing about USB flash drives or whatever other tech stories are appealing to his readership of establishment goons. His bias and regular omission of the facts clearly comes through in the tone and content of his articles. It's a wonder Randi or Bob Park haven't offered him a job as chief spin-doctor. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Mon, August 06, 2012 10:23 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The most recent Gibbs article is here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes:"So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear." This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks "Is cold fusion real" and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about "whether these efforts can be scaled up." "Real" and "scalable" are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled down. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question.The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of "real" in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: "can cold fusion be scaled up?" the answer is: "we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
see it all the landing live on NASA TV http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point. I am going to tune out now and get an update on one of your robots landing on Mars in T-3:45. Let's all pray for that dude coming in hot at 13,000 mph On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant. No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking match to fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions tells us nothing. Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose. He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high school or at least they used to and they darn well should now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point. I was restating his assertion, obviously! That is elegant variation. Not in the pejorative sense. What is your point? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Gibbs should cease writing about cold fusion and stick to writing about USB flash drives or whatever other tech stories are appealing to his readership of establishment goons. His bias and regular omission of the facts clearly comes through in the tone and content of his articles. It's a wonder Randi or Bob Park haven't offered him a job as chief spin-doctor. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Mon, August 06, 2012 10:23 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature superconducting, which also cannot be explained. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they output more energy than is put into them. Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. Martin was an FRS; Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their fields. an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own made-up version of things. I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar and English prose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
I rest my case. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature superconducting, which also cannot be explained. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they output more energy than is put into them. Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. Martin was an FRS; Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their fields. an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own made-up version of things. I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar and English prose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
That was my point, thanks for confirming
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your
point.
I was restating his assertion, obviously! That is elegant variation. Not
in the pejorative sense. What is your point?
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
You're absolutely right Jed. Gibbs, Science has little to do with being practical; it's purpose is NOT to answer the question, is this new discovery of practical use? Science is about determining what *is*. the truth about the physics of something. ENGINEERING is about optimizing, scaling up/down, and making it practical; making it into a product. Fraid the Collective is not going to let you get away with sloppy reporting. J -Mark Iverson
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Hehe...so you DO read Vortex after all - I had suspected you may be paying attention Mark ;) If mainstream media pundits such as yourself want to continually present cold fusion in a less than positive light through a series of badly researched and establishment skewed opinion pieces then you are doing your readership a disservice, for example - in the latest Forbes article you still refer to those with an alternative opinion of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann saga as "conspiracy theorists" knowing well the implied baggage this carries and that your readership will immediately want to distance themselves from this position. Here's a radical thought, why not tell your readers about the many other researchers in all corners of the world who have produced clear and unambiguous scientific results of excess heat - the results of which are documented in various papers online. I highlighted this to you over a year ago, but still you have done nothing to address this obvious gap in the realistic portrayal of the advancements in cold fusion / LENR still currently being presented by Forbes, and just for clarity, I am not referring to Rossi or Defkalion here. I am definitely not angry as you wrongly suggest, instead I would say it's mildly frustrating to continually witness supposedly educated scientific journalists and influential media commentators focus in on the more controversial figures in the field such as Rossi, meanwhile ignoring everything else and boiling the discussion down to a few soundbites and pictures of snakes and clowns. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/02/14/e-cat-proof-challenge-100-is-a-clownerie/ If there's a lack of attention and funding to cold fusion / LENR then it is most certainly not being helped by mainstream media publications such as Forbes (among many others) who rather than leaving the discussion open are appearing to reinforce the "swamp gas" explanation for what is already a scientifically proven phenomena. Time is moving on, it's no longer 1989, It's 2012 - say after me "It's OK to say in public that LENR is a real phenomena". It is not my fault that Forbes or the other establishment press have chosen to ignore the rest of the LENR field and to zero in on Rossi et al. I suppose writing about the more controversial claims like Rossi's must sell advertising better while providing an outlet for the establishment biased Forbes readers to bash those pesky cold fusion conspiracy theorists in the comments section while polishing their USB coffee-cup warmers.Forbes (as a publication), has a long standing track record of pouring scorn on anything that's even slightly controversial in the field of alternative energy. I wouldn't expect anything less.
[Vo]:The Eagle has landed (oportunity)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog 6.33am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-19 Touchdown confirmed. We are safe on Mars! 6.32am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-18 The sky crane is now lowering the rover. 6.32am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-17 The probe is being monitored by Mars Odyssey. Now around 4km from the surface. The retrorockets are firing. Velocity is 50metres per second. Standing by for sky crane - the amazing system that lowers the rover by nylon ropes. 6.30am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-16 Parachute deployed. The probe is decelerating. 6.28am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-15 Early days, but all looking good. The spacecraft is heading directly to the target, according to Nasa scientist. The seven minutes of terror are underway! 6.25am:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog#block-14 One minute to entry. We are now beginning to feel the atmosphere, says Nasa scientist. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Eagle has landed (oportunity)
Damn! It's curiosity! But, Opportunity is a great rover too!
Re: [Vo]:The Eagle has landed (oportunity)
CONGRATULATIONS! The actually did it. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 1:38 am Subject: [Vo]:The Eagle has landed (oportunity) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/aug/06/curiosity-rover-mars-landing-live-blog 6.33am: Touchdown confirmed. We are safe on Mars! 6.32am: The sky crane is now lowering the rover. 6.32am: The probe is being monitored by Mars Odyssey. Now around 4km from the surface. The retrorockets are firing. Velocity is 50metres per second. Standing by for sky crane - the amazing system that lowers the rover by nylon ropes. 6.30am: Parachute deployed. The probe is decelerating. 6.28am: Early days, but all looking good. The spacecraft is heading directly to the target, according to Nasa scientist. The seven minutes of terror are underway! 6.25am: One minute to entry. We are now beginning to feel the atmosphere, says Nasa scientist. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
