Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Jeff, a significant difference exists between the UFO observations and demon possession. The UFO observations are based on real events that can be documented. When the different kinds of observations are combined, they show a consistent interpretation. As I was saying, the perpetrators have developed an agenda. They have goals. On the other hand, demon possession is an interpretation of human behavior, nothing more. You obviously have never seen any of this in action. Certain religions have attributed this behavior to the presence of demons. Modern psychology attributes the effect to extreme personality disorders. So, you are convinced that the vast majority of personality disorders are imbalances in brain chemistry rather than attacks by spiritual beings, whether we call them aliens, demons, or fallen angels. I acknowledge that effects we can call supernatural do exist. I sincerely doubt these effects are correctly described by Christian mythology. Nevertheless, some of what you would ascribe to demons might be part of this supernatural interaction. However, I think a greater number are the effects of imbalances in brain chemistry, as you say. Ever since Christianity became a dominate religion, it has been trying to explain natural behavior with very poor success, the Galileo issue being a famous example of such failure. In addition, the insistence of demons being the source of unconventional behavior has been used to cause great misery in the past, the Witch killings being a good example. Consequently, I have very little respect for such explanations, as you can see. Ed Jeff Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that some supernatural effects might be operating, the nature of which is unknown, except to those who have a preconceived belief that they apply regardless of objective evidence. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the centuries have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/ abductions we have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply because the perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:ALARM US?!?: The Abduction Paradigm
Well Chris, we know a few facts about the would we all inhibit. One fact is that certain important elements and compounds are not distributed uniformly in the universe. One of these is water, especially D2O. Granted, water can be found on many planets, but in small amounts and sometimes in inconvenient forms. The D2O is probably equally rare elsewhere. The earth is nice because the water is in great abundance and relatively pure. In addition, the climate is hospitable. As for staying home, you should ask why the human race does not intend to stay home instead of going to the Moon and then Mars. I'm sure the aliens have the same reasons. The fact that they come from a star at least several light years away shows that energy sources are available in nature that would allow such travel. This is good news for the ZPE advocates. It also means some shortcuts might be available, which is good news for the wormhole advocates. I imagine our technology does not interest them because by comparison it is too primitive. Also, they do not interferer in our affairs because to do so would make us mad and spoil their plans. As we have seen to often happen, when the crazies are railed up, no one is safe. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Chris Zell wrote: Ok, if this abduction/ET stuff is real, then we must have something unique and technologically irreducible that they want. Otherwise, why wouldn't they stay home and synthesize it? Our specific DNA, maybe? Second, if some of them come from distant worlds then I can see why Greer links UFOs with free energy. We can't go much further with space travel in that we store up the energy we need to get us to the Moon or a planet( in the form of a rocket.) Finally, there are a number of events suggesting that they are very interested in - or even interfering with - our nuclear weapons. Maybe they are smart enough to avoid "moral hazard" in regard to preventing us from blowing ourselves up - thru deception and confusion and concealment. I wouldn't want idiot humans to know that I'm gonna try to intervene every time they try to "push the button". ...that would be too much like the government dealing with banks!
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Jeff, a significant difference exists between the UFO observations and demon possession. The UFO observations are based on real events that can be documented. When the different kinds of observations are combined, they show a consistent interpretation. On the other hand, demon possession is an interpretation of human behavior, nothing more. Certain religions have attributed this behavior to the presence of demons. Modern psychology attributes the effect to extreme personality disorders. Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that some supernatural effects might be operating, the nature of which is unknown, except to those who have a preconceived belief that they apply regardless of objective evidence. Ed On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It seems to me that traditional cases of demon possession over the centuries have been more common with more documentations than the UFO/ abductions we have today. Couldn't this all be a new twist on an old theme? Perhaps we tend to embrace this new stuff and reject the old stuff simply because the perpetrators have lured us by putting a scientific flavor on it. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net ] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm From Mr. Blanton: John, [Mack] G-d rest his soul, also believed, much like you, that abductions were not totally physical. He thought it might be only the spirit that was abducted. I experienced a my own personal Mack of the 3rd kind encounter when I briefly brushed past the venerable doctor at the 50th Anniversary of the Roswell Crash festival held in Roswell, circa 1997. I handed Mack a post card, a reproduction of one of the first *digital* paintings I ever created: "The Seeding". http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/seeding_m.htm He glanced at it and smiled briefly. As he walked away, he pocketed the image and proclaimed, "You must be on drugs." As Mack walked away, one of his aids leaned over and whispered something in my year, something to the effect, that when Mack sez something like "...you must be on drugs" it was meant as a complement. I took it as such. But in reply to your comment about the abduction of the spirit. I'm not entirely convinced that Mack would have perceived such spiritual "encounters" within the context of an actual abduction scenario. But then, let us not forget that old saying: "While the spirit is strong, the flesh is weak." Personally, I'm not attempting to put forth the premise that such encounters are an "abduction of the spirit." It would be more precise for me to suggest that many of such encounters (MANY, BUT NOT ALL) may be more a matter of the more alienated portions of our "selves" attempting to reunite with the more acceptable portions of our "selves." I suspect we still have a lot to learn about "self." This is a good thing! -- Regards, Steven Vincnet Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 2, 2009, at 8:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Mr. Storms Steven, it really helps not to have a ready made explanation, such as you have, when evaluating the UFO events. Such expected notions cause a person to reject data, perhaps subconsciously. For example, you would like the phenomenon to involve some kind multi-dimensional reality. You then ignore all physical evidence showing that the events are happening in our dimension exactly like any event that we experience in normal life. For example, objects have been implanted during an abduction that were later removed by a doctor. These objects are real. Changes have have been found in the retina of the eye when a person has been near one of the crafts during landing. Apparently the intense microwave radiation causes permanent damage. In fact, this is one way the UFO investigators can tell if a person is telling the truth. Women have been found to be pregnant, as verified by a doctor, and then are not pregnant for no apparent reason after an abduction. Like most of the reported observations, these can be ignored in an effort to avoid believing the events are real. Actually, it does not matter what an individual believes about this subject because the events will take place regardless of what we believe. We have no control. Perhaps, it is best to ignore the whole subject and go about life without the resulting anxiety. As for David Jacobs, if you read his books you will learn that many people remember the abductions in great detail without need for hypnosis. Their memories are very similar to the retrieved memories. In fact, Jacobs is very aware of the problems associated with hypnosis and takes great pains to avoid them. Raising such issues is like the skeptics who question the reality of CF using problems that every person in the field understands better than the skeptic and takes great pains to avoid. Shoot, Ed. I'm not at all denying the possibility that a portion of the population may indeed be involved in classic "UFO abduction" scenarios. I can only tell you what I have surmised after years of looking into the phenomenon, after talking to the experiencers I've met myself. FWIW, I used to believe that most of these abductions were indeed happening - in the literal sense. However, after many years of looking into the process, I'm personally no longer as convinced as I used to be of such literal interpretations. That doesn't make such experiences any less real. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect what may be happening is even more real and/ or significant than attempts to classify such experiences/encounters as nothing more than classic run-of-the-mill UFO abductions conducted by aliens. At present, I just don't have enough information to surmise what percentage could indeed be classified as authentic UFO abductions, versus... something else. Steven, are you suggesting the "something else" is imagination or a mind probe by the aliens without physical contact? While we are discussing the pros and cons of this controversial issue, why don't we tackle one of the most smarmy conundrums of them all - the alleged GENETIC component for which the classic UFO abduction scenario seems to partake of time after time, specifically the taking of eggs and sperm, of later being shown "hybrids", of later being told that the human- parent must extend "love" towards these sickly "hybrids". My understanding is that the aliens were genetically designed for space travel and are not suited to endure on this planet for any length of time. To solve this problem, they are redesigning themselves to be more suited to work here. This is a slow process that has been ongoing for centuries. Unlike the science fiction stories, they do not plan to take over, but instead to gradually improve the human DNA. God knows, we need such an improvement. As Chris observed, we humans cannot survive much longer without being telepathic . While this trait is a recessive talent in humans, the aliens have mastered this skill. Hopefully, they will gradually add this feature to our DNA. Biologically speaking, what are the chances that totally alien-to-planet-Earth creatures would even posses DNA? And even if by some miracle it turns out that they DO have such complex molecules that such molecules are being used for the same purpose (propagation of genetic heritage, etc...) what are the chances that their DNA would be so conveniently configured that it could be conceivable that we could splice ours with theirs. Carbon based life has to be the most common form because only such compounds have enough variety to allow all kinds of environments to be tolerated. I would not expect alien DNA would match ours, but it would be close enough to be a templet. Once an understanding of DNA is mastered, all kinds of variations can be made, as we humans are discovering. It jus
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Steven, it really helps not to have a ready made explanation, such as you have, when evaluating the UFO events. Such expected notions cause a person to reject data, perhaps subconsciously. For example, you would like the phenomenon to involve some kind multi-dimensional reality. You then ignore all physical evidence showing that the events are happening in our dimension exactly like any event that we experience in normal life. For example, objects have been implanted during an abduction that were later removed by a doctor. These objects are real. Changes have have been found in the retina of the eye when a person has been near one of the crafts during landing. Apparently the intense microwave radiation causes permanent damage. In fact, this is one way the UFO investigators can tell if a person is telling the truth. Women have been found to be pregnant, as verified by a doctor, and then are not pregnant for no apparent reason after an abduction. Like most of the reported observations, these can be ignored in an effort to avoid believing the events are real. Actually, it does not matter what an individual believes about this subject because the events will take place regardless of what we believe. We have no control. Perhaps, it is best to ignore the whole subject and go about life without the resulting anxiety. As for David Jacobs, if you read his books you will learn that many people remember the abductions in great detail without need for hypnosis. Their memories are very similar to the retrieved memories. In fact, Jacobs is very aware of the problems associated with hypnosis and takes great pains to avoid them. Raising such issues is like the skeptics who question the reality of CF using problems that every person in the field understands better than the skeptic and takes great pains to avoid. Ed On Aug 2, 2009, at 4:46 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mr. Blanton, There are distinct physical aspects common among many experiencers which are known by investigators but are not shared with the public. It serves as a test of the experience. It has to do with the surroundings seen by the victim and certain events that occur during the "examination". AFAIK, investigators have yet to disclose all of these aspects; but, they do point to either a real, physical event or one heck of a cosmic unconscious sharing experience. It's my understanding that several UFO abduction researchers such as David Jacobs are tackling this very subject. This is serious work and I applaud their efforts to compile such information. I also gather some researchers disapprove of researcher's, like Jacob's apparent heavy use of hypnotic recall (in the repetitive sense) to collect their information. For example, Don Schmitt (Roswell investigator) and others caution that excessive-repetitive use of hypnotic recall can possibly lead to contamination of the original details. As Jed Rothwell has every right to bring to our attention, the process of manufacturing false memories is relatively easy to administer. There are several personal thoughts that come to mind when I ponder the similarities of the shared experience, including certain "tags" that for the most part are not yet revealed to the general public: *) Maybe vast portions of the human race really *are* being abducted, in the most literal 3-D physical sense that one can think. However, based on my own conversations and readings, many abductees/experiencers themselves no longer believe their encounters are occurring strictly in the physical sense, preferring to describe their encounters as an interface with a multi-dimensional reality. From what I can tell more emotionally adjusted and educated the experiencer seems to be, the more likelihood are the chances that they WILL both perceive and subsequently interpret their encounters as occurring within the realms of a vast multi-dimensional environment. IOW, their experiences are less "absolute" or "lieral" in nature. Needless to say, current scientific investigative skills are ill-equipped in tackling such "multi-dimensional" investigations. *) Maybe we are being treated to a sophisticated symbolic language of experiential archetypes, as described in my previous fable where I play around with the premise of an advanced race attempting to "interface" with us through the use of rote repetitive imagery. *) Maybe we are in contact with vase untapped "alienated" portions of ourselves that are attempting to reestablish contact with the more acceptable portions of ourselves. Perhaps such encounters/experiences also hint as to the incredible depth of our untapped potential as explored in Carl Jung's research into the "collective unconscious". * Maybe it's a little of all of the above. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required for you to believe? That would really help> In addition, the abductees describe conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination that are in many cases identical even though this information is not generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. Of course, it would be simple to plant coordinated visions in multiple people. It would be the most effective strategy they have to gain believers. Who is doing this planting of coordinated vision? Who wants us to believe in aliens? The government is doing everything it can to kill this belief. In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as I think you have done. As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours to be more advanced. Then why are we not being contacted by real aliens? This is a strange circular question. The UFO experience and the crop circles show that we are being contacted. But you reject this evidence and you wonder why the evidence is not of a kind you would accept. Frankly, if I were an alien visitor, I would not want the natives, especially the crazy ones, to be certain of my existence. I would try to keep the natives confused while I went about my business in plain sight. Ed Jeff
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Of course your point is good, Steven. If the hidden artifacts were the only evidence, believing the UFO claims would be impossible. But, let's use you example. Suppose people could drive up to your house and see that the lights are on but you are not hooked to the grid or to any other obvious source of energy. Suppose a few respected people gain entry and report that they saw a strange machine in your basement that seem to be providing energy for your house. Suppose over the years, thousands of people report the same observations even though their experiences are totally independent. Would you then expect people to believe you had a perpetual motion machine? I suggest people believe correctly many things about which they have no personal knowledge and such knowledge is impossible to obtain. For example, do you believe humans went to the Moon? All of the evidence on which you base your belief is either obtained by accepting the experience of others or from photographs that can be easily faked. Even the rocks and returned space craft, which you can see in museums, can be fake. You have to take the word of honest and respected people that the event actually happened. An identical problem applies to the UFO claims. Ed On Aug 1, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required ... Of course, in the realm of science, actually "seeing" something is not necessary to believe in it. However, in general, we must know that, in principle, we *could* see it -- that *possibility* is extremely important; I might even say *necessary*. For example, I have never seen the MM experiment performed, and never expect to; it's a rather delicate experiment which requires specialized apparatus. However, the knowledge that I *could* do so is vitally important in believing that it's not just a hoax by people trying to support Einstein. Here, let me make this more concrete: I have a perpetual motion machine in my basement. I can describe what it does, and how wonderfully it works. I'll explain to you how I've tied it into my house wiring, and how I no longer have to pay anything for my electricity. But, you are not allowed to see the machine -- I will not let you, even if you ask; even if you fly out here, you will not be allowed to see it! Will you believe me, though, that it really does exist? By the same token, alien artifacts which have been described in detail but which we, the common folk who are not in the inner circle, are "not allowed to see" are not convincing of *anything*.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
But Jeff, artifacts do exist. They have been seen by people and described in detail. Granted, you are not allowed to see them, but is that required for you to believe? In addition, the abductees describe conditions in the space crafts and instruments used for examination that are in many cases identical even though this information is not generally known and the various abductees never talked to each other. In addition, physical evidence in the form of changes in soil properties and indentations where the craft landed have been described in detail. Although the aliens are well ahead of us in science, we do not need to explain their existence by using excessive imagination, as I think you have done. As for the universe being empty of life except ours, this is simply not a rational possibility. The earth is a late comer to the universe. We should expect life that formed on older planets than ours to be more advanced. Ed On Aug 1, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Could we all consider the possibility that the sightings and abductions reported over the years were experienced in a manner that bypassed the five senses and were sent directly to a person's brain by entities that cannot effectively manipulate matter and energy but operate outside the "real" world. That would explain why we have no authentic UFO artifacts. Somebody is trying very hard to make us think there are real aliens in our universe, when perhaps there are none. They have a purpose, and it is important to them that the human race believes in space aliens. They wouldn't have to do this if there actually were some. Maybe the universe to this point really is an awful waste of space. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm From Jed: OrionWorks wrote: I'm under the impression that you have not looked into this subject to any great extent. That is correct. That's why I asked how many pilots have reported anomalies. . . . your comments about the reliability of the pilots you've known seems uncharacteristically anecdotal. It is completely anecdotal and not to be taken seriously. However, I have met quite a number of weirdo pilots, with very odd beliefs, especially ones who resemble Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So there are at least some you should not trust. It wouldn't take many to introduce a little noise in the data set, with one or two reports per year. I wished I had had the chance to have been introduced to your mother. I think I would have learned a lot listening to her and subsequently discussing the subtleties of various perceptions. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Good arguments, Chris. However, I find the human mind typically resists ideas that are too far from personal experience. We can't do anything about this resistance in a general way. We can only work to overcome this genetic limitation in ourselves and learn to avoid people who cannot go beyond their small world view. Ed On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Chris Zell wrote: As to hallucinations, there have been a number of people since the '60's who function very well in responsible jobs despite having them. You may not hear much about them since the problem can be an embarrassment. They quickly understand to ignore walls moving as if breathing or rainbow colored rain in a clear sky. If you encounter a potential hallucination, quickly ask yourself some "bandwidth" questions: Can I feel it? smell it? hear it? and so on. The more senses are involved, the less able the brain is able to simulate reality. It is strange that I do not perceive continuous panic or intense advocacy or depressive paralysis from many skeptics as to UFO and related phenomena. If eyewitness information is to be ignored so completely and written off as unreliable, then much of our legal system is worthless and little better than selecting individuals for punishment randomly ( which worked well for Stalin). Likewise, many of the most dramatic encounters come from airline pilots or law enforcement officers or those charged with defense of our nation - even those who literally "have their finger on the button" of nuclear missiles. If they are all lying or hallucinating, I wonder why some skeptics even bother with any hope, investment or child rearing in an environment in which we depend for our lives on such people. "I hope you enjoyed flying with us". More than that, these people are often the most competently trained, experienced and vetted as to accurate observation relative to the general population. There is a 'law of unintended effects" that needs attention in our collective opinions about science and reality. Anything taken to an extreme can cause a result that is the opposite of what was intended --- and I believe that the persistent denial of UFOs and related psychic phenomena is now encouraging an anti-science public outlook - contrary to what skeptics think. If you keep encountering opinions that would classify you as a fool, you may stop listening altogether. Reality , as a concept, seems to be drifting away from common sense into a rarified ivory tower world of merely what some "approved" scientists say it is - and that "approved" can mean no foreigners allowed, also! ( Are results from Russian or Japanese scientists really given the same credibility? Italians? How about Mexican officials?) Let's add medicine to the denial destruction of scientific reality: So, marijuana has no medical uses according to the Federal government ( two days ago). Really? Are people expected to deny the evidence of their own bodies direct experience? They don't actually feel good because the government says otherwise? Is this a brick apartment building held together by mass hypnosis, a la Monty Python? Do I need a computer and range finders to guide me across a street busy with traffic? Or can I take my life in my hands and use intuition to cross like everybody else? There isn't a day that passes that I don't witness the abuse of what is termed science by authorities and cold fusion has been but one example. I really fear we may evolve into a situation in which the investigation of ANY subtle or intermitent anomaly becomes impossible because of "spin", bias, pseudo-skepticism, superficial debunking or "elegant" theories that act as a permanent barrier to the discovery of truth.
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
While I agree that people can suffer from hallucinations and false memory, this explanation must not and is not used to explain all strange experiences. Society uses personal experience as a basis for judging reality with reasonable success, including yourself Jed. Otherwise you would have no opinions you would wish to share because they all could be pure imagination. In addition, people trained to make observations are accepted as valid observers especially If several people see and describe the same event. Such testimony is normally accepted by the law and is the basis for demanding replication in science. In the case of the UFO experience, the shared experience is overwhelming. Like cold fusion, eventually the evidence overwhelms any skeptical argument. The only rational skeptic remaining is the one who is simply ignorant of the evidence. Of course, irrational skeptics will always exist no matter what evidence is presented. These people have no importance and are eventually ignored. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: If the experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. I do not know about radar but there is abundant proof that we cannot trues our eyes or memory to determine reality. This is why science must be based on objective instrument readings and physical evidence. People's senses are good for nothing when it comes to establishing reality. This is especially true of untrained, amateur observers. A naturalist looking at beetles in the woods may have a reliable memory of the event, but anyone else's memory is bound to mixed up with false memories, mistakes and mythology. People today and in the past often have experiences that are entirely imaginary. They often mistake dreams for reality, for example. Memory is extremely malleable and not to be trusted at all. This has been demonstrated in many simple tests. For example, in the middle of a psychology lecture, an unannounced fake drama is performed by actors. Say, a woman drops her purse, hits someone, and runs out of the room shouting something. Then the professor asks the students to write what they say. The accounts vary wildly. It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been deceived by very clever hoaxes . . . There is no likelihood that abductions are hoaxes. There are countless other experiences in the past, such as people who thought they were visited by witches and succubuses and so on, which were obviously false memories of physically impossible events. But the people reporting these experiences believed them sincerely. Again, psychological tests have shown that it is easy to implant a false memory in most people. The techniques for doing this are settled and have been repeated in many psychological studies. . . . and we cannot believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced without physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. For traumatic and unlikely events, no one should ever believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced, including the person himself. That is never a reliable basis for belief. Highly rational people who are used to studying human beliefs, opinions and reactions know this to be true of themselves, even when their brain is diseased and not functioning correctly. My late mother was an expert in these issue (public opinion, perception and psychology). In the last years of her life, her mind was affected by Parkinson's and by the drugs she was taking for it. One day she told my sister: "I just came back from a visit with uncle Danny, upstairs." Uncle Danny had been dead for 20 years and she was living in a one-floor retirement home, with no upstairs. My sister went along with it, saying "oh really, and how is he?" A few hours later after a nap she said, "What did I tell you before? Uncle Danny? That's ridiculous; he's been dead for years. It must be that damned medication, causing hallucinations," which it was. I told her that if she were a shade more superstitious or spiritual she would count that as a visit to heaven "upstairs," but knowing too much about pharmacology ruined the experience for her. Based on our knowledge of psychology, it is 99.% likely that all reports of abductions, religious experiences, witchcraft, ESP, hypnotic conditions and similar effects are a product of normal, widely observed brain functions. I mean "normal" in sense that they are widespread and can be induced in most people, and they are not necessarily a sign of pathology (although they were in my mother's case). The cause of these phenomena is not yet known (to my knowledge) but the phonomena themselves been observed and carefully docum
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, in proposing your explanation, you conveniently ignore a large amount of the evidence. In addition, a temporal lens effect should show a lot more than just a few UFOs. We should see a variety of objects and events, which is clearly not the case. A theory is not worth considering if it is so rigid that it is applied to everything by making ad hoc assumption and using selective evidence. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Snip: Of course, people with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life is more advanced than we are.. Reply: Ed, I have to say that my temporal lens idea better fits the known facts regarding electromagnetic observations, be they visual or radar and may even allow some physical contact although the lack of physical evidence suggests otherwise. There is already a corollary in place called gravitational lensing so my proposal attempts to explain the observations with the fewest assumptions possible. I see the spacecraft reports and radar returns as evidence of our own future spacecraft probably interacting with HV fields in the present to create focal points where the observer views across time lines. The NASA shuttle controversy where the charged tether broke and UFO like objects appear behind the miles of still charged tether line viewed by the shuttle camera filming down the axis of the charged line suggest temporal lensing is real. It is also a fact that many photos and reports are near HV lines which would act as a single lens, I would presume the UFO propulsion supplies a second lens and then it is just a matter of the observer to be at the correct coordinates where the focal point resolves. Maybe this hypothesis can be tested with the appropriate selection of an observation point near a HV nexus Fran
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
But, Steven, the experience is important. It is either real or it isn't. If it is real, it means the earth has been and is being influenced by intelligent beings from another planet for a long time, with all that this implies. If the experience is not real, it means that we cannot trust our eyes, our memory or even radar to correctly determine reality. It means that hundreds of thousands of people have been deceived by very clever hoaxes and we cannot believe anything a person claims to have personally experienced without physical proof, and all that this conclusion implies. If claims about the general UFO phenomenon are based on a real experience, then we can start to evaluate the details to determine the nature of this reality. Of course, people with imagination will suggest all kinds of explanations. The number of crazy ideas should not distract serious investigators from seeing the most obvious conclusion, i.e. that life has evolved on many planets and some of this life is more advanced than we are, probably because they started earlier in the history of the universe. They are now able to visit other planets and have done this for centuries. We just have to accept the idea that humans are not the top of the line life form and we are not in God's image, at least on the surface. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From: Edmund Storms I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say "The experience IS what it IS." It was my somewhat crude attempt to suggest that such experiences not be judged. They are what they are. "Judging" such experiences as either authentic or false messages from aliens or god, in a sense, only makes us go around in circles as we argue incessantly over who might be behind the curtain that Toto sees. I'm trying to suggest that the experience itself, in whatever costumes and theatre it's currently playing in, may matter more than the endless speculation over whom the actors might be portraying the characters. The version will change with the times, with the culture. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I have no idea what you mean Steven when you say "The experience IS what it IS." We accumulate information about reality by experience. This experience gradually forms an impression of reality on which we base our beliefs in science, religion and in every other reality based belief system. The experiments either contributes to and refines the present belief systems or it does not. If it contributes, knowledge moves forward and we become more understanding of the reality that surrounds us. If the experience does not contribute, we become more ignorant. The experience is never neutral and only an experience. Ed On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:06 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Mr. Lawrence: If alien abductions -- which are pretty rare -- are taken as convincing proof of the existence of aliens, shouldn't theophanies -- which are rather common, certainly far more common than alien abductions -- be taken as convincing proof of the existence of God? (The people who experience them typically interpret them that way, of course.) I think you bring up a crucial point which goes to the heart of my hypothesis. Is there really a difference between what I've called "the abduction paradigm" experience and theophany oriented experiences. I speculate: Perhaps both experiences spring from the same meta-language of universal symbols unique to homo sapiens. It would seem natural that cultural conditioning would clothe how such experiences will manifest themselves within the experiencer's psyche. IOW, it's not a matter of whether one is actually in contact with aliens or god. I think we tend to get far too lost in our attempts to interpret the experiences in literal clothing. IMO, it can never be successfully interpreted in literal terms - of being messages from aliens or god. It's the experience itself that matters, the current costume it has chosen to reveal the drama within. What's important is how the experience affects the transmitter of the tale, as well as those who chose to listen. The experience IS what it IS. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Fran, The government may be lousy at keeping secrets but they are very good at protecting physical objects, especially the military. For example, when a military airplane crashes, it is immediately isolated and every piece is cleaned up and taken away. They do the same careful cleanup when a UFO crashes. People who claim to find an occasional unusual object are labeled as crackpots or fakers. This approach is so routine, people accept it as normal behavior on the part of the government, all in the interest of national security. Of course, all governments have a huge self interest in keeping evidence for alien invasion secret, as long as the aliens play along with the effort, which they apparently are doing. Nevertheless, the details of their technology are not discoverable at this time and are pointless to discuss. Their existence and their goals are the only important thing we need to understand right now. The human race believed for a long time that we we created in the image of God and were the only life in the universe. Gradually we realized we were not likely to be unique and started looking for evidence for other life forms. We search the radio waves and now look for life on other planets in the solar system. Yet, we actively ignore evidence for intelligent life from beyond of the solar system that is right here on earth. Of course, a growing number of people accept this reality, but since we can't do anything about their presence, they are ignored but not forgotten. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Ed, I have no issue with long observations or even radar returns but the argument for physical evidence would require some sort of temporal paradox preventing these artifacts from being revealed. The observations have been frequent, widespread and stretch too far into the past for normal security to conceal a proportionally smaller amount of physical evidence. If you are correct then there is another mystery of how the security for these events was so well maintained for so long. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -----Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
Hi Fran, If you want to explain a phenomenon, you need to be aware of all the evidence, not just that which fits a model. Physical evidence has been found, a few UFO have been shot down, and they are seen for long periods of time by many people including by radar. People have even been taken into the crafts. While aliens are clearly using phenomenon we do not yet understand, nothing that has been reported requires an explanation such as you suggest. In fact, an organized group of people exists who hold regular conferences in an effort to arrive at an understanding based on the evidence, not imagination. You can probably find out about this effort on the internet if you are interested. I don't have time right now to track down the sources. Ed On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Hi Ed, I didn't know you were a member on here or I wouldn't have forwarded you that last thread. Regarding UFOs I feel the lack of physical evidence compared to the huge number of visual observations makes a stronger case for some kind of temporal lensing akin to gravitational lensing where we are able to view future spacecraft through a "window". This of course would also explain the difficulty chase aircraft have in following these UFO that suddenly appear to speed up and disappear as the aircraft fly past the temporal window and they scream past our peripheral vision even though our senses told us they were miles away as judged by their scale. If a star can bend spacetime to gravitationally lens a starfield hidden behind it then maybe Tesla was onto something regarding his theory of solidification of ether with high voltage, maybe a couple of high voltage shaped fields spaced miles apart could form some sort of temporal telescope where the observer catches glimpses of these everyday spacecraft from our future. Fran -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to "catch and release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the family. Abduc
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Abduction Paradigm
I too have studied and given lot of thought to the UFO phenomenon. Steven has provided a good description of many of my conclusions, so I won't try to add anything except to ask one question. Why do people have such a difficult time accepting such a well documented phenomenon? To start the discussion, I will provide my answer. Most people are incapable of accepting anything that is a threat to them. Such threats produce anxiety and are rejected in various ways as much as is possible. The idea of a superior life form that can abduct individuals at will is too much for most people to handle on an emotional level. Since nothing can be done about this threat, it is best ignored. Since this is a universal reaction of people with respect to many aspects of life, the opinion of the crowd cannot be accepted as a description of reality. This being the case, who can be trusted? This is the basic question we all have to answer because our individual fates in all aspects of life depend on choosing well. What criteria do you use to trust the opinion of another person? How much evidence, if any, do you need to accept a belief? The UFO phenomenon provides an incentive to answer such questions. Ed On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:11 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Indeed, it's been an interesting slo Sunday. As is probably evident by some within the catacombs of the Vort Collective, I have occasionally expressed a few opinions on this so-called "abduction" matter. So, off the races I go once again in the hope that the following thought fodder might stimulate some to ponder this mystery in a manner where no-one has gone before. IMO, there isn't an educated person on this planet who doesn't implicitly believe in the indisputable fact that UFOs exist. The real question is: What *are* UFOs, and a smarmy subject that is, be it "swamp gas", or encounters with nearby neighbors. Regarding the abduction experience, sometimes referred to as the "experiencer" phenomenon, I have begun to draw a few tentative conclusions over the past couple of decades: It is possible that a sub-category of "encounters" may very well turn out to be classic abduction experiences, something akin to "catch and release" programs that we ourselves perform as we study and gather information on endangered life forms on our own planet. However, at present I've come to the tentative suspicion that a significant sampling, if not most of "abductions", are the result of our species attempt to interface with something far more interesting and profound than your typical run-of-the-mill "catch and release" program. Anyone who has studied the phenomenon quickly discovers the interesting fact that the "abduction" experience tends to run in the family. Abduction experiences are inter-generational – grandparents, parents, children... A logical conclusion to draw from this observation is the likelihood that there must exist a genetic component, a predisposition to having the abduction experience. Just how far back in the gene pool have these experiences been manifesting their effects on our species? It seems logical for me to speculate: Possibly since the inception of Homo Sapiens. From what I can tell there doesn't seem to be anything special about those who claim they are abductees/experiencers. The propensity to experience the abduction scenario seems to be randomly disbursed throughout the entire human population. The result of such randomness would suggest that some experiencers will turn out to be naturally smarter, better educated than others. One's cultural background will definitely influence how one interprets it. Depending on how much support an experiencer receives when they first begin the often difficult and all-too-often psychologically harrowing journey of consciously acknowledging their experiences, the better equipped they are likely to be in handling and ultimately integrating it into the intimate fabric of their lives. Of course, everyone wants to know the $64,000 question: Is the phenomenon really real? Are people *really*, physically being abducted, or is it all just fantasy? All that most of us non-abductees, us mundanes can conclude is the fact that it feels real, terrifying real and acutely physical to those who experience it. I personally think far too much emphasis has been put on attempts to either legitimize or debunk the experience. Just as debunkers attempt to ridicule and marginalize the experience as nothing more than weird clinically diagnosable psychological aberrations possibly pertaining the brain chemistry (or perhaps the result of bad upbringing), some experiencers try just as valiantly to prove with equal ferocity that their experiences are physically happening. I've personally come to the tentative conclusion that attempts to either prove or disprove its legitimacy will fail. The continuing struggle also distracts us from the real work at hand. Continued confrontations, I fear, miss the mark,
Re: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
The Mills situation is a bit more complex than you note, Stephen. Hydrinos are not the only result of the Mills theory. He has created a new model for atomic interaction and a new model for calculating many fundamental constants including the ionization energy of most elements. His model is a major challenge to the view provided by QM. Even if hydrinos are not created, something else provides the energy he detects in various ways. His model is the only rational explanation that has been offered so far. As is usual, rejection by conventional science is based largely on ignorance of what is being rejected. Ed On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Your significant and long-standing contributions to LENR, in both time and money, are of the highest order - and should always be recognized... ... and your agenda of minimalizing the importance of Mills' theory to LENR is also known and not secret. From what I've seen Jed's "agenda" here is to ignore Mills' theory, just as he ignores all theories of how LENR might work, and pay attention only to Mills' *replicated* results. Since replications of Mills' work are still few, as far as I know, and such replications as exist are of somewhat debatable independence (or so it has been claimed), Jed's "agenda" on the results is to wait and see. Anyhow that's how it's appeared to me in his posts. Correspondingly, his agenda of claiming to have the answer to everything is equally over-reaching, and should be mentioned. The truth lies somewhere in between. I must disagree with your last statement. I don't think the truth can lie in between. It's almost certainly at one extreme or the other. Either Mills hits a home run, and shakes the foundations of physics (and maybe gets a Nobel, forget a few scraggly patents), or he strikes out and is not even a footnote in the history of science. There isn't any middle ground, as far as I can see. Because either hydrinos are for real and totally revolutionary, and when the evidence is all in Mills will be recognized as a giant on the landscape of physics, or they are not real, and in the latter case there is nothing of value in Mills' work; hydrinos can't be "a little bit real". Secrecy, if there is any which is applicable to the Piantelli paper, would relate to the influence of another unknown party. ... and that is why the comment about confusing and conflating "disproof" with "null results" was meant to be a general thing, not aimed at anyone specifically, and why your name was not mentioned in the previous posting. Yes, indeed, let's all stay on the same page here. The claim Jed made was *not* that they failed to replicate; it was that they *succeeded* in their replication, *and* they looked at the published data, *and* they found a mundane explanation for the apparent excess heat, *and* they showed that the mundane explanation fully accounted for the results of their *successful* replication. That's completely different from the claim that 95 failures to replicate "disprove" the claims of one successful scientist, which is tautologically false. If I am not mistaken, you have probably said something very similar, perhaps uncomfortably similar (and probably many times) - to past comments from skeptics of cold-fusion, who were fond of saying in the nineties that null results "disproved" the phenomenon. Jones
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Mark, The fact is that BM is Jewish and most of the investors he frauded are Jewish. Therefore, the Jewish community is especially outraged. This is not a slight against the Jewish community and provides no reason not to identify this fact. Of course they worked hard for their money and have reason to be outraged. However, I fail to see the relevances of your comment. The Jewish community is a fact of life in the same way the Catholic, Hispanic, or Baptist communities, for example, are a fact. I see nothing wrong with identifying such groups when they are likely to act in a particular way as a group. Ed On Jul 13, 2009, at 10:33 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Ed: Although a significant proportion of the wealthy and powerful are jewish (and they probably worked hard and smart to get there), I think you could have left the religious background out of your statement and it still would have been accurate... -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and well connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge the corruption within the system. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.9/2229 - Release Date: 07/11/09 05:57:00
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:59 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote: All said, I see the gaping hole in Takahashi's theory being the orders of magnitude lack of detectable high energy alphas. Perhaps it is just a calculation error on my part. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. 8^) It's the deafening silence regarding detailed comment on existing theories that strikes me. Actually, a great deal of comment has been undertaken by the CMNS chat group. This group is made up of people in the field who know a great deal about the subject and do not have to be educated. In addition, I find that detailed discussion about theory does not go far because most of the critique involves assumptions that have not been and cannot be supported. These assumptions are generally unique to the theory and are defended to the death by the person proposing the theory. Ed
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the "corruption within the system" being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the "scapegoat" thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Mauro, this is not a subject that benefits from debate because it is so much a matter of opinion without factual support. In addition, you are using the word scapegoat incorrectly. The scapegoat is an innocent person who is used by the guilty to misdirect blame. In this case Malloff is clearly guilty along with many other people. These other people are gradually being found and will also be sent to prison. This scam affected too many important people to be ignored. In any case, this subject has no general importance except to make a person more careful where they put their money and whom they trust. Ed Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge the corruption within the system.
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward compatibility. Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new Windows does not work with old hardware, people will eventually throw away their hardware and buy a Mac! I don't know what you mean about ruthless. Before OS10 came along, all versions up to OS9 were backward compatible on the Mac. So OS10 does not run on older machines? That's what I read. I don't have a Mac so I don't know the details. Wikipedia and other sources describe a sharp break between 9 and 10, that you would not see in the PC world. That is, a situation where the computer you bought a year ago (or even last week!) does not run a new operating system. It seems the so-called "classic" Macs were left high and dry when OS 10 came out. A newer machine could emulate and older one, but an older one could not run the newer OS. Actually there was a semi-sharp break. For awhile the new machines ran both OS 9 and OS10, which allowed all of the older programs to run along with any new programs that could be found. This was done because many of the required new programs needed for OS10 were not yet available. When these new program became available, the machines were changed to run Windows plus OS10 rather than OS9 plus OS10. This transition created problems because now I need two machines on my desk to access the information that was based on OS9 or earlier. Fortunately, I find this information is no longer important except perhaps to historians. The upcoming OS 10 version will only run on the Intel machines, which is a big break from the past. I assume it will handle the older peripherals, however. That is an easier task with the Mac than with the PC. Windows does not work on older machines without enough memory or speed, but that can't be helped. There is no sudden break like there is between OS9 and OS10, or between the Power PC and Intel. In addition, all versions were plug and play and required very little effort to attach new hardware. I gather they use a well defined interface, so It is not as hard to accommodate peripherals as it is the older internal hardware. With PCs there are so many peripherals it is difficult to keep up with them, but it is the peripheral manufacturer's responsibility. That has been one of the major problems using a PC. Getting peripherals to work was a real problem until the Wizards were introduced in Windows. The Mac was always very easy. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: You could claim, of course, that Windows NT was a "rewrite" of the old Windows OS and so it isn't as old as it looks . . . That is exactly what Brooks (and I) have in mind. You have to go back to square one and write the whole thing over again. That does not mean you abandon the outward appearance or the standards! You don't throw away all of the old product, by any means. You make a new version that is as backward compatible as possible, although compatibility hampers innovation. I gather the operating system for Apple computers has been rewritten from scratch more often than Windows, and I have it is far more reliable and fast as a consequence. I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward compatibility. Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new Windows does not work with old hardware, people will eventually throw away their hardware and buy a Mac! I don't know what you mean about ruthless. Before OS10 came along, all versions up to OS9 were backward compatible on the Mac. In addition, all versions were plug and play and required very little effort to attach new hardware. Now system 10 is being improved and everything is backward compatible within this system. I have no problem upgrading while using all the software and hardware I have used in earlier versions of OS10. Ed
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Emacs, Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, OpenOffice, MS Word -- would you claim that any of these have simply been left to sit on a shelf, and that's why they haven't become so buggy they can't be used? I meant just the opposite. They have been maintained, which is why MS Word (for example) is so buggy it can barely be used for some operations, such as multiple-chapter books with include files and endnotes for each chapter. Believe me, I wasted weeks trying to do this. In 1990 I managed it easily with Word Perfect. It has never worked with MS Word, and with each revision it gets worse. Some things can't be fixed. They need to rewrite this from scratch. Perhaps this was done when Word X for the Mac was released because I can do what you say Word for the PC can't do. In fact, I wrote my book using Word for the Mac. Nevertheless, I have to admit that the program has some very frustrating limitations and is unstable when it is fully loaded. Ed
Re: [Vo]:cnn.com: Pickens - "Oil baron's wind farm project hits doldrums"
These are all good ideas that have been explored. However, turning an idea into a practical solution to a problem involving megawatts of power and billions of dollars takes a lot of time and capital, which is not available. The issue is not the lack of ideas but the ability to put them into practice on the scale required. In addition, each good idea always has some down side that is not recognized until serious efforts are made to put it into practice. For example, hydrogen has to be stored. Either this requires power to cool it or compress it into a smaller volume, or it requires expensive materials to absorb it. While the cost of these storage methods will be paid from the savings this storage gives, someone has to put up the additional money to construct this extra machinery. They want their money to give a return that is hard to achieve except over a long period of time. To make matters worse, a hydrogen-air mixture is explosive over a wide range of concentration, which makes use of hydrogen more dangerous than natural gas, for example. All of the proposed methods to store power created by wind and solar have similar problems that must be solved before any significant storage is possible. This takes time and money, which are in increasingly short supply. If you want to make a contribution, analyze your ideas in terms of cost/benefit ratio and show the result to someone who has money. Ed On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: And thus we see the basic flaw in wind generation. Unless a backup source of power is in place and can be connected to an active grid, wind power is not practical. You can use an intermediate stage as energy storage. Why not produce Hidrogen with wind (and solar) power, and burn that hydrogen when wind or solar is scarce? Not a backup, a buffer. If you are concerned with the dangers and complications of Hidrogen storage or transportation, you can use wind and/or solar to refine Aluminium, and later burn that Al to produce Aluminium Oxide and Hidrogen. Aluminium Oxide can be recicled indefinitely, and the Hidrogen and heat generated used to produce electric power. Electric cars can be used to replace explosion cars, and Al can even possibly be used as a fuel, with some modifications to actual explosion cars, by burning it and producing Hidrogen on demand, and burning the Hidrogen in turn in the slighty modified explosion motor. I've made the calculations some years ago, and around 100 kgs of Aluminium were equivalent in autonomy and power to a full tank of gasoline. In the refuelling stations, a double process is necessary: getting rid of the Aluminium oxide for recycling, and refuelling of the Al. Other light metals(like Mg) can be more efficient than Al to store and transport energy, but Al seems like a good candidate. If this is done massively, the cost of energy can drop to almost zero after the initial investment is amortized. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
Thanks Stephen and Jed, your description makes my concern much less rational. I keep reading about the various ways the Windows operating system is hacked because it is poorly written. Its good to hear that systems are being developed that don't have these problems and are written to be less sensitive to virus and other kinds of code changes. Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: This helps explain the situation, Stephen. However, suppose I make some neat changes in an open source program and add a few backdoors. Then I send it to my friends, who use it and send it to their friends because of the neat features I added. Eventually, the code becomes widespread. The backdoors would not be discovered unless someone who knows the code and has time to check any changes finds them. Why has this not happened to Linux? Open source doesn't normally work that way. I've never heard of anyone installing a random hacked-up version of Linux which they got from their friends (or a random hacked up version of any other large open source system). Do you use random hacked-up versions of OpenOffice? No, I'm sure you don't, and nobody else does, either -- it's not just rare, it's unheard of. Aside from the fact that you have to be an idiot to install major system components of unknown provenance, there's the fact that the major organizations have hoards of elves maintaining the open source systems, and custom versions fall out of date *very* fast unless the custom changes are folded back into the mainline. A new version of Linux comes out about every six months (for the major distributors) and updates to components come out almost daily. GoogleOS will probably have updates coming out at the same breakneck pace if it ever gets off the ground. Now, you're presumably actually just talking about a hacked up kernel, rather than the whole umpteen gigabyte system. So, what kind of feature can you imagine that your friend might add to a kernel that would convince you to use *his* kernel rather than one blessed by Linus? Personally I can't imagine such a feature -- I wouldn't trust a hacked kernel, of course, but more to the point, when the next new kernel comes out, typically in about 30 days, what am I going to do about my friend's patches? Apply them to the new kernel myself? Get a new kernel from the friend to drop on top of the new one I just got from Redhat/Yellowdog/Debian/whoever? It's a nightmare to go that road, and nobody's going to do it -- they'll use the kernels provided for their system, or one from an equally well known source. Up above I said "you'd have to be an idiot" and I should explain that, because I was thinking of a rather specific set of reasons why you'd need to be unhumanly stupid to drop a random (unknown) kernel into your system. If you're Joe Sixpack you're not going to be dropping a random hacked kernel into your system; you don't know how -- Joe Sixpack doesn't know enough to put himself in the dangerous situation to start with. Joe's going to be using an off the shelf kernel, with updates provided by the vendor who supports his Linux (or GoogleOS) variant. On the other hand, if you *do* have the expertise to replace individual system components with nonstandard versions, then you're also going to be aware of the danger of using an unknown kernel. So, it's only the person who knows how, knows better, and does it anyway who could possibly get burned here -- and, as I said, if you really knew you shouldn't do that, then you're an idiot if you do it anyway, and people in general are NOT IDIOTS. In short, the ignorant ones won't do it because they can't, and the educated ones won't do it because they know better. Now, let's get back to the issue you hinted at, which is that nobody'll have time to track down all the possible security holes introduced by random hackers. I don't know how familiar you are with large open source projects, but they are *not* run like Wikipedia. To get a patch folded back into the Linux mainline, you have to get it past Linus (I mean that literally -- last I heard Linus Thorvalds was still vetting everything that went into the kernel). And if you want it folded into, say, Redhat's custom version of the kernel, you need to get it past the people doing code reviews at Redhat. They don't just look at the nice cover letter you wrote and say, "Oh this sounds like fun, let's stick in the next release". They actually look at the code, too, and when it's a patch from an unknown outsider, you better believe they look at it pretty carefully! In fact, the only people you really have to fear anything along these lines from are the INHOUSE developers
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
This helps explain the situation, Stephen. However, suppose I make some neat changes in an open source program and add a few backdoors. Then I send it to my friends, who use it and send it to their friends because of the neat features I added. Eventually, the code becomes widespread. The backdoors would not be discovered unless someone who knows the code and has time to check any changes finds them. Why has this not happened to Linux? Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: They say this is an open system, which has the advantage of putting the user in control. Why would it not also put the hacker in control? What's the problem with open source, aside from the fact that anyone can learn how the system works? I don't see one. Security based on secrecy doesn't work very well -- one leak and you're dead meat -- so opening the source is not in itself a problem. In fact it's widely felt that voting machine software, to name one example, would be far more secure if it were entirely open. Secret "backdoors" are secure as long as they're secret, but they're generally considered totally unsecure, because they don't stay secret. The only thing opening the source does is, it makes it impossible for the vendor to retain the capability to prevent improvements. The user chooses the software to put on their machine, and they'll choose the version from Google *unless* there's a version which is better (or equally good and cheaper). With a closed-source system, on the other hand, you can drop the "*unless*" clause: there is only one version available. And that's the only real difference. Finally, as an observation on who this helps and who it hurts, my guess is it's going to end up hurting the consumers most of all. Google is a company driven *entirely* by ad revenue AFAIK and one of their primary missions seems to be to make ad delivery (and content delivery) secure and reliable for the advertisers and content vendors. They are squarely on the opposite side of the fence from FSF. Check out Chrome, and think about these questions: What's Chrome got? Lovely UI. What's it missing? Cookie control!! You get better tracking cookie control with IE than you do with Chrome! Unless Google has changed this, the concept of arbitrarily limiting cookie lifetimes to the life of the session (with a list of exceptions) is completely missing from Chrome. I believe there were some other cookie control issues as well, but that was the big one, which really stood out for me: Use Chrome, be tracked, it's as simple as that -- and the old argument that they can't match up the cookies with *you* is either already false or certainly likely to be false in the future. If Google can push something on consumers which "frees" them from Microsoft while simultaneously "freeing" the vendors from the nasty cookie controls of Firefox they'll view it as a home run, I'm sure. Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:49 PM, OrionWorks wrote: I've labeled this thread "OT" because the subject would seem to be unrelated to the issues concerning the occasionally scrappy process of developing alternative energy strategies. But then... maybe it does bare some semblance: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/google.chrome.os/index.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: cnn.com: Google takes on Windows with Chrome OS
They say this is an open system, which has the advantage of putting the user in control. Why would it not also put the hacker in control? Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:49 PM, OrionWorks wrote: I've labeled this thread "OT" because the subject would seem to be unrelated to the issues concerning the occasionally scrappy process of developing alternative energy strategies. But then... maybe it does bare some semblance: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/google.chrome.os/index.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:cnn.com: Pickens - "Oil baron's wind farm project hits doldrums"
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: And thus we see the basic flaw in wind generation. Unless a backup source of power is in place and can be connected to an active grid, wind power is not practical. My comment clearly applied to the US. The situation in Europe is different, as Jed notes. Europe has invested in its distribution system because most transportation of goods and people is carried by electric trains. The US has not made this investment because most transportation here is by cars and trucks, which do not use electric power. As a result, the US went down a different road compared to Europe and is now paying the price. Ed This is incorrect. EPRI and European power companies that have a lot experience with wind power say that most present-day distribution systems can accommodate up to 20% wind power with little or no additional equipment. They say fluctuations in demand are a much bigger problem than fluctuations in output from wind. Over a large geographic area, wind output is highly predictable, even several days in advance, so it can be planned for. Also, it degrades slowly and in small increments compared to other power sources. In some ways wind is more predictable and stable than other sources. When something goes wrong with a coal or gas fired plant, a large chunk of capacity goes off line immediately and in an unplanned manner. When a nuclear power plant SCRAMs you can lose half the power in the state. In contrast, if the wind is not quite as strong as predicted, the difference is minor. If there is very little wind, they know about it hours or days in advance and they can plan for it. Having said that, Terry is quite right that putting 4 GW of wind power in one place would be an engineering nightmare. Putting 4 GW of nuclear power in one place would be an economic nightmare. Nukes are only good for baseline, 24-hour electricity. As far as I know, the only place with such concentrated power is in Japan, where the whole country is in a tight grid so they can distribute that much power. The biggest in the world is Kashiwazaki-kariwa, 8 GW, owned by Tokyo Electric Power, which is smack in the middle of nowhere in Niigata, far from Tokyo: http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-db/en/general/atomic/ke02a13/info_h.html This was hit by an earthquake in July 2007, taking out a large fraction of all of the electricity in Japan. It is fully back on line now, I believe. The power lines from Niigata to Tokyo are awesome. They are among the biggest with the highest voltage in the world. I saw an NHK program about the construction of them. Maintenance is done by helicopter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Must See Video
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Jones. As you observed, the video shows the same attitude toward cold fusion that has played out in the US and in most other countries. You attempt to explain this situation below, but I suggest you miss some important features of the problem. Unfortunately, a full discussion and understanding of why and how cold fusion is rejected requires the forbidden subject of politics to be discussed. Politics is behind the rejection of CF just as it is behind support for hot fusion and the NIF. Political decisions control what is done in science because politics determines who gets money and who makes money. Only occasionally do the great discoveries, usually by individuals who are initially rejected, modify the political thinking and force a change. CF is in the process of doing this, but meanwhile the system is crashing because of poor political choices made in the past that benefited certain very powerful people and companies at the time. Meanwhile the completely ignorant general population fights over issues that have no relevance to the course of events, such as to whether socialism is being applied. In short, the so called political debate is a smoke screen to allow the real decisions to be made without interference. Unfortunately, this forum is not interested in this subject, so I will stop. Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Steve Krivit put up a provocative and insightful video on YouTube that has gone almost unnoticed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0&feature=channel_page It centers on the Frascatti results, and the internal political workings and machinations, related to LENR in Italy. A similar situation was probably going on here in the USA, behind the scenes. The take-way message for me was the brief blip at the end – where the producer of the piece is trying desperately to make sense of the whole thing. He come to the almost the identical conclusions that many of us have come to, over the years. My first post on it was 15 years ago. It all goes back to the politics of uranium, and particularly depleted U as a disruptive fuel source which would render as worthless a large infrastructure related to enriching U (with the military implications); then there is the related issue of proliferation; and finally there is the transfer of “expertise” from one entrenched group and the loss of prestige (and of high paying jobs) for the keepers of the faith in hot fusion and enrichment, to a the group of raggedy outsiders. We as a nation do not want individual (or low lever) control over energy resources. That entrenched group of about a quarter million mostly PhDs and top- notch brain power has failed us miserably the past five decades, and wasted billions of R&D dollars on dead-end programs that almost any grad student today can see has zero chance of financial viability. I get sick to my stomach watching the Major Network and Smiling Politician back-slapping adulation over such incredible boondoggles as the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. It is almost criminal in the sense that it CANNOT ever be financially viable. Thinking small. This is almost anti-American. If we cannot Super- Size it, then it can’t be good for Joe the Plumber. The final minute of this video is most thought provoking. It brings back flashes of the Spanish Inquisition, and other instances where an overwhelming but misguided majority opinion can easily quash the minority (and correct) opinion. Fortunately the torture devices are no longer physical. OTOH perhaps burning at the stake is preferable in some ways. At least its all over quickly. Jones
Re: [Vo]:cnn.com: Pickens - "Oil baron's wind farm project hits doldrums"
And thus we see the basic flaw in wind generation. Unless a backup source of power is in place and can be connected to an active grid, wind power is not practical. This source needs to be engineered into a system rather than used as an add-on. The system in the US is too fragile and too spread out to allow much wind power to be added. The same problem exists for solar and will doom this source to a minor contribution as well until a large investment is made in the grid and in nuclear reactors as a backup. Consequently we in the US have driven ourselves into a hole because now, when clean power is essential, we do not have the money to put the necessary supporting structure in place. The money is going to bail out the banks, into social systems such as healthcare, and into wars, all of which are essential expenses because of past failures in making political decisions. But, we must not talk of politics. Ed On Jul 8, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: My guess is the "transmission issues" and grid regulation far outweighed the capital funding. Building the equivalent of over 4 nuclear reactors at a single location whose output variability is intimately linked by geography and weather AND figuring out how to distribute to the loads while regulating the grid using existing generating is an absolute nightmare. Terry On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM, OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/pickens.wind.farm/index.html Exerpts: -- NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire oil man T. Boone Pickens is shelving plans to build the world's largest wind farm. T. Boone Pickens says the capital markets will not support his plans to build the world's largest wind farm. The chairman of BP Capital Management announced Tuesday that his plans for the Pampa Wind Project, designed to generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity using thousands of wind turbines, is on hold. "I had hoped that Pampa would be the starting point, but transmission issues and the problem with the capital markets make that unfeasible at this point," Pickens told CNN's Ali Velshi. "I expect to continue development of the Pampa project, but not at the pace that I originally expected." -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:2012 and Nebran Planet X
How does anyone know that the obit of Nebran Planet X lasts for 3600 years except by relating it to the events that are assumed to be caused by the planet? In other words, this looks like circular reasoning, which gives no evidence at all. Ed On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, 7-4-09 I'm enclosing some snippets on 2012 which you may find interesting. Jack Smith Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 thomas malloy wrote: ``Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time.'' -- http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-22-2004/Bell-InterviewPartOne.htm Hoagland & Wilcock on Coast to Coast 5-15/16-04 [AB is Art Bell] ``AB: From the high desert in the great American southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon -- as the time zone may dictate -- all of them covered like a blanket by this program, Coast to Coast AM. I'm Art Bell. It's the weekend, and I am honored to be with you on a Saturday night going into Sunday morning, and of course tomorrow night as well. I have some shocking and tragic news for you at the top of the program and I'm sure Richard's gonna have a lot to say about this and will probably fill me in on details I don't yet have. But what it boils down to is that Dr Eugene Mallove is dead. And it is indeed with great sadness that we report the passing of Gene Mallove who died, no, correction, was killed, on May 14th apparently due to some sort of -- we don't know about this -- allegedly, some are saying 'some kind of property dispute'. It is considered by the police to be a homicide and an investigation is under way now ... AB: I know this has great meaning for Richard, but I? RH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We're not getting to the good stuff yet. If you look at that line -- where it is in the sky -- and you extend that line (like a celestial Meridian) out into space -- so it goes through, you know, where Sirius is in the sky, if you track twelve degrees to the East -- one degree per year (which is how Sirius will move, in relation to the Earth, and in relation to the Galactic Center) -- when that alignment occurs at midnight at 2012 -- that will be the Winter Solstice, and 'D-Day' will have arrived! In other words, that [planned Giza 2000] Ceremony marked the beginning of a 12-year [countdown] 'clock!' DW: Right -- I got it! RH: The final countdown to 'something' -- happening in 2012 -- by these guys, led by Zahi, who know 'something' -- that they are not wanting the rest of us to figure out! ...'' - Commentator 1 wrote: ``From my March 20, 2008 email: "The Sunday before last, a similar browsing trip to Border's brought Mar/Apr [2009] SCIENCE Illustrated to my attention for "The Volcano that Lied: How Santorini Is Changing History 3,600 Year After It Blew", pp. 46-53. The article describes how the new "date" for the Minoan eruption of Thera was determined and is shown by the Greenland ice cores to be 1642 BC and by radiocarbon dating, 1627-1600 BC, while not mentioning the tree-ring date of 1627 BC. The radiocarbon date was obtained by high-precision dating of an olive branch that was trapped in the tephra from the eruption." Forgive any year or two discrepancies, as with the Greenland ice core date for eruption of Thera. The point is that the tree ring climate signal for Thera is dated 1628 BCE, based on the frost damage at that time, while the acidity signal for the eruption in Greenland is 1642 BCE (originally reported to be 1645 BCE in 1987). The C-14 date for the eruption based on an olive branch trapped in the tephra is closer to the tree ring date than the ice core date. Mike Baillie has published on this discrepancy, but I am not aware of the latest news on this score.'' Commentator 2 wrote on 7-1-09: Why is the date 1628 BCE important? I can remember that long ago I adhered to that date. Now I think that it is 1588 BCE. After all, there are not (geologically speaking) all that many years between 1645 BCE (which I never heard of before) and 1588 BCE. What difference would a few years, even half a century, make here? Please explain. Thanks. I'll appreciate it. Commentator 1 wrote: ... annual-looking layers based on the dating of ancient volcanic eruptions. For example, the tree ring date for the Minoan eruption of Thera is 1628 B.C.E. Commentator 2 wrote: Thanks for
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Jones, this is indeed a black and white issue because success comes from easily understood events. For example the SPAWAR results got attention for three main reasons. The evidence is based on radiation, which has fewer ways it can be rejected; the claimed radiation is neutrons, which the skeptics insist need to be found; and the source is the Navy, which is a credible institution. Claims for other kinds of radiation and evidence from other institutions have been predictably ignored. Furthermore, the results are at such low levels that the energy industry is not threatened, hence can be open minded. Therefore, this work is consistent with the requirements of the skeptics. I'm only suggesting that the behavior of the system, as represented by the outspoken skeptics, needs to be understood and handled in a potentially successful way. Anyone who writes successful grant proposals to the government knows this kind of approach is an essential requirement. In contrast, claiming to look for transmutation products in a proposal to the government will not get funding because this kind of evidence is not consistent with any theory and can be confused by normal processes. In the same way, a proposal written to a venture capitalist will not get funding unless it promises to make useful energy. You need to use an approach that fits with the needs and preconceptions of the funder. This requirement is black and white as any salesman knows. None of this matters to a skeptic who is unwilling to review what is already known. No amount of additional result can add significantly to what has already been published if the person is unwilling to read the literature. If they read the literature, they would no longer be a skeptic and would not be in this discussion. What is the point of writing more papers that are going to be ignored as have all the other work? Success requires a different approach. The 60 minutes program provided part of this requirement, i.e,. it explained to the ordinary person the potential for the effect being real. We need more of this. The other requirement is a useful theory that can be used to guide successful research toward a reproducible effect. I predict that no funds will go to LENR unless this requirement is part of the proposal. Ed On Jul 3, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that you are mistaken as to this being a black and white issue. A substantial percentage of physicists, many of whom provide opinions for such things as ARPA-E, have more flexibility and open-mindedness than you are giving them discredit for. LENR is NOT an "either-or" proposition for them. Just as in politics, where there are groups on both the left and the right and a larger percentage in the middle who lean one way of the other but who are STRONGLY swayed by current events and emerging sentiment and R&D, we have a similar situation. In politics, it may be 25% on either extreme and 50% in the middle. In LENR it is more like 40% naysayers of the Park persuation, 5% true believers, and 55% who can be swayed one way or the other, depending on the quality and quantity of evidence. We saw a taste of this recently with the rather large positive media response given to the SPAWAR stuff. I never thought 60 Minutes would get into the Act... none of it was news to us, in fact it was old-hat, but it made a fairly big splash nationally. If this had been followed with a strong presentation of the transmutation evidence, it would have been even more effective. It is important to keep hitting that "middle percentage" of fence- straddlers with every bit of strong evidence available. Why? Well ARPA-E is one reason. I suspect that you, like myself and many others, spent a good deal of time and effort getting in a proposal for the June 2 deadline. It have may be a wasted effort, but perhaps not - if they stick to the original mandate of funding "high-risk transformative" technologies, then there will be some of those funds going into LENR. There will be many people in DoE and ARPA who can be swayed by good evidence, DESPITE what the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. They are aware of how many times the mainstream has been totally wrong before. Jones -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Jones, I think we need to be clear about the attitude toward CF. If a person does not accept the basic concept that a nuclear reaction can occur under CF conditions, either because they are totally committed to conventional ideas or because they are just plain ignorant, no evidence short of a huge effect will have any effect on their attitude. On the other hand, if a person accepts the basic idea behind CF, the huge amount of evidence based on production of heat, tritium, transmutat
Re: [Vo]:Kowalski paper
Jones, I think we need to be clear about the attitude toward CF. If a person does not accept the basic concept that a nuclear reaction can occur under CF conditions, either because they are totally committed to conventional ideas or because they are just plain ignorant, no evidence short of a huge effect will have any effect on their attitude. On the other hand, if a person accepts the basic idea behind CF, the huge amount of evidence based on production of heat, tritium, transmutation, and emitted radiation is more than sufficient. People who have reached this level and want to invest in the process are only interested in energy production. Therefore, proving that significant excess energy is produced and showing how this process can be increased is important. Transmutation is irrelevant and showing that it occurs is a waste of time. For the field to move forward, we need to understand the process that produces energy. The other reactions are at best minor secondary reactions that have no practical importance at this time. We need to keep our eye on the prize. Ed On Jul 3, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen - The only insurmountable problem with an "all erroneous" hypothesis is *transmutation* (and/or radioactivity). Transmutation, or an isotope imbalance, cannot be faked, and there is no valid relic in instrumentation or technique to account for it unless it solely in helium or hydrogen. If it involves new isotopes in the cathode, as is most often the case, especially those near Pd in atomic number (45, Pd, 47, 48, etc) then that is proof positive of a nuclear reaction. Cadmium and silver, in particular, are often seen. If experimenters has a good PR man (public relations) they would spin everything in that direction and forger excess heat, for the time being. Nuclear proof, in the form of electrode transmutation, is there. Period. Mainstream physics must come to terms with that fact. If you have nuclear transmutation in the experiment - which can be a given, looking at the prior published results, then you are left with only these possibilities: 1) The transmutation did not produce excess energy, or 2) The excess energy which was produced, with so slight as to not be significant, relative to the input. Usually the problem is 2) since this is a QM reaction, and of low probability. If you look at some of the tables in Scott's old experiments - he does show excess on occasion in the few percent range which he does not try to hide or recalibrate for. If the problem were to turn out to be 1) instead of 2), then you essentially have "new physics" and can win a big prize for explaining the situation- i.e. that all the excess energy escaped as neutrinos, or whatever. My advice to companies like Energetics: hire a good PR firm and focus on documenting and emphasizing nuclear transmutation, as opposed to heat. Jones -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Jones Beene wrote: Much of this goes back to the "expectancy effect", expectation-bias or Tiller effect, which we have all commented on in the past. This is related to other delusions that afflict even the smartest of us: the Plecebo effect, the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, or the Pygmalion effect: all of which are deeply ingrained into human nature. Of course the same thing applies from the "other direction", too. At this point, after all those null results, Scott must be *expecting* to get a null result in each new experiment -- at least, if he's any sort of normal human. Consequently he's more likely to be suspicious of the calorimetry, and work hard to fix it, if he's seeing an OU result than if he's seeing a null result! And that'll tend to skew his results in the "null" direction. This brings up an interesting question: Suppose for a moment that the CF results were all errors. Then, that would make me wonder -- is there some global, overarching reason why erroneous calorimetry would tend to OVERread the energy produced? And if not, if erroneous calorimetry results should be randomly distributed, *where* are all the under- unity results? With all those "bogus" results, really, half of them should have shown heat consumption, rather than heat generation! Are heat-deficit results just thrown away out of hand, as being "obviously wrong"? Or does this suggest that the extreme excess of excess heat results over heat deficits must mean there's really something there, after all?
Re: [Vo]:Shanahan was right about Energetics Tech. calorimeter
Michel, I understand that power measurements are not made while the superwave is on. The superwave is only used to load the cathode and start the reaction. Production of over 30 watts while applying less than 1 watt is so unambiguous that the ability to produce excess power is clearly proven. The issue is no longer whether excess power is produced. This has been done too many times to be doubted. The issue now is what causes it and how can the conditions be created. Ed On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Jed, Congratulations for this, admitting to being wrong is such a rare quality that it deserves a special mention, even though it should be the norm in science of course. One way to make energy balancing easier and more indisputable in those Superwave experiments would be to include the waveform amplifier in the calorimeter chamber, and make power input to that amplifier low bandwidth DC. This would put to rest the worries that have been expressed about phase errors in the i and v measurements possibly affecting input power measurement. Michel 2009/6/30 Jed Rothwell : On July 3 I ridiculed Kirk Shanahan for writing: "Dardik et al, of Energetic Technologies have slides from ICCF12 and a paper from ICCF14 (2008) posted on Rothwell's web site. In both, they show an artist's drawing of their calorimeter, which contains the thermocouples, which are designated Tcell and Tjacket. The drawing and these designations are for what is known as isoperibolic calorimetry. In the text of the ICCF14 paper, the claim to be using a flow calorimeter, but what they show is NOT that. Isoperibolic calorimetry is what F&P originally did and were criticized about in the '89 DOE review. Storms has written several times that flow calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic . . ." This refers to Fig. 1, p. 3 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf It turns out he was right. This is an isoperibolic calorimeter. I just read McKubre's paper in the book "Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook" carefully, and that is what it says. (I read it three times!) See equations 1 and 2, and: "The calorimeter is isoperibolic in the sense that two aluminum cups constitute the calorimetric boundary perimeters at constant temperature: the inner wall at temperature T4, and the outer wall at temperature T5. Separating the two boundaries is a barrier of alumina powder having a well-characterized (and constant) thermal conductivity." The term "flow calorimeter" in Fig. 3 of the Dardik paper probably refers to the fact that the water flows through the outer jacket of this cell to maintain a constant reference temperature. I think this is a problem with English. I will ask Dardik et al. The situation is complicated by the fact that two independent replications of the effect have been performed, at SRI and ENEA, and the latter definitely did employ a flow calorimeter. McKubre: "A parallel but independent set of experiments was performed at ENEA using a mass flow calorimeter and employing Energetic's superwave stimulus protocals and palladium foils fabricated by ENEA." (p. 231). I disagree with the assertion that "flow calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic." I doubt that is exactly what Storms said. It is superior in some ways; for example, it is less dependent upon calibrations. However, isoperibolic is fine as long as you have "well-characterized (and constant) thermal conductivity." I do not know anyone who has found a problem with the isoperibolic calorimeters used Fleischmann and Pons, or Miles. But both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. I think it is best to use several methods, which is what Energetics Tech., SRI and ENEA collectively have done. This is a good paper and a good book. I wish it was available on the Internet. I think it is a bad idea to publish scientific papers on paper. All scientific information should be made available free of charge to everyone on earth via the Internet. This is the philosophy of the PLoS journals (http://www.plos.org), and I agree, even though it costs publishers and some researchers income. Going back to the 17th century universal access to basic scientific information has been the goal -- or direction -- of the Royal Society and others. It has finally come to fruition with the Internet. I have copied this mea culpa to Shanahan, to what I hope is his current e-mail address. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: While what you say is true, Jed, not all vaccines are equally safe or effective, especially when it involves influenza. Absolutely! The 1976 swine flu vaccines were spectacularly ineffective and dangerous. Personally, I would rather wait to see how many people suffer from the shot and how many people get the flu before I take the risk. That's wise but unfair. If everyone did what you are doing, no one would go first. You are letting other people act as guinea pigs, taking the risk for you, like collective food tasters. Since you -- Ed Storms -- are more valuable to society than most people, I approve, but it is ethically questionable. That's an interesting approach to ethics. Everyone has a choice to be first in line or to wait until the path is more clear. For example, many serious operations had a high mortality rate initially. This was reduced by people choosing to be first, which allowed the mistakes to be corrected. Are the people who waited, provided the affliction allowed a wait, unethical? Besides, I resent the government telling me to do anything because their advice is always bad in the long run. That's a preposterous thing to say. Generally speaking, despite some well known exceptions, the U.S. government is one of the most knowledgeable, fair and effective organizations in history. Organizations such as the NIH and the CDC here in a Atlanta have made the largest and best contributions to public health in the world, bar none. The government directly invented or paid for most of the top technological breakthroughs of the 20th century in public health, and also for things such as aviation, lasers, computers and the Internet. It has done more for cold fusion than all private industry in the world combined. Here are a few of the bigger lies. The government said that invading Iraq was necessary and people should join the military to protect the country. This was a lie and over 4000 of the people who took this advice are dead and many more are handicapped for life. The government said that people should spend as much as possible and they would get richer by taking out the equity in their homes by assuming larger mortgages. This was a lie and now many of these people are homeless. The government has said that drilling for oil offshore and in the Alaska wilderness is the best way to solve the energy problem. This was a lie. Now we are in a no win situation where oil is too expensive for the average person and too cheap to justify further drilling. It remains to be seen how many of the statements about the economic recovery are also lies. Meanwhile people are investing as if a recovery is underway based on government information. Even the claimed unemployment rate is a lie. I could go on, but you can see that some really big lies, along with many smaller ones I have ignored, have been told. As for the US being " one of the most knowledgeable, fair and effective organizations in history", I need only remind you that it was the failure of the US government to control the financial system in the US that has caused the greatest loss of wealth in the history of mankind and the process is not finished. The consequences of this monumental incompetence are slowing developing and will be catastrophic. The US government has some good points, but it also has some really bad characteristics. No government is perfect, but the evaluation must rest on how the actions of the government affect its citizens and the world. The US government talks a good line, but its actions leave a lot to be desired. But, I need to stop because this is politics and is a forbidden subject here. Ed Of course the DoE has been dysfunctional with regard to cold fusion, but nowhere near as dysfunctional as, say, General Motors, General Electric or Hitachi. These corporations should have invested hundreds of billions in cold fusion by now, but as far as I know they have done nothing. People say they are only following the lead of the DoE and the APS, but they pay no attention to the DoE with regard to things like plasma fusion, so I do not think we can blame their inaction with regard to cold fusion on the DoE. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
While what you say is true, Jed, not all vaccines are equally safe or effective, especially when it involves influenza. In my case, I got a flu shot a few years ago and suffered from a sore shoulder for months and still got the flu. I find that certain natural immune enhances and antiviral potions work well and make the flu much easer to take. The issue in the present case is the unproven effectiveness and safely of the vaccine because it is being rushed into production. Personally, I would rather wait to see how many people suffer from the shot and how many people get the flu before I take the risk. Besides, I resent the government telling me to do anything because their advice is always bad in the long run. Ed On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: John Berry wrote: Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern . . . Influenza is always a concern. It kills 30,000 to 50,000 people in a normal year, and ~200,000 when a relatively new variety appears. This one is likely to kill far more than the usual number, especially younger people. Fortunately it probably evolved from a human variety that went to pigs and then came back, so it is not too bad. A variety that humans have not been exposed to, such as the 1918 influenza, kills far more people. The 1918 epidemic killed roughly twice as many people as World War I did, including many more healthy young people than normal. The proximate cause of death was an allergic reaction that was far more powerful in healthy young people than elderly people. If the H1N1 virus has this same tendency, which still seems likely, it would be prudent to stock up unusually large numbers of vaccines. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. "A certain amount of human wastage" is expected. As Lawrence de Bivort pointed out, this is nonsense, and this message is propaganda. I doubt any expert mentioned "human wastage" but all experts know that all vaccines always carry some risk. Indeed, all medical interventions of any kind have some level of risk, including treatment for hangnails. Every vaccine kills or disables some number of people, but the number is far lower than the number who would die without the vaccine. If you are at risk for serious influenza it is highly irrational not to get the vaccine. This is like saying you will drive 600 miles rather than taking an airplane because airplanes sometime crash. They do, of course, but the fatality rate per passenger mile is far lower than for cars. I wasn't kidding about hangnails. You have to fill in medical forms saying you will not sue if the local anesthetic kills or disables you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
How do they plan to enforce delivery of the vaccine? Personally, the police would have to come to my door and restrain me. How about you? Ed On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:20 PM, John Berry wrote: I don't think this can be considered political as no one votes for the UN or WHO and it's a health warning not a discussion or about political view points. Short version, Swine Flu is not especially deadly and compared to the numbers killed by regular flu it isn't a concern especially as large numbers have been infected and recovered and like the normal flu it is only those who have compromised immune systems that have died apparently. Baxter, the company making a vaccine that will seemingly be forced on people: According to the Centers for Disease Control, there will be no exemptions. "A certain amount of human wastage" is expected. And They were recently caught putting live viruses in vaccines. The ingredients of vaccines and risks associated with many are bad enough but this looks very bad. As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic. Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioterrorism.html
Re: [Vo]:Lederman still wrong
Perhaps someone can contact this person and advise him to do a little homework about the subject before he embarrasses himself further. Ed On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an article published in the future (dated July 4, 2009): http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44816/title/Intel_ISEF_Discussion_Panel Leon M. Lederman is quoted: "It’s a curious question because if something that you expected to be right turns out not to be right, what you do is roll up your sleeves and fix it. Whenever there is something that goes wrong in science and it goes wrong: There’s lessons like cold fusion and so on where scientists went completely wrong, and it was too bad because we were faced with the possibilities of limitless cheap power and it was all wrong and the scientists found out that it was wrong." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dateline: 2013
Nicely done and very near the truth, but with this additional information that recently came to light. "Further analysis reveals that the first use of cold fusion was in China where it helped the government off set the collapse in the dollar in 2010 by reducing the country's use of oil. This secret program was not known to the world at the time and now explains why the use of oil by China abruptly dropped and continues to decline. At the same time, the use of oil by the US and the West continued to rise until the final economic collapse in 2013 when the success of the Chinese was finally discovered." Ed On Jun 21, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Chris Zell wrote: There are many reasons why the dollar and the US economy collapsed in 2013. Historians offer many opinions on the chain of events that led to the Federal government defaulting on its debt. However, one factor is widely agreed upon: The sudden emergence of "Cold Fusion" - while hailed as progress in the global warming fight - caused economic collapse in utilities and the use and trade balance related export of coal as a triggering event. It did little, however, to reduce massive US imports of oil which kept weakening an already fragile currency because the generation of more electricity was not generally related to transportation or chemical feedstocks. Looking back on the event and the worldwide depression we now live in, at least global warming has declined as a threat due to the massive drop in fossil energy use now associated with global poverty.
Re: [Vo]:beyond critical
On Jun 21, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Speaking of how politics and energy overlap... Here is a "supercritical" way that the DoE could reduce natural gas usage significantly: http://www.r744.com/knowledge/faq/files/ecocute_all.pdf Why aren't we doing this here, or even talking about it? A very good question, Jones. I suggest another answer beside the one you offer exists. The US population, which increasingly is asked to set policy, is either too ignorant of the issues or is fighting with each other over ideological issues. For example, even this list is uninterested in discussing the political issues that influence how decisions are made. Any approach that can be called socialism immediately generates an emotional response by a few people, which is enough to stop the discussion. Any approach that suggests the system needs to be guided by adult supervision is viewed as a threat to capitalism. As a result, the powerful industries set policy while the rest of us fight among ourselves. This worked great until the financial industry bought permission from Congress to maximize their profit, which totally screwed up the system. This event made a change necessary. This change has become especially important because many "scientific" solutions are available to solve our problems, but they won't be implemented simply because this would reduce the profit or influence of a powerful lobby. Instead, we discuss these solutions here as if we were actually doing something useful when, in fact, the science is not usually the reason the ideas are not used. I find this situation very frustrating and hope other people share this feeling. Ed Answer: the natural gas lobby is rich and powerful, but even more importantly - few American manufacturers could be competitive using US labor to build the units, and since we do not want to import them, and sent dollars to Asia - which would mean a net loss of our jobs, then this will probably never happen here.
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
The garage researcher can get into the act anytime. In fact, most of us at the margins of the professional community, as you say, were garage men initially. My only point was that garage men will not contribute much to an understanding of the process. Later, when engineering improvements need to be made, the garage might be a useful laboratory. Ed On Jun 19, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fringe To avoid making yourself ill with worry, let me add a bit of optimism. Cold fusion has left the garage level of research and entered the level of a well funded laboratory. This is progress. The theory has left the amateur level of ideas and entered the level of the trained professional. This is also progress. This is similar to the development of all technologies. You would not consider developing a commercial airliner in your basement or be able to contribute to an understanding or aeronautical engineering would you? All the *progress* to date has occured at the professional level, even if it has been conducted at the margins of the professional community. I am waiting for progress to emerge at the "garage level of research". Harry
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
This might be something KivaLabs could try, Frank. We are using radio frequency for other purposes, which would make this use relatively simple. However, since PdD is a conductor, the RF would induce a current of that frequency in the metal surface. The interior where diffusion occurs would see no effect. This might be a problem. I expect a lower frequency would probably be necessary to influence the interior of the diffusion barrier. Ed On Jun 19, 2009, at 1:43 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Ed, this super-diffuser idea could lead to a good experiement to test the Bose condensate idea. The coherence length at thermal frequencies is 50nm. Assuming the product that I get applies to this system 1.094 megahertz-meters, the coherence length should be longer with radio frequency stimulation. At 10 mega hertz of stimulation the co-herence length should be .1 meters. The rate of diffusion should increase when a proton conduction of this length is stimualted at that frequency. If I were not on the road, living in a hotel in Knoxville, and here working on CO2 capture, I would try this. Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 10:28 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fringe This is a nice imaginative theory described in the article, Frank, but it does not prove that Bose Condensates of hydrogen exist. In fact, such structure should show up as anomalies in diffusion, which they do not. If a structure containing H(D) can move through the lattice without resistance, the material should also become a super- diffuser, which it is not. In addition, PdD is superconducting in the normal way at about 10°K, not at room temperature where the BC structures have to exist to be useful for CF. I still see no evidence that these structures exist in PdD. Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
This is a nice imaginative theory described in the article, Frank, but it does not prove that Bose Condensates of hydrogen exist. In fact, such structure should show up as anomalies in diffusion, which they do not. If a structure containing H(D) can move through the lattice without resistance, the material should also become a super-diffuser, which it is not. In addition, PdD is superconducting in the normal way at about 10°K, not at room temperature where the BC structures have to exist to be useful for CF. I still see no evidence that these structures exist in PdD. Ed On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:08 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: try this link Ed..there is a lot out there on proton superconductivity if you care to look http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624984.400-superconductors-have-no-need-to-be-negative.html -Original Message- From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 9:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fringe Ed you need to search for "Heavy Fermion Superconductivity" to find out what the non-cold fusion community is doing with proton superconductions. Several people have suggested that a Bose Condensate is involved. I have trouble with this concept because these structures are expected to have very low bonding energy, hence have been observed only near absolute zero. In addition, such a structure based on hydrogen is still pure speculation. This structure, if it is possible, obviously forms only under very rare and special conditions within the CF environment. What are these conditions and why are they necessary? If such a structure should form, how do I get it to vibrate exactly at the right frequency? Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349 Dell Inspiron 15: Now starting at $349
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
Let me see if I can explain what you are saying in your paper. 1. You accept that Planck's constant describes the energy of photons. 2. You propose that your constant describes the geometry (size) of the emitting structure. 3. You assume the size of the photon is given by rp, as defined in Equation 1, which relates energy to centrifugal force of an electron in a circular orbit having a radius of rp. Since rp has different dimensions in different quantum states within atomic orbits, the size of the photon is also variable in a quantum way based on your approach. 4. You then calculate the gravitational field Einstein would expect to result from this force. You lost me at this point. A gravitational field induces a force, not the other way around. The force you have calculated in Equation 1 is a centrifugal force, which does not have any detectable gravity associated with it when it is produce in the normal world. Are you proposing that gravity, as we know it, is produced by the motion of electrons in their atomic orbits? Ed On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:13 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Answer:? Construct an inverse Bose condensate of protons and vibrate that condensate at a frequency determined by the dimensional constant of 1.094 megahertz-meters. How do we do this?Must and inverse Bose condensate have mobile protons? Will phonon vibrations within the lattice provide enough mobility? I don’t know. There must be energy levels with the condensate. The difference between the energy level must equal the energy required to spin bond two protons. What is this ene rgy?I do know the frequency. Its determined by the megahertz-meter relationship. Perhaps the delta E can be extracted from the frequency. How are these energy levels established, I don’t know. Can the reaction be simulated on a much large scale (lower frequency) with a mechanical apparatus? Perhaps this is ball lightning. I tried to do this and failed. Perhaps all of these details will become clear. As for now they are hazy. Frank Z -Original Message- From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2009 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fringe However, I would like to know, based on your model, exactly which kinds of atoms and how I need to arrange them in a solid or living cell to cause a nuclear reaction to be initiated Answer: Construct an inverse Bose condensate of protons and vibrate that condensate at a frequency determined by the dimensional constant of 1.094 megahertz-meters. , i.e. how the Coulomb barrier is overcome. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. Answer: The range of the strong nuclear force is extended beyond the range of the coulombic. This is done in a di-force field medium that consists of a vibrating Bose condensate. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. The energy is downshifted. This knowledge will allow for cold fusion device that emit energy in the radio frequency band. I have been trying to do this. If you can answer these questions without too many assumptions, I would be interested. Thank you Ed. Cold fusion is a small part of what I put forward. I have derived the energy levels of the hydrogen as a condition of electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic accessibility. I have applied this vibrating Bose condensate thing to the hydrogen atom. Many things come out of the analysis, such as; It explains why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus. Quantum physics can be built on a structure of the stationary quantum states de fined by Plancks constant.. I have shown quantum physics can be built on a structure defined by the velocity of transitional quantum state. This velocity = the fine c/twice the fine structure constant. So what is the big deal? I have just rearranged known values. The big deal is that the transitional velocity is a classical constant. It is set by the velocity at which disturbances propagate within the electron. Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday! Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:15 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Several people have suggested that a Bose Condensate is involved. I have trouble with this concept because these structures are expected to have very low bonding energy, hence have been observed only near absolute zero. In addition, such a structure based on hydrogen is still pure speculation. This structure, if it is possible, obviously forms only under very rare and special conditions within the CF environment. What are these conditions and why are they necessary? If such a structure should form, how do I get it to vibrate exactly at the right frequency? You have missed a point. It is not an electronic Bose condensate. It is a protonic inverse Bose condensate. The massive protons travel at much lower thermal velocities. The bonding between the slow moving protons takes place at room temperatures. Then, I assume you are proposing a novel structure. Do you know of any evidence that such structures exist in hydrogen containing materials? I have never seen this idea applied to explaining any property of PdD. The strength of the phonons that bind the protons can be reinforced with external stimualtion. This is the link between cold fusion, the electronic atomic structure, and the transtional velocity. I'm not sure why mobile protons are requied. Perhaps it is not, it may be its the spacing of the protons that matters. That could lead us down the path to new materials. I agree, the NAE is a new material. However, this realization is not very helpful without knowing something about this uniqueness other than that it initiates nuclear reactions. Answer: The range of the strong nuclear force is extended beyond the range of the coulombic. This is done in a di-force field medium that consists of a vibrating Bose condensate. This is circular reasoning, so I'm still looking for an answer. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. It is not. The only way to avoid an transtional energy emission is to extend the range of the nuclear forces beyond the coumbolic. Yes, this is obvious. This occures within the bounds of the nuclear active environment. Again, this is obvious. The strength of the nuclear force also deceses with increasing range. This is well known. The range of a force field is not a conserved property of the universe. I don't know what you mean by this statement. We used to know only how to modifiy the range of the electromagnetic; with a dielectric, We now know modify the range of all of the force field. It process effects the gravity also. Stong local gravitomagentic fields can be generated. This is a major new understanding. not a circular argumant. Making obvious statements and then reaching the expected conclusion is circular. I would like to know exactly, based on your model, how strong local gravitomagentic fields can be generated, for example. I get the impression you hope your model will eventually provide these answers, but right now you have no idea how to make the expected results happen. This is ok and is a limitation of most models. I'm just trying to find out if you have taken your model to the next level beyond the imagination. Ed Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
Thanks for the preprint Frank. Unfortunately some of the equations are not visible, no doubt because I use a Mac. On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:08 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: However, I would like to know, based on your model, exactly which kinds of atoms and how I need to arrange them in a solid or living cell to cause a nuclear reaction to be initiated Answer: Construct an inverse Bose condensate of protons and vibrate that condensate at a frequency determined by the dimensional constant of 1.094 megahertz-meters. Several people have suggested that a Bose Condensate is involved. I have trouble with this concept because these structures are expected to have very low bonding energy, hence have been observed only near absolute zero. In addition, such a structure based on hydrogen is still pure speculation. This structure, if it is possible, obviously forms only under very rare and special conditions within the CF environment. What are these conditions and why are they necessary? If such a structure should form, how do I get it to vibrate exactly at the right frequency? , i.e. how the Coulomb barrier is overcome. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. Answer: The range of the strong nuclear force is extended beyond the range of the coulombic. This is done in a di-force field medium that consists of a vibrating Bose condensate. This is circular reasoning, so I'm still looking for an answer. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. The energy is downshifted. This knowledge will allow for cold fusion device that emit energy in the radio frequency band. I have been trying to do this. You are proposing more than downshifting. You are proposing the 24 MeV is converted instantly to a large collection of photons by some process. What is this process? Why does the photon energy reside in the RF band and not in the optical or X-ray regions? In addition, energetic particles are in fact observed. Why? If you can answer these questions without too many assumptions, I would be interested. Thank you Ed. Cold fusion is a small part of what I put forward. I have derived the energy levels of the hydrogen as a condition of electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic accessibility. I have applied this vibrating Bose condensate thing to the hydrogen atom. Many things come out of the analysis, such as; It explains why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus. I agree, you apply your idea to several problems. However, in each case I suggest you need to answer questions having similar detail and relationship to observation. Without these answers, your model is just another of many exercises in imagination. Ed Quantum physics can be built on a structure of the stationary quantum states defined by Plancks constant.. I have shown quantum physics can be built on a structure defined by the velocity of transitional quantum state. This velocity = the fine c/twice the fine structure constant. So what is the big deal? I have just rearranged known values. The big deal is that the transitional velocity is a classical constant. It is set by the velocity at which disturbances propagate within the electron. Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
Well Frank, such ideas have value only when they show why and how most observed behaviors occur and how to make the behavior occur more consistently and at higher levels. All theories I know about met only a small fraction of this requirement. If you can have better success in this requirement, your theory will have value. Most theories are useful guides and do suggest useful approaches, but the use of assumptions to allow the data to be fit, i.e. to allow a claim to be made for predictions of behavior, greatly reduces the value. If I understand your approach, you use conventional and accepted theory to arrive at a new constant, which you assume is as fundamental as Planck's constant. You claim that the logic associated with this constant allows you to make novel predictions. You may be right. However, I would like to know, based on your model, exactly which kinds of atoms and how I need to arrange them in a solid or living cell to cause a nuclear reaction to be initiated, i.e. how the Coulomb barrier is overcome. Also, I would like to know how the resulting energy is dissipated without producing significant radiation. If you can answer these questions without too many assumptions, I would be interested. Ed On Jun 18, 2009, at 9:06 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: The theory has left the amateur level of ideas and entered the level of the trained professional. This is also progress Ed So, individually, we stand almost no chance of contributing anything to cold fusion, nor has any particularly practical way been conceived to power a vehicle with it.(??!) Not so I am an amateur and I am going to add to the new understanding produced by this process. My introduction to be published by IE. in sept. Max Planck’s constant qualifies the angular momentum of the stationary atomic state.9 The path of the transitional quantum state has been unknown. Albert Einstein described the energy of a photon with Planck’s constant.3 Niels Bohr applied these ideas to the atomic structure. Bohr’s quantum condition states that the angular momentum carried by a stationary atomic orbit is a multiple of Planck’s constant.2 The quantization of angular momentum is a postulate, underivable from deeper law. Its validity depends on the agreement with experimental spectra. Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger extended these ideas and qualified the intensity of a spectral emission. These great scientists found that the frequency and the amplitude of the emitted photon is a function of the differential in energy through which the electron drops. The frequency and amplitude of a classical wave is that of the emitter. The correspondence principle was invented in an attempt to explain this discrepancy. It states the frequency and amplitude of a classical system is equivalent to the energy drop within a quantum system. These constructs form the foundation of modern physics. The structure built upon this foundation considers the classical regime to be a subset of the quantum realm. Frank Znidarsic’s constant Vt qualifies the velocity of the transitional quantum state. The transitional velocity is coupled with a frequency and a displacement. The energy levels of the atom were shown, in the body of this paper, to be a condition of the transitional frequency. The intensity of spectral emission was shown to be a function of the transitional amplitude. The action of the transitional quantum state replaces the principle of quantum correspondence. An extension of this work would universally swap Planck’s and Znidarsic’s constants. There would have to be a compelling reason make this change as it would confound the scientific community. There are two good reasons for doing so. Velocity is a classical parameter. The structure built upon this foundation considers the quantum regime to be a subset of the classical realm. Znidarsic’s constant describes the progression of an energy flow. An understanding of this progression may lead to the development of many new technologies. Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday!
Re: [Vo]:Fringe
To avoid making yourself ill with worry, let me add a bit of optimism. Cold fusion has left the garage level of research and entered the level of a well funded laboratory. This is progress. The theory has left the amateur level of ideas and entered the level of the trained professional. This is also progress. This is similar to the development of all technologies. You would not consider developing a commercial airliner in your basement or be able to contribute to an understanding or aeronautical engineering would you? The field is growing in spite of such people as Robert Park, who is only a visible member of a group of people who fight all new ideas simply because they have such limited imaginations. These people represent one of the characteristics of the human mind that has evolved as a defense from the other extreme that wants change without bothering to consider the consequences. Ed On Jun 18, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: So, individually, we stand almost no chance of contributing anything to cold fusion, nor has any particularly practical way been conceived to power a vehicle with it.(??!) Many of us have to worry about having any savings, job or retirement at all, much less hundreds of thousands for a professional lab. Is there any point to discussing cold fusion? Was Parksie right in a practical way, that it's just a curiosity? Where's my Prozac?
Re: [Vo]:High altitude wind power
On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:05 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Jed: Latest info. See: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/highaltitudewindpower/ High Altitude wind power generation is indeed an intriguing concept. According to this article: Startups like KiteGen, Sky Windpower, Magenn, and Makani (Google’s secretive fundee) have come into the space over the last several years, and they seem to be working on much shorter timelines. “We are not that far from working prototypes,” Archer said, though she noted that the companies are all incredibly secretive about the data from their testing. Without question this is a topic worthy of vortex-l discussion! I seem to recall Ed Storms once commenting on this topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I gathered Ed thought the logistics of constructing high altitude wind farms was simply be too impractical. You are right. This is a really bad idea, in the same category of putting solar cells in orbit and beaming the energy to the ground using lasers or microwaves. People love imaginative ideas, which keep many people occupied in such discussion groups as this one. Unfortunately, the ideas will never be implemented either because they are impractical or are, to pardon the expression, not political. Ed I don't know what to think about this matter other than it intrigues the hell out of me. Being able to tap into the huge reservoir of high altitude wind that can easily exceed speeds of 100 mph is certainly something to consider. I also gather high altitude wind speeds tend to be more consistent day in and day out. On the down side, one can only imagine the horror of watching an ugly cold front suddenly move across the surface of a high altitude wind farm, a front loaded with shattering bolts of deadly lightning. Ok, Ben... go on out there with your key and see if you can get a spark off one of those cables. I would hope that these aspects of Nature have been taken into consideration in the design of POCs. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.
I suggest a public discussion stops when anyone objects. Following the objection, anyone who wishes to continue the discussion privately can make their wish known publicly. These people would be put on the cc of the private exchange. If no one makes such a request, the discussion stops. Of course, anyone would be free to contact the person who made the off-topic comment initially and continue the discussion by private e-mail, but without additional contributors. I'm sure this is done often, but I'm suggesting this method be acknowledged formally as a way to satisfy the requirements of the list. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Ed: While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best discussed in private with the people who are interested. I suggest if a a subject comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like to explore the idea further make their wish known so that the discussion can move to private e-mail involving each interested person without having to get involved with another list or cause consternation to people who are not interested. How does this sound? Sounds sensible to me. In fact, I'm sure we do this all the time! I guess the 64 dollar question might be: How one might go about determining if the subject matter being discussed (and also being considered for private exchange) would be of general interest to others or not. I think I'm being nit picky here... Probably not that big of a deal. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.
While I agree with your basic point, I agree some things are best discussed in private with the people who are interested. I suggest if a a subject comes up that is not of general interest, the people who would like to explore the idea further make their wish known so that the discussion can move to private e-mail involving each interested person without having to get involved with another list or cause consternation to people who are not interested. How does this sound? Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:23 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Alexander and Ed: Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be handled without Bill having to get involved at all. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or stop completely. Ed, didn't you unsubscribe from [VoB]? This is precisely why I brought up my original suggestion: Is it possible to make available a safe and supportive environment where OT discussions CAN be worked out, be allowed to flourish in peace. I would argue that [VoB] is an unacceptable environment. [VoB] has turned into a cesspool where trolls are allowed to thrive and trash the place with impunity. Why should such relevant OT discussions be relegated to the back of the bus? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.
Sorry, you are absolutely right. I suggest this is the way the list can be handled without Bill having to get involved at all. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: And at this point, this part of the conversation should move to B or stop completely. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find normal? Of course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency of these characteristics. In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall. Insanity has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is only that Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be changed by rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very characteristic pattern of behavior. While more information is needed to discover if he is physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his harm in the circumstance we experienced is obvious. Of course, he might just be a jerk who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather treat him as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions. I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets to be too much without forcing a total ban on both. I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging. If one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior. Ed Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.
How do you know this? What aspect of his behavior to you find normal? Of course everyone has quarks. The issue is the degree and consistency of these characteristics. In addition, I'm using this word as a catchall. Insanity has many characteristics too numerous to discuss here. My point is only that Grok does not show normal behavior in that his reality cannot be changed by rational discussion and he shows an addiction to a very characteristic pattern of behavior. While more information is needed to discover if he is physically harmful to himself and others, the usual concern, his harm in the circumstance we experienced is obvious. Of course, he might just be a jerk who likes to cause trouble. Even if this is true, I would rather treat him as if he were insane, which simplifies dealing with him. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions. I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets to be too much without forcing a total ban on both. I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging. If one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior. Ed Grok may be unflattering and annoying but he is not insane. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Discussion/Debate: Creating [VoT] to handle OT discussions.
I agree with John, managing and contributing to one list is hard enough without adding to the problem by using multiple lists. Most people on this list are adults and should be able to agree on something so simple as when political or religious discussion gets to be too much without forcing a total ban on both. I find the effect that Grok had on this group to be discouraging. If one insane person can cause such turmoil on such a small scale to intelligent people, I rest my case about the damage they do to the world in general and the need to understand this type of behavior. Ed On Jun 16, 2009, at 8:54 AM, John Berry wrote: 3 lists, that would just be unmanageable. Better is a rule of thumb, politics should be allowed as long as it is strictly on topic politics that isn't causing a problem, otherwise as with any other off topic subject it ought to go to B. Not to mention the cost of running an extra list to Bill. Anyway if a political portion of an on topic post causes the entire post needing to be posted to a different list that's a mess too. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Recent debates about the need to stay more focused on on-topic scientific related discussions within vortex-l prime [Vo] have raised the hackles of certain participants, and might I mention here that some of those individuals who have expressed their concerns are considered respected long-term heavy weights. I would like to propose that, if it is within Mr. Beaty's power (and desire) to do so, he might create another alternative vortex list, a new and improved OFF TOPIC Vortex-LoT list group, one where the subject line is prefixed with: [VoT]. I would like to suggest several useful reasons why it might be useful to do so: (A) It would take the tension off maintaining the purity of discussing scientific-only subject material within [Vo] prime. If certain long-term discussions (as many naturally tend to do) begin evolving and splitting off into matters concerning politics and/or religion or perhaps something else entirely [Vo] participants can quickly state, Hey, we're beginning to get off-topic here, it's time to move this particularly thread over to [VoT] where those who are still interested can resume lively discussions. (B) I am suggesting the creation of a new and improved off-topic Vortex list where ETIQUETTE RULES ARE APPLIED in the same manner they are followed within Vortex-l prime. IMO, Vortex-b [VoB] is NOT a fair and/or healthy environment for the discussion of off-topic subject material that may have originated within Vortex-l prime. There ARE no rules for maintaining any semblance of etiquette within VoB. It's my understanding that that is precisely why VoB was created in the first place, so that anyone who felt the need to engage in verbal fist fights could do so without any fear of reprisals from Mr. Beaty, the god of Vortex-l. Unfortunately, and IMHO, the fallout of such stop-gap measures is that [VoB] is NOT a healthy environment for the discussion of lively and/or spirited OT subjects. [VoB] has instead transformed into a perfect breading ground for the attraction of all sorts of despicable troll personas who will implant themselves and begin advertising their services. [VoB] has transformed into a cesspool filled with vitriol. Not surprisingly many who would have wanted to continue discussing serious and creative OT subjects that might have originated as "scientific" discussion in [Vo] are loath to discuss matters within [VoB]. They have unsubscribed from [VoB], and so have I. (C) Another point is that for many vortex-l individuals there almost seems to be a negative stigma attached to the discussion of OT subject material. It's as if OT discussions are almost considered second-class material, that they are beneath vortex-l, that such discussions are second-tier and don't deserve the same rights of etiquette or protection that those who wish to engage in pure scientific discussion. This is a form of prejudice and not a very fair one IMHO. Granted this may NOT actually be what most feel about the discussion of OT subjects, but I think it's a legitimate perception and a concern. (D) The point of creating [VoT] would be to create a good, strong and healthy environment for the discussion of OT subjects that may have originated within [Vo] but are now no longer precisely defined in scientific terms. Such OT discussions should IMHO still be able to enjoy the same rights and protections that vortex-l prime participants enjoy. Therefore, I would like to propose that if it is at all feasible for Mr. Beaty to create an alternative Off Topic List groups, the Vortex-LoT group [VoT] where Off-Topic discussions can be discussed but with the same degree of net etiquette, civility, and protections granted to those within vortex-l prime. Granted, and this should be obvious to many, [VoT] discussions are likely to occasionally get a tad more lively, and possibly even c
Re: [Vo]:Th e "SNIP" of Jed.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Edmund Storms wrote: Kyle, in the absence of Jed, I feel it's my duty to educate about cold fusion. If you want to know what has been learned up to 2007, I suggest you read my book "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction". If you want to learn what is going on now, I suggest you go to www. LENR.org. Alright, I will put your book on my reading list. It will take some time, however, as I already promised Jed I will read his book. But I will get to it. The field is growing rapidly and the effect is getting much more reproducible. In addition, money is actually going into the efforts from private sources. This is good to hear. If there is something actually going on, more power to it then. Active discussion about the subject has moved to the CMNS discussion group where you would discover a lively interest not handicapped by trolls. So when you say, "The thing is roughly as dead as it was years ago", you are not up to date. What is CMNS? This stands for "condensed matter nuclear science" which is the catchall description now being applied to the phenomenon. Ed --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Th e "SNIP" of Jed.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Mike Carrell wrote: There is no 'try to understand' of many of the caustic things he's said about workers and the average man. Now everyone is going to try and candy coat things. I'm sorry, try someone else, this is not going to gloss over what has been posted and IS IN THE ARCHIVES. I haven't done anything to advance CF that I know of, and as far as I can see, there is no cause to advance. The thing is roughly as dead as it was years ago, and still no one can heat a cup of tea for someone. There are other things to be done to benefit humanity, this is not the save all and end all of everything. Where have _you_ been when I suggested things to look into as far as scientific research goes? Kyle, in the absence of Jed, I feel it's my duty to educate about cold fusion. If you want to know what has been learned up to 2007, I suggest you read my book "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction". If you want to learn what is going on now, I suggest you go to www. LENR.org. The field is growing rapidly and the effect is getting much more reproducible. In addition, money is actually going into the efforts from private sources. Active discussion about the subject has moved to the CMNS discussion group where you would discover a lively interest not handicapped by trolls. So when you say, "The thing is roughly as dead as it was years ago", you are not up to date. Ed --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Politics and 'politics'....
I agree with the view expressed here by Lawrence. In addition, this is a group of individuals who like to get to know each other while they discussion the scientific ideas. This social interaction is important and I would like to have it accepted as a normal part of these communications. Of course, once a person has been identified as not using this interaction for the intended purpose, i.e. being a troll, such interaction should be immediately stopped here and continued in private, if that is necessary. Also, a little political and/or religious discussion helps spice up the exchange if it is done without personal attack while providing unique information about the subjects. The people on this site have some important ideas that I have enjoyed learning. I would hate to see this stopped completely just because certain rules must be followed exactly. Ed On Jun 15, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: It seems to me that there are, for our purposes here, two very different "politics." There is political commentary dealing with the world at large. Sometimes it is informed commentary, sometimes it is rant, and sometimes it is mere labeling and insult. And then there is the 'politics' of CF, or other technologies/science. If CF has been preoccupied over the last 20 years with anything, it is the political dimension of how it recovers from a false linguistic and professional start, how it reestablishes itself within the normal world of science, how it finds funding and manages its overall evolution, how it attracts additional scientists and labs, and how it presents itself to the functions of governance, venture capital, and the general public. I would guess that the CF community here in Vortex-l would like to be able to discuss the political aspects of CF per se, and I would like to seek clarification of this from William Beaty. Is my interpretation of what is and what is not acceptable here, correct? Regards to all, Lawrence
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
Well stated Steven! Jed makes people think by making informed arguments, some of which I also do not share. Apparently his style is painful to some people, I'm sorry to discover. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Hi Kyle, Regarding my previous response: Kyle sez: From: Mark Iverson Hey Jed, time to go take a vacation and get some R&R... Go climb a mountain with your kids. By the time you get back, Bill will have ended the ban...you won't even know it was in effect! Better yet, he can contemplate the error of telling people how they should live their lives, and come down off his high horse. Hopefully none of this will happen again, since Bill has thankfully banned religious/ political topics. Really? That's your impression of Jed? I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of "...telling people how they should live their lives". While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. It's my understanding that Jed, as the result of making several prudent career choices in his life, is now in the rare position of having achieved a level of financial independents most of us can only dream of. Jed now has the luxury of being able to spend a great deal of his personal resources on causes he believes in passionately like supporting alternative energy, especially Cold Fusion. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive "reactionaries" as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what "reactionaries" have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. I think what ticked me off, and what caused me to post such an impulsive response to your statement was that in my view Jed was unfairly banned for quoting a statement that was actually made by a Washington Post reviewer. The WP reviewer expressed a personal opinion/view of what could happen to the Middle East if Cold Fusion were to become a practical economical reality. Jed went on to state his OWN counter-views on the subject (which he cc'd to vortex-l) as follows: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti- western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Apparently, Jed got banned because, technically speaking, he broke Mr. Beaty's temporary ban of posting political (and religious) statements. I don't dispute that fact. I also realize that technically speaking I am deliberately disobeying Mr. Beaty's temporary ban by deliberately posting additional political commentary on Vortex-l as well. Mr. Beaty is perfectly in his right to ban me. I have done so because I felt it was more important, in this particular case, to help clear up what I thought might exist certain misconceptions. I also don't think it was fair to Jed, and have more than once offered myself as a "prisoner exchange" if it would help get Jed reinstated back into Vortex-l more quickly. Call it an act of civil disobedience. ;-) Therefore, before I am personally banned as well, I ask you: Kyle: Where in these statements that apparently earned Jed a temporary time-out did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell is telling other people how to live their lives? Where in these statements that Jed made did you come to the conclusion th
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Revives Coal-Fired Power Plant (FutureGen)
Unfortunately, here is were politics get into the act and this is why politics need to be discussed if any sense is to be made of the energy problem. The US will not and cannot give up the use of coal. Too many jobs are at risk and the material supplies too much energy that cannot be replaced rapidly. The other energy sources you suggest will gradually take the place of coal. Meanwhile, the government has to make political points by pandering to the coal industry. The country is locked into many political approaches, both energy as well as foreign policy (i.e. Israel), that cannot be changed without overwhelming objection, regardless of the advantages. Once a country starts down a path based on irrational beliefs, it is doomed. We started on this path about 10 years ago with respect to outsourcing of manufacturing, energy sources, banking policy, and Middle East policies. There is no turning back until the resulting pain gets so bad that changes must be made. We are not there yet, but these times are rapidly approaching. The only defense is to be located, both physically and financially, in a safe place. Science is not going to solve this problem because it takes too long to be implemented. We have run out of time. Anything we do now is simply like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic while debating how the ship should have been better designed. As the ship gets lower in the water, you will hear the debate getting louder and louder, but with the obvious consequence. The people who are not yelling at each other are spending their energy finding life boats. Sorry to be so depressing, but these are the times we are experiencing. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: "The Department of Energy committed yesterday to spend $1 billion in economic stimulus funds to restart plans for a controversial coal- fired power plant that promises to capture 60 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions and trap them underground." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202120.html?hpid=sec-nation http://tinyurl.com/m228mq What a waste of a billion dollars. Carbon dioxide gas left in that form will eventually reappear, and it will be even more difficult to clean up then. A more promising technology might be a vast solar plus oil burner power plant complex, where a cellulose containing algoil (algae minus water) slurry is produced and burned in a pure oxygen environment so as to produce pure CO2 for feeding the algae. The nitrogen byproduct can then, in part at least, be used to combine with hydrogen to produce ammonia products. I think research on ways to produce building materials (replacing wood for example) from coal might be more productive for the economy long term. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
You are right, John, and I severely simplified the definition to save time for me and the readers who might not be interested. Insanity takes many forms just as physical dysfunction takes many forms, some of which are not harmful and can be interesting under certain conditions. The challenge is to be able to identify the harmful versions and take appropriate action. And yes, a large fraction of the population is insane by even the conventional definition. These people are only kept in check by the actions of normal society. As we have seen in some countries, these people are set loose to do their damage when normal society breaks down or is led by the insane. This has nothing to do with politics of the left or right. Both versions can be used by the insane to do their damage. The essential skill is to recognize when the message is being delivered by a dysfunctional individual and avoid believing anything the person says no matter whether you agree or not. This is hard to do especially when the insane person expounds a religious or political belief you also believe. You need to separate the message from the messenger because sooner or later the message will take a path away from reality into insanity. You don't want to be on board when this happens. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:05 AM, John Berry wrote: Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more insane than sane. At least reason/evidence seems to dictate how a minority view reality. Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of "normal" not in his logic but in his hostility. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? You raise an interesting point, Alexander. What exactly is political discussion and why is it considered something to be avoided? At the risk of engaging in the banned subject, please let me offer some opinions. These days, any discussion involving ideas about the relationship between groups of people having different ideas seems to be considered politics, which generates an emotional reaction in some people. This emotional reaction is encouraged by the different groups each using words that are designed to vilify other groups. Many people seem to have lost the ability to discuss our differences without using these concepts and the resulting negative emotion. I suggest the flaw is not in the discussion of politics but in the way it is commonly done by some people. Personally, I find the political insights occasionally offered by people in this group very informative, while immediately deleting the less interesting comments. My wish is that the discussion, no matter the subject, be kept on a high plane so that we can lean from each other rather than being pissed off. I think that Jed's comments met this standard. Ed On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not one of them. Ed On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: "BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is" where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: "There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries." Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Wa
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not one of them. Ed On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: "BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is" where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: "There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries." Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review concerning what the reviewer believes might happen if COLD FUSION becomes a reality in our geo-political world. From what I can tell Jed disagrees with the book reviewer's opinion and says so: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Now, compare Jed's comments to Thomas Malloy's follow-up response on the above matter, which I presume subsequently earned Mr. Malloy's place in becoming temporarily banned in Vortex-l as well: From Malloy: Baloney, they support terrorism because of Islam's desire to impose Sahriah Law on the entire world, and what the Qu'ran says about dying in jihad,. When I personally compare Jed's comments to the responses Thomas made it seems obvious to me that Jed was attempting to set the record straight as he personally saw the potential future political situation in the Middle East. Of course, so did Mr. Malloy attempt to set the record straight as he personally sees the situation in the Middle East. Are both comments "political". Yes, I guess you could say so. However, In Jed's situation I perceive his Washington Post comments (which he cc'd to Vortex-l) as constructive suggestions and perceptions that might help us all get out of the ideological messes the world is currently mired in. Thomas's responses, to Jed's comments, on the other hand, IMO, only fan the flames of political/religious conflict even more. There were no constructive suggestions in Mr. Malloy's responses conc
Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end! -- The psychology of bigotry
I suggest a normal person always feels inferior in some way - to the extent that this can be used as one criteria of normal. Therefore, this cannot be the source of the disfunction we are discussing. Abnormal people having excessive superiority do not show that they feel inferior even though an objective analysis of their persona would conclude they have much to feel inferior about. This evaluation is then used to conclude that the person actually feels this inferiority and is simply hiding it. This is a mistake. Instead, rather than being in touch with his inferiority, the person is absolutely sure he is superior. This certainty is the source of the disfunction. I don't think it is wise to second guess their stated attitude and attribute it to something else. This superior belief leads logically to having no respect for the rules created by less superior people and a rejection of anyone who can be identified as being less superior and venerable. The attitude is also very hard to change because the change is being viewed as coming from an inferior person. When dealing with people and judging how they will behave, knowing normal from abnormal is very important but frequently ignored. In fact, one of the great flaws in the human experience is the inability to tell insane from normal, with the result that people will follow the insane to their destruction. Of course, normal people having superior talents and knowledge do exist, but they demonstrate their normalcy by acknowledging that they are inferior in other ways. This is call humility. When correct methods are used, it is easy to tell normal brain function from disfunction. Ed On Jun 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Interesting hypothesis. Some 'substitutes' for racial bigotries come readily to mind: anti- Muslim (from evangelical Christians and current American society); anti- Semitism (eg from the Nazis); anti-Palestinians (from Israelis). Perhaps anti-Liberals? The need to assert individual or group superiority, I would guess, is based on an actual sense of inferiority, and if an individual or a group doesn't have objective reasons to feel good about themselves the only alternative is to assert the inferiority of others The room that this creates for psychopathology and sociopathology is huge. I would guess that this is a recurring phenomenon in human history and current events. What do you think? Lawrence -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end! On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: I had a large insight into my own psychology, and theirs. My "inner bigot" tells me exactly what's going on: CF-haters respond to CF supporters in the same way that racists respond to non-whites: with intolerance, with very strong feelings of superiority, and with buried hatred. It's definitely an ego thing, but it seems to better fit the mold of "race hatred." In the case of the late Douglas Morrison this was literally true. That's simple racism. But since we can't detect heretics by skin color, and since "science bigot" is all about detecting inferiors ...life becomes like a Dr. Seuss book, where they're obsessively trying to discover whose bellies have stars. Here's another issue. Racism is no longer accepted in public! So what's an insecure hater to do? They'll need to find some other "inferiors" who can be safely attacked without drawing public condemnation. If it's a widespread problem, then we'd expect to find large groups of non-racist "bigots" who all managed to find the same socially-acceptable victims. Then look for the usual "racial" slurs, hate-group politics, self- congratulatory prose describing their own superiority and their success at "defending purity," and describing the inhuman, inferiority of their victims who threaten to contaminate the world with their dirtyness. The whole racism nine yards, but directed against caucasians. Any groups doing this? I notice that, in conversing with people from certain online skeptic groups, they seem driven half insane over the question of whether I'm a "woo woo" or not. Am I one of those disgusting inferior enemy types? Or am I a fellow scientist skeptic, "one of us?" This whole issue seems crazy unless you look at the history of bigots, and their obsession about intermarriage and the "obvious" differences they emphasize between their superior selves and the non-white victims. Regarding skeptics versus woo-woos, isn't there a whole spectrum? Where extreme examples are at the ends of the spectrum, with lots of people in the middle? Not to a bigot. Either you're a skeptic colleague and totally pure, or you're one of the dirty inferior woo-woos, with nothing in between. Why? Simple: people with the wrong skin color are supposed
Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end!
As I said in my talk at Univ. of Missouri, "skeptics have to believe that everyone studying cold fusion makes mistakes that are only visible to a skeptic". Shanahan proves this point very nicely. The attitude comes from an excessive ego without any compensating humility. The reaction says more about the person making the statements than about the subject of CF. Such people should be treated like any irrational person is treated, i.e. ignored. Ed On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: On the Cold Fusion Talk page I saw this weird message from Kirk Shanahan in a discussion of Duncan's visit to Energetic Technologies: "Dardik et al, of Energetic Technologies have slides from ICCF12 and a paper from ICCF14 (2008) posted on Rothwell's web site. In both, they show an artist's drawing of their calorimeter, which contains the thermocouples, which are designated Tcell and Tjacket. The drawing and these designations are for what is known as isoperibolic calorimetry. In the text of the ICCF14 paper, the claim to be using a flow calorimeter, but what they show is NOT that. Isoperibolic calorimetry is what F&P originally did and were criticized about in the '89 DOE review. Storms has written several times that flow calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic . . ." This refers to Fig. 1, p. 3 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf Does he seriously think the Energetics Technology wrote a whole papers saying it is flow calorimetry when in fact it is isoperibolic? And that Duncan and McKubre failed to notice what kind of calorimetry they use?!? That's mind-boggling. The guy is losing it. The drawing in question shows that they measures the electrolyte temperature and water temperature in the jacket. It does not show them measuring at the inlet and outlet temperature but I am sure they do. It is a shame it does not show the other pair of thermocouples to satisfy Shanahan's literal-minded approach. I suppose he thinks they use itty-bitty red alcohol thermometers since that is what the drawing shows. More to the point, I have never seen a flow calorimeter in which they do not measure electrolyte and jacket temperature in addition to the flow Delta T. You might say that all flow calorimeter is also used as isoperibolic calorimeters, as a backup I suppose, and because why not -- you never know what the electrolyte temperature might reveal. (I'll tell you what it will reveal: when the electrolyte gets hot, the reaction increases. You would not know that from flow calorimetry alone because the flow Delta T temperature does not tell you what the electrolyte temperature is. That's a complicated function of how thick and conductive the cell wall is, along with various other factors.) I have to stop reading this crazy stuff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Compression and LENR?
Thanks Steven, I missed the small detail that this message was from the future. Nevertheless, when I also go into the future, the same question comes up. Sorry to hear that reporter was also spirited away by the MIB. Should I also be worried in 4 years when this date arrives? Ed On Jun 1, 2009, at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Ed: How did the writer know that the MIB did not knock? Are we to assume that the neighbors observe the house so carefully that a random van parking in front of the house for the few seconds it would take to get to the house and enter would be observed by someone not also eating at that time? Sounds like another MIB story. Does anyone have real evidence that the event actually happened? Ed Just to be clear on this point, the news article is from the date: May 28, 2013. Incidentally, recent calls to Vincent Dinglelint's residence for clarification concerning Ed Storms questions have gone unanswered. Mr. Dinglelint's editor reported that he did not report to work the following day after reporting on the mysterious blast. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Compression and LENR?
How did the writer know that the MIB did not knock? Are we to assume that the neighbors observe the house so carefully that a random van parking in front of the house for the few seconds it would take to get to the house and enter would be observed by someone not also eating at that time? Sounds like another MIB story. Does anyone have real evidence that the event actually happened? Ed On Jun 1, 2009, at 2:42 PM, OrionWorks wrote: From Rick: I love garage floor 'experiments'. The effects you describe are from recombination though, right? - Rick -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:hoyt.stea...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Compression and LENR? I had a 1 oz bar of D loaded palladium once that had blown up and looked like a pillow. I whacked in with a sledge hammer on my garage concrete floor, and indeed, it made quite a loud bang and blew a ragged hole in the side of the palladium. On another occasion, I'd heard you could light these with a flame, and indeed it burned red hot for a few minutes 'til all the D had been exhausted. Reuters News Service, May 28, 2013. Last night a mysterious blast was recorded in a west side neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia. When firemen arrived at the scene all that remained of a neighborhood block, centering around Cottage Cove and Causeway Drive, was a crater 200 feet wide and 25 feet deep. The epicenter of the blast was determined to have at the residence of Mr. And Mrs. Bartholomew Suggins. Mr. Suggins, an electrical engineer, recently retired from a local utility company, was presumed to have been at home when the blast occurred. The last known sighting of Mr. Suggins was at a local Home Depot store earlier in the day when a store clerk remembers him purchasing a sledge hammer. The clerk was an old acquaintance and remembers Mr. Suggins mentioning the fact that his wife was going to visit their daughter that evening, and that it was his "night off" to do something "...he had a hankering to try out." Not long after firemen arrived a convoy of paramilitary personnel swarmed the area cordoning off the entire block. No further details are known at this time as to the nature of the blast. Calls to the daughter in an attempt to locate Mrs. Suggins have gone unanswered. When police arrived at the daughter's home later in the evening evidence of a hasty departure was evident. Dinner appeared to have been served in the dinning room, half consumed. A neighbor recalls seeing an unmarked van drive up to the daughter's house minutes before the police arrived. He saw two individuals get out and go into the house. The neighbor thought it was rather odd, since the two individuals didn't ring the doorbell. "They just went in and then quickly came back out with two women by their side." the neighbor said. The four individuals drove off in the van, whereabouts unknown. The police are asking for additional details regarding the whereabouts of Mrs. Suggins and their daughter. If anyone has any information please contact the local police using the hot line. Anonymous calls will be honored. Story by Vincent Dinglelint --- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:letter to William J Broad
On May 26, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Considering that the ITER projected cost is almost $30B compared to the actual cost of NIF $3.5, I think the NIF is a bargain. Besides a possible energy source, the NIF is an excellent research tool on fusion. It could possibly lead to an answer of how CF works. I don't think this will give any understanding of CF. The lasers are designed to heat the sample to millions of degrees in a few milliseconds. The resulting plasma is intended to act like the plasma in the Tokamak, but without the need for huge magnets and the power they consume. While the first wall problem is reduced, a window problem is created. This is version of hot fusion that has traded the cost of magnets for the cost of lasers. Unfortunately, lasers burn out faster than magnets. Consequently, CF is still in the game. Ed Keep the NIF. Kill the ITER. Terry On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM, thomas malloy wrote: William J Broad New York Times Dear Mr. Broad; Someone posted your article on the National Almost Ignition Facility on Vortex-L, scientific anomalies. I appreciate your mentioning the reservations that some people have regarding this boondoggle. The physics establishment, P E, has done their best to squander as much taxpayer money as possible on technology, which some of us believe is a dead end. One of the Vortexians, Ed Storms, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, has written about a problem called the "first wall." Dr. Storms argument is that, even if they can succeed in getting more energy out than they put in, they have no idea how to solve the first wall problem. He is of the opinion that there is no solution to the first wall problem. I would also like to mention my pet peeve, that there are several alternative approaches to the problem of finding a pollution free source of energy. The P E, and their union the American Physical Society, has done their best to strangle all of these technologies in their cradle. We, researchers in these technologies, have be self funding, while the P E continues pushing ahead down the dead end road, paving it with government money. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Mylow Outted
Sure Steven, this could be faked all kinds of ways. This fact alone makes the demonstration totally uninteresting and non-threatening to the MIB. So even if the effect is real, there is no purpose for the MIB to get involved because no one would believe the claims even if they were true. So, obviously you are right, this is drama being generated by Mylow to gain attention. The impression being created is that if the MIB are involved, the claims must be real. In spite of this distraction, the reality of the effect is still unknown. Ed On May 25, 2009, at 8:40 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Ed sez: Let me see if I understand the situation. A guy who has no scientific background makes a disc turn with no apparent source of power. The demonstration is close to a toy and Mylow has no ability to provide an explanation. The MIB try to shut him down. In contrast, competent scientists who study CF, a much more intense source of energy, are not bothered at all by the MIB even though they are making progress toward a practical device. In fact, the work will eventually be funded by the government (MIB?). In the same vain, people who have magnet motors much closer to a practical device are also not bothered by the MIB. The MIB only pick on a poor slob whose demonstration would have essentially no effect on the course of history even if his effect were real, and completely ignore real threats to the status quo. How rational does this sound? Ed Heh! What does rationality got to do with this! It's all about drama! ;-) Let us also not lose site of the fact that Kyle Mcallister worked out all the dirty details. Kyle presented the Vort Collective with an amusing and informative YouTube video of how the Mylow motor could have been perpetrated, back around May 17. Take another look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mlfsx1ZaT0&feature=channel_page As for me... shoot! I guess I'm basically an optimist at heart. I would prefer to conduct my life on the initial premise of not judging people, or at least giving them the benefit of the doubt first before automatically condemning them to the trash heap. This has obviously not always worked out in my favor. Reagan said it best: "Trust, but verify." Obviously, practicing such personal philosophy runs the risk of opening myself up to charges of being gullible. It's a risk I'm willing to accept. I'm sure it will happen to me again. But for me, it's the lesser of two evils. Assuming an air of intellectual superiority - that such-n-such a device couldn't possibly work, cuz, well... cuz we all know better and that it just kant, is not a behavior I would care to emulate in my life. In a weird kind'a way the latter attitude, IMO, can mask an unconscious fear of not wanting to be labeled as behaving in a gullible fashion by one's peers. It could blind one from ferreting out the occasional diamond in the ruff. If I've learned anything so far it would seem that life is telling me it would be wise to verify or disprove one's fantasies as quickly as possible. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Mylow Outted
Let me see if I understand the situation. A guy who has no scientific background makes a disc turn with no apparent source of power. The demonstration is close to a toy and Mylow has no ability to provide an explanation. The MIB try to shut him down. In contrast, competent scientists who study CF, a much more intense source of energy, are not bothered at all by the MIB even though they are making progress toward a practical device. In fact, the work will eventually be funded by the government (MIB?). In the same vain, people who have magnet motors much closer to a practical device are also not bothered by the MIB. The MIB only pick on a poor slob whose demonstration would have essentially no effect on the course of history even if his effect were real, and completely ignore real threats to the status quo. How rational does this sound? Ed On May 24, 2009, at 7:57 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Terry sez: And it was just phishin' line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw-8YJvicrw&feature=channel Of course, the MIBs forced his to do it: http://pesn.com/2009/05/21/9501543_Mylow-fakery-forced/ Terry Dang! Don't look gud fer Mylow! I wuz so hop'in! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:China vs US
On May 20, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Rhong Dhong wrote: the concept of "class struggle"...Marxism is discredited today... capitalism was not on a one-way path to destruction, for which Stalin sentenced him to SiberiaAmerican constitution by men schooled in government, especially the classics...Our founding fathers well understood human evil... Why does the moderator allow off-topic junk like the above? A little bit once in a while doesn't hurt, but this list is supposed to be about science, especially juicy fringe science. Unfortunately, it is turning into a high school civics class. And please ban Croc or Groc or whoever he is: He is largely responsible for leading the boys astray. I agree, Grok contributes very little. I regret stirring up his rants when I started this thread. On the other hand, I think some issues are so important that an occasional discussion of them is important, especially when they have an influence on the kind of science that is allowed to be studied and on our personal fate. For example, the economic collapse is providing a temporary bust to research, thanks to the Obama stimulus. If this support can be sustained, we might find ways to make cheaper energy with less environmental impact. Unfortunately, duration of this support is not clear and many people who are doing unique research will not have access to this money. In addition, the economic and social changes are taking place so rapidly, it is worth being as fully aware of these changes as possible in order to make wise personal decisions. Most people who contribute to the discussions on this list add to this understanding, which is very valuable. Ed
[Vo]:China vs US
As much as I hate to agree with Grok's basic attitude toward capitalism, I would like to suggest that several decisions, based in the rules of capitalism, will eventually lead to the total destruction of this approach, at least in the form practiced by the US. The evidence can be most clearly seen in the fact that China has now captured 95% of the world's supply of the rare earth elements. This is important because modern technology is uniquely dependent on these elements. For example, super strong magnets cannot be made without neodymium. In 1985, farsighted people in the Chinese government saw the growing importance of these elements and set out to insure a good supply for their country. At the same time, the US companies allowed the supply available the US to slowly decrease to near zero, including selling the ability to process the materials to the Chinese, in order to make an immediate profit. As a result, we are now dependent on other countries for these essential elements just like we became dependent on other countries for oil. However, this time, no substitutes exist. The difference in approach between the US and the Chinese rests on farsighted people making long range decisions regardless of immediate profit, in the latter case. In contrast, the US makes decisions based on making a profit in a short time. As even a cursory experience with the media demonstrates, the US lives in a world of illusion created by the need of companies to make an immediate and growing profit. We were encouraged to go into debt to buy things. This advice had the easily predicted consequences. Now we are encouraged to believe that Obama can fix the mess if we would only spend more, with the government taking up the slack. This belief contains just as much illusion as the belief that personal debt would have no consequences. In other words, the US keeps looking only a few quarters into the future while the Chinese are planning for decades. We seek to win isolated battles at great cost in countries that have no importance to our survival while the Chinese intend to win the economic war of the future. I don't know if any of you play GO, the great Chinese game. If you do, you can see how this game is being played out on the world stage by China. Bush played poker and lost. Now Obama is playing Chess and is also losing. Meanwhile, we have to stand back and watch our country being brought down by short-sighted ignorance. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Duncan "Cold Fusion" Video Removed
It is truly amazing and scary to see how much power and influences the skeptics have. Most ordinary people could not cause the suppression these people can accomplish. For example, Pons was hounded out of the Univ. of Utah, Bockris came close to losing his Distinguished Professorship position, Miley lost funding from the DOE and almost lost his job as editor of Fusion Technology, and Hagelstein was denied tenure, all because of their interest in CF . Apparently academic freedom only operates in theory at many universities. I think an interesting study could be made of why skepticism has so much power compared to what is claimed to be good science based on an open minded evaluation of observation. Why are people who clearly violate the standards of science, rational discussion, and honesty given any influence at all? This question has an especially obvious application to politics. Ed On May 14, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I guess it is safe to conclude that the video and other info will not be returned. It is also safe to conclude that this is suppression because they not only removed the video, abstract and PowerPoint slides, they even removed the title! It is ridiculous to claim that the title is "not available." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries
Wow, we in CF are in excellent company. However, I doubt anything will ever change. Arrogant skepticism is a fixed characteristic of human nature and is self selected in certain professions, especially the academic. This is something we all have to endure because it will not change no matter how much we point out the harm. Its like complaining about crime, which has no effect on the criminal. Ed On May 8, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: J. M. Campanario, Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries, Departamento de Física, Universidad de Alcalá http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel/nobel.html This is an excellent paper! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Park back peddles...
I don't think this is back peddling. This is one more effort by Park to appear to be clever and funny at someone else's expense. He has no opinion about the subject of cold fusion. He will say what ever makes him look funny and wise to the ignorant. Ed On May 3, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: What's New by Bob Park Friday, May 1, 2009 1. IT'S STILL COLD: BUT DO I STILL THINK IT'S SCIENCE? A month before CBS aired the 60 Minutes program on cold fusion, I commented in WN that "I think it's real science." I still do. That doesn't mean I think it's good science. Science is conditional; everything is open to further examination. Some scientists think the community was too hasty in writing off the claims of cold fusion in 1989. They believe there may be important truths yet to be revealed. They have searched for those truths for 20 years and have every right to continue doing so. However, I think the likelihood of success is extremely low and, if asked, I would recommend against the use of public funds for that purpose. Their case is not helped by embracing any scientific sounding nonsense that purports to show excess energy -- which brings us to Irving Dardik. 2. SUPERWAVE: IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING -- BUT PREDICTS NOTHING. Written as SuperWave it seems to be a registered trademark. What exactly is it? Anything you want it to be. Irving Dardik was in sports medicine, a specialty notoriously prone to alternative medicine. He treated sports injuries with rhythmic exercise, and invented a catchy name, LifeWaves. This led to an epiphany: you can explain everything by wave interference. The French mathematician Fourier, figured that out in the 18th century, but Dardik doesn't do math. Even solid matter is waves, he concluded, i.e. SuperWaves. Is this big? Louis de Broglie won a Nobel Prize for that idea in 1929, and Irving Schrodinger won the Nobel Prize in 1933 and transformed the world by putting wave theory into an equation. But Dardik doesn't do equations. Instead he hired a flack, Roger Lewin, to gush endlessly about him in a 2005 book, Making Waves, with a Forward by, uh, Michael McKubre. So the CBS “science buzz” consists of one chemist? 3. OUT OF AFRICA: PINPOINTING THE DEPARTURE POINT. The discovery in 2003 by Tim White of UC Berkeley of a 160,000 year old partial skeleton of Homo sapiens in Ethiopia was the strongest evidence yet that we did indeed come out of Africa. A young molecular anthropologist at the University of Maryland, Sarah Tishkoff, saw that the mapping of the human genome provides a new tool for tracking the out-of-Africa migration of Homo sapiens: footprints in the DNA of living humans. Now at the Univ. of Pennsylvania, Tishkoff' s team, which included linguists as well as geneticists, narrowed the origin of modern humans to the inhospitable borderland between Angola and Namibia. Their study, published yesterday in Science, took researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodline of more than 100 distinct populations. The exit point was in Northeast Africa at about the midpoint of the Red Sea. 4. SCIENCE BUDGET: THE OUTLOOK IS INTOXICATING. The President and Congress have actually been collaborating on the federal investment in science. President Obama talked of an increase of more than 3%, an almost mythic figure that has never been attained. Not surprisingly, the biggest winner was energy, slated to receive an increase of 21% over FY 2008, compared to the Bush figure of less than 1%. Even in agriculture, where science had been expected to lose about 10%, it will instead climb by more than 5%. But before you begin to hyperventilate, bear in mind that this is only an asking budget, which seems to mean less each year. With record deficits expected, these numbers are sure to drop before the first dollar is appropriated in October.
Re: [Vo]:Video of Dr. Robert Duncan at The Missouri Energy Summit
This is a breath of fresh air that can make an old cynic have faith that science is not completely dead. I don't think guts are involved. Duncan simply had to take the time to explore the data. Any rational person who does this comes to the same conclusion. We pay entirely too much attention to the skeptics who have no understanding of science even though they were educated in that subject. Ed On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: You gotta love this man Duncan. He has guts! You should see the video. His description of getting a call from High Priest of Physics is hysterical. "Help me out with this" he says. Ha! I love the last PowerPoint slide: "Research funding needs to become less dependent on the common assumptions within the culture of scientific communities, and much more courageous and objective. The Scientific Method is a wonderful thing, use it always, no exceptions!" I gather Pickens attended the conference. Maybe he was in the audience. We are trying to get permission to upload the lecture to YouTube. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:WSJ blog notes 60 Minutes
We are being treated to a general breakdown in intellectual integrity these days in a wide range of subjects. We see this most clearly in science, not just cold fusion, because this subject has objective ways to decide what is true and what is not. As a result, when people are found to have lied about their results or published fraudulent information, they are punished. People who reject ideas for fraudulent reasons are not punished because the only standard by which they can be judged is integrity, which cannot be applied as a law. We see a similar analogy in the financial system. If a person robs a bank, he is punished, because a law has been broken. However, if the banker robs society, he is rewarded. This behavior can only be controlled by integrity. When this essential control is missing from society or from a profession, both eventually collapse. So, I suggest everyone who demands a change insist that integrity be applied at all levels, but especially in science. Ed On Apr 26, 2009, at 5:24 PM, William Beaty wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, William Beaty wrote: If any CF supporter should ever be even slightly dishonest, it's the most disgusting thing imaginable, right? It damns the entire CF community! But if a CF skeptic pulls the sort of dishonest ploy that Garwin does ...it means that he's "only human." Also, in the last few months I've noted several instances of people excusing dishonest tactics with phrases like "scientists are just human." Beware, since this is new example of a known dishonest tactic: spinning of near-criminal acts by applying a label which subtly carries forgiveness. It's very typical of verbal tricks used by the past presidential administration too, no? To drive home the point, let me go overboard and label the act of rape as: "boys will be boys." Or I could perhaps change your opinion of a known murderer by saying "it's just his way?" :) If you don't realize that it's happening, the spinning of lies and coverups is seductive, since we ourselves might be tempted to excuse even the most dishonest of anti-CF bigotry as "just people people being human." Hey Steve K, you say in http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/ColdFusionProblem.shtml that "The cold fusion problem is not a science problem; it was, and still is, a human problem." This phrase creeped me out when I read it weeks ago, and only today I realized why. When scientists try to cover their mistakes with dishonest tricks and spin tactics, it might be wise to avoid describing the situation as a "human problem," since it carries the suggestion: "it's OK, since they're only human." If the problem is with corrupt experts, with physicists being dishonest, there must be some way to say just that. For the same reason, we'd never describe a corrupt government by saying "it's not a government problem, it's a human problem." (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear
You and many people Jeff, miss an important issue about finding ways to reduce CO2 emission. Yes it is expensive, but so are all changes in technology. The expense issue is only a distraction raised by industries that will be harmed by the new technology. In contrast, the general population always benefits from such efforts because more jobs are created and energy becomes cheaper. Unless you are the owner of an oil, gas or coal company, your self interest requires you to support any effort to develop any new energy source, but especially ones that do not generate CO2 regardless of the cost. The cost will eventually be recovered from the energy generated by the new technology. Meanwhile, you or your friends would have a job that otherwise might not be available. Also, when CO2 is removed from the gas leaving a coal plant, so is mercury and uranium, which is a benefit to your health. You need to look past the propaganda generated by the energy industries that would lose profits. Ed On Apr 25, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: It appears from your analysis that the earth has more self regulating capability than most "experts" give it credit for. Further, it seems to me that it will be better to observe and collect more data for a while instead of rushing off to do something. Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, especially if that wrong thing is massively expensive. Misguided, high priced environmental repairs could collapse an already weakened world economy. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:40 PM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Not what Algore wanted to hear http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=30717 New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush- patch?) is YES! just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. However, that is 'spin' not logic. But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, "even steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate." Huh? Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as it may at first seem: Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse effect. Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not "thinking responsibly". Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon taxes
Re: [Vo]:"60 Minutes" versus the American Physical Society
Well, we can see the influence of the pathological skeptics in the APS. They still insist that the phenomenon is not worthy of having the APS show any endorsement, no matter how indirect. The fact that the APS has secessions about CF at their conferences, that a very large data collection is available in peer reviewed literature supporting the reality, and that a respected scientist changed his mind after reviewing the data - all of this and more have no value or importance to these people. Robert Park, I think, correctly summarized the current attitude. I think we have a good diagnostic of the present condition of the intellectual climate operating in the physics community. As a group, they are unimaginative and set in their ways. In the case of Garwin, a major role model in the profession, we see a man completely lacking intellectual integrity. I would hope that members of he APS who do not have these characteristics would show the leaders in the field that they do not appreciate such role models and the attitudes the APS now endorses. Ed On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit Date: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:43 pm Subject: [Vo]:"60 Minutes" versus the American Physical Society > New Energy Times has the story: > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ > From Steve's blog an APS spokesperson said: "APS does not, as an organization, endorse particular experiments or their results. That can only be done through publication in peer- reviewed journals, and by independent replication by other researchers. The APS does not endorse the cold fusion experiments featured in the April 19 “60 Minutes” news program. Any suggestion by the CBS journalists to the contrary is misleading and false." By this logic APS does not "endorse" anything it publishes in its own journals. Harry
Re: [Vo]: 60 Minutes - One intelligent critique.
The comments made by joclondon were understood and explored years ago, which he would know if he had studied the literature and not used his imagination to support Garwin's ignorance. First of all, DC is used, which is supplied by a low impedance power supply. As a result, there is very little out of phase component in the power, a fact that can be easily determined. Nevertheless, there is a small AC component on the DC because of bubble action. The effect of this AC is reduced by taking many measurement of power and reporting an average. The magnitude of this error is no more than a few mW. Watt meters are not used, the volt and amp are measured separately and fast data acquisition is used, as he suggests, a fact he would have known if he had studied the subject. Second, excess power has been measured in the absence of applied power. In addition, its magnitude does not correlate with the shape and size of the cathode or the nature of the power supply. Third, many experiments are run during which bubble action is present without producing any excess energy. Such blanks show that this is not the source of apparent excess heat. People seem to think that the researches are incompetent and do not have the imagination to think of obvious potential errors, which only they can imagine. As a result, we all have been deluded for 20 years. In addition, these same people would not even try to read a few documents or reviews. My response is to suggest they read the answers that have already been posted on www.LENR.org and not waste time trying to answer each question. Ed On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: Out of all the comments on the 60-minutes website, there is ONE reasonable critique which shows the person put some effort to research the subject matter and he asks some legitimate questions. I'd be very interested in reading Jed's, Ed's and any other Vorts' analysis of this gentlemen's material (see below)? -Mark [copied from the 60-Minutes website RE: comments to the Cold Fusion segment] Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 The comments by Richard Garwood, in your report, were probably correct. He suggested there may have been an error in measuring the input of electrical energy. The possibility of a 'systematic error' in the test protocols was also mentioned by Prof John Huizenga in his 1989 report to the US Dept of Energy. (DOE/S-0073 DE90 005611.) The following mechanism, from established, orthodox physics, may explain the source of the error. (Originally proposed in 2006.) That the under-recording of input electrical energy is due to the development of a phase shift between the current and the voltage in the electrical supply circuit. This results from the generation, during the course of the experiment, of highly polarised bubbles, [1]between the electrodes of the electrolytic cell. The polarisation of the ions in the boundary layer of these bubbles is accentuated by the presence of the electrode field. The polarised bubbles introduce a small capacitance value into what was initially a conventional DC circuit. With a highly stable DC source of input energy this is not a problem. However, in many of the tests analysed researchers have utilised variously, high frequency DC or AC supplies. As examples see, Eccles [2], Yamazaki [3], Piantelli [4], Storms [5], and Patterson [6]. The phase shift phenomenon in resistive/capacitive circuits is well documented. Although it is normally only looked at in detail in power factor correction problems. How you measure the input energy in such circuits becomes critically important. Current and voltage should be measured seperately, ideally with continuous high speed recording. The unreported input energy is likely to give a high speed transient signal. The use of conventional watt meters to measure input electrical power is likely to be problematical. Also the use of too long a sampling interval, or moving coil devices or visual inspection may not detect the transient signal. The conditions which appear to favour the presence of 'excess heat' are also those which facilitate phase shift. 1) A pulsed or oscillating supply current. The high the frequency the better. 2) a large interfacial area between the electrolyte and the generated gas bubbles, between the electrodes. Storms [5], page 6, and Patterson [7] and [8], may not have produced a catalytic surface as claimed, but merely an efficient method for producing gas nucleation sites. 3) A highly ionised electrolyte. 4) A high voltage between the electrodes. Features 1) and 2) must occur simultaneously, features 3) and 4) are desirable and serve to enhance the basic reaction. Any future claims for the generation of excess energy, (not just electrolytic cells) should incorporate and document means for the detection of phase shift. [1] Leonard B Loed
Re: [Vo]:Living proof that there is doubt
You hit on the essential consequence of CF, Steven. This power source could replace all other power sources everywhere and give the Third world the same benefit the First World has, but at much less expense. It would replace the grid and most of the pipelines that carry gas and gasoline. In other words, the financial structure of the world would change in a basic way. Why else do you think so much skepticism was created by the power structure, with the help of narrow minded scientists. This is the most disruptive and revolutionary technology since fire. Of course, this fact is not wasted on the government and every aware person who would lose money as the present infrastructure is replaced. The Navy and the DOD are interested because it would make waging war so much easier and effective. All we need now is the knowledge to make it work on a large scale. If you think the present economic problems are bad, wait until people realize that most of the major cooperations would go bankrupt as their products become worthless. Another example of being careful about what you wish for. Ed On Apr 20, 2009, at 9:28 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Something else that piqued my interest: McKubre's highly optimist prediction of being able to manufacture CF power cells possibly within 20 years seemed carefully worded. What I mean by that is that if these power cells can indeed be economically manufactured, particularly for the excessive power consumption needs of most America cars, IMO, there is absolutely no reason why the same technology could not be used to get every single household, building, and industrial complex completely off the grid. However, to publicly speculate about such a possibility might be considered so disruptive to the economic fabric of our society that I wonder if McKubre deliberately chose not to go there. Instead, McKubre suggested CF power cells could be used to replace the infrastructure of most power utilities, and as such, save the power utility's reason for existence. Actually, IMO, even if it is technically plausible to get every building off the grid and completely self sufficient there are valid reasons to maintain some kind of a local grid - something akin to how the Internet works. For example, if the power generator housed in your basement suddenly (and most inconveniently) decided to go on the fritz Sunday evening just when you're sitting down to watch another installment of 60 minutes it would be nice to be able to automatically receive power from your neighbor's power generator next door, or even better, from several of your neighbors. I suspect this could only be possible if there was a smart grid in place constantly monitoring the power requirements of all households in every block. It would seem to me that power utilities may need to re-invent themselves. There's no reason why they shouldn't be up to the task. Instead of being the supplier of energy to the masses, they may need to transform themselves into service companies that maintain the optimal health of each household power generator, all this for a nominal monthly service fee of course. It would be no different than receiving cable service for TV and Internet. And of course, you KNOW there will have to be some kind of regulation, probably on the national scale. There would HAVE to be some kind of distributive power standards in place to make sure accidents wouldn't happen. For example: someone's power module might accidentally begin spilling excess power into the local grid, or worse, slip out of phase with the local grid. This would possibly disrupt the power needs of the entire block - and then NOBODY gets to watch 60 Minutes! This is, of course, the same strategy that BLP is attempting to exploit. Economically speaking, it is less disruptive if one includes the white elephant. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Living proof that there is doubt
Garwin is living proof that he and all skeptics by association are completely irrational. 60 Minutes was very clever in showing this side of the issue without appearing to take sides. At the same time, the believers were shown to be intelligent, open minded and rational. All propaganda has two levels, the factual and the emotional. In this case, both levels were very supportive of CF. I expect this program will be the event that pushes CF into public awareness and starts serious support. Ed On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:09 AM, OrionWorks wrote: From Steven Krivit: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/60MinutesColdFusion.shtml Excerpt: "...no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced in these experiments." - Internal memo - DARPA 02-21-2007 - "New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides" ...and from a prior post: We''ll see what Garwin comes up with for his next excuse to avoid/evade/deflect/deny excess heat "I am living proof that there is doubt." - Richard Garwin - 60 Minutes, April 19, 2009. Priceless. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Attack of the Killer "Power Trees" - the sequel
This idea falls into the same category as the idea of the solar collector in space, or the solar sail to propel space craft, or plowshare where atom bombs are exploded underground to generate harvested power. These are all ideas that in principle can work but have so many limitations and unintended consequences that no rational person considers them as more than examples of excessive imagination. Let me list some of the problems I think this energy tree has. 1. They will not look like trees and be rejected on this account alone. People will want to plant real trees where these artificial trees might be constructed. Real trees look better and they provide many more benefits. Also, the noise of wind passing through this structure will not be pleasant. 2. They will need constant maintenance. Wind and weather will gradually damage the "leaves", which unlike real trees, will not grow back. Reaching each leaf will require labor intensive effort. 3. Each "tree" will be less efficient in producing electric power for the same space as a conventional collector. In addition, conventional collectors can be placed in locations that would not be suitable for the artificial trees, which would displace real trees. In other words, conventional collectors can be put out of sight and in locations, like on the roof, where they can be serviced easily. 4. The generated power simply will not compete with sources that can harvest power on a large scale, like wind and nuclear. Of course the proponents will fudge the numbers to make their idea look competitive, but common sense should be used to evaluate the idea. 5. This idea is based on the false premise that nature has designed trees to have high efficiency. This is not true. The design is a compromise between many competing needs, which does not result in a high energy efficiency. 6. The only interesting part of the idea involves having solar collectors constructed in an upward direction rather than spread out over a larger area. This design would save space. However, I see no advantage to make the collector look like a tree. Ed On Apr 9, 2009, at 7:07 AM, OrionWorks wrote: To my astonishment late yesterday I received a delayed response from Kiplinger's Customer Service dept. This was in regards to a query I made concerning a paragraph the newsletter published back in March where they claim there is on-going R&D going on in the concept of "Power Trees". (Artificially manufactured mechanical "trees" that extract electricity from both sunlight/photosynthesis as well as available wind.) I thought for sure this topic had to have been an April Fool's joke. Apparently not. Their response: *** Dear Mr. Johnson, In assisting another subscriber this evening whose email also did not reach us on March 27 (we had a system crash), we found your posting online and your question re the "Power Tower" item in The Kiplinger Letter. We have forwarded your online posting to the editors, who'll see it tomorrow. In the meantime, here are two links that we ran across this evening that you might find interesting until the editors respond. http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080072.html or [http://tinyurl.com/df5qeg] http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rick_Dickson:Wind_Tree or [http://tinyurl.com/2gn77u] If we can be of further assistance in any way until the editors respond, please let us know. [address omitted] *** I hope a few brain cells from the Vort collective might feel curious enough to review the links supplied. A cursory glance myself tells me that I ain't smart enough to assess the conclusions, other than that the data supplied still strikes me as sketchy. Therefore, I'm still inclined to agree with Stephen Lawrence's previous comment, that the alleged claims of being able to extract a sufficient amount of useable electricity, particularly to power a home from a single "tree" (as they claim) would seem highly doubtful. I sympathize with Mr. Lawrence's previous assessment, considering how little data we had to work with. But hey! That was before Kiplinger supplied me with these two links. BTW, I've received numerous private queries from individuals equally curious about this subject asking me to clue them in if I ever did receive anything interesting. I sympathize. Inquiring minds want to know!!! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Yeast powered fuel cell feeds on human blood
How about figuring out how to get rid of all the new yeast cells that they will produce. Yeasts to no work just to make energy. They work to make more of their own kind. Maybe if the Church permits, micro condoms could be used. Ed On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Really. See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16882-yeastpowered-fuel-cell-feeds-on-human-blood.html It produces ~40 nanowatts which is enough for things like pacemakers. This is actually a good idea. If the device lasts for a long time it will have all of the advantages of a low power implanted cold fusion device. For high power applications such as heart pumps (VAD) and prosthetic arms, a cold fusion device would probably be better. Although, come to think of it, chemical fuel in the body powers natural heart tissue so that should be enough to power a mechanical heart pump. They have not solved the problem of removing the yeast's waste products. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park now calls it unimportant science.
Consider the position Park has created for himself. He encouraged the destruction of the reputations for two scientists who made one of the most important discoveries of this century. He delayed development of an energy source that can solve some of the most important threats to civilization. Now he finds that his evaluation of the CF work was wrong. The question is, just how wrong must a person be about an important subject before their reputation suffers? Why would you expect Park to accelerate this loss of credibility by acknowledging that he was wrong? Eventually, history and the cold fusion community will insure that he gets the reputation he tried to give Fleischmann and Pons. Ed On Mar 28, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Dave Nagel is a friend of Robert Park. I have a photo him and Scott Chubb having lunch with Park, just before ICCF-14 . Park looking mighty uncomfortable, having just turned down an invitation to the conference. I wrote to Dave: [I think you should ask Park] if he now retracts the attacks on cold fusion he published in the WaPost and elsewhere, and his talk a the APS when he & Zimmerman vowed to "hunt down and root out" any federal research who believes in cold fusion. I will bet he would say that Fleischmann and Pons were criminals, frauds etc. but the latest group of researchers are not. That's what that jerk Kevles said. Seriously, it would help if he would publish a retraction in the WaPost. The major newspapers have a lot of influence. A lot more influence than people realize -- maybe more than you realize! Scientists are supposed to read journals and not be swayed by newspapers, but as Gene Mallove used to say, they put on their pants one leg at a time and they read the paper with their morning coffee, and it influences them as much as anyone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR.org traffic is up
It's interesting and rather gratifying that the ACS provided the press coverage and interest that the APS failed to do. Ed On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The press coverage of the ACS meeting and the 20th anniversary has increased the number of visits and downloads. Date, Downloads, Visits 03/19/2009 728519 03/20/2009 374568 03/21/2009 247406 03/22/2009 649494 03/23/2009 1,008 2,034 03/24/2009 1,101 2,312 03/25/2009 357 1,639 (as of 10:29 a.m.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the hell is this? __"We're talking about a new field of science that's a hybrid between chemistry and physics."__
Actually the issue is more complicated than Jed describes. Conventional belief is that the chemical environment has very little or no effect on whether a nuclear reaction will occur. The cold fusion process challenges this belief. Normally, nuclear processes require too much energy to be initiated by a chemical environment. In fact, a chemical reaction does not trigger the nuclear reaction in a bomb. The reaction is triggered when the density of the Pu is increased by any process or when extra neutrons are supplied, which is done in a bomb. The process does not involve chemistry. Ed On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see any problem with Krivit's characterization of cold fusion. In a sense, all man-made nuclear systems are a hybrid of either chemical or mechanical systems plus nuclear power. In a bomb, a chemical reaction triggers a fission reaction which in turn triggers a fusion reaction. In a generator the control rods are mechanically moved to adjust criticality. Something similar to that must be occurring on a microscopic scale on the surface of an active cold fusion cathode. I suppose you could say that the reaction occurring in a star is triggered by mechanical packing of the hydrogen under the force of gravity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fear and Loathing in Las Vortex
On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Kyle Mcallister wrote: --- "Stephen A. Lawrence" wrote: [Robin von Spaandock wrote:] I suspect not. CF (or LENR) is finicky, and no one is yet certain of the precise requirements (though there are now a few claims of complete replicability). Those who can achieve it have been trying for quite a while to get it right. Even then, I think a reasonably well equipped lab is a prerequisite. It's not something you can do in your garage, and expect to work. Saying it can't be done in a garage is going a bit too far. It depends on /what/ one has in his/her garage. Yes, indeed. I think I've heard Ed Storms does some of his work in a (very well equipped) garage. I hate to burst this myth, but I'm in a very well equipped but crowded laboratory. The cars are safely in the garage upstairs. The SEM even has a room of its own. Ed People are building fusors in their garages. It takes brains, determination, cunning in designing with what you can scrounge, someone to listen (hard to get), and motivation. There is something else as well. There are some reproducible, repeatable experiments which work, if not every time, then a good fraction of the time. But reliability is not what stands in the way of making a tea heater. There are two other problems with making a gadget which does something useful. OK. Exactly how do we set up the reproducible experiments, what specific (read: NOT unobtainium) substances were used, etc.? I'm not an expert, but two come to my mind which seem worth pursuing: See the SPAWAR experiment replication, with which Steve Krivit was involved, seemed reasonably successful. There should be a lot in the Vortex archive on that, but in any case here's a relevant link (this is *not* to a complete paper, just something with references): http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008Krivit-CurrentScience.pdf Also see the recent gas phase experiments by Ed Storms et al; a paper is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEdetectiono.pdf There was a wet-cell paper posted to Vortex recently which claimed 20/20 runs produced positive results, and 0/20 control runs produced positive results. That seems worth pursuing too but I don't have the link off hand. Why do we not concentrate almost exclusively on that which we KNOW works, and expand upon that? Make variations of this one setup that demonstrates excess heat, eventually using materials from different sources, testing equipment from different manufacturers, and so on, and then toss that into the public eye? Second, and more important, the same bugaboo that plagues hot fusion is at work here: The best of the wet-cell CF experiments is nowhere near breakeven. It's as bad as all that? What, the breakeven problem? Yes, it certainly is. Hot fusion, cold fusion, or fusor-fusion, you've got the same problem: energy out is smaller than energy in, and if you count the cost of the equipment in the energy budget, energy out is *much* smaller than energy in. It's almost like we're initiating the fusion reactions one at a time, grabbing individual pairs of atoms with a tweezers and bashing them together, and it's very hard to ramp that up and get something useful. The Sun, or an H-bomb, does it en masse, and the results are very different. Here's a rule of thumb: If you need a calorimeter to tell whether your reactor is working, you can be quite sure it's not producing a useful amount of energy. Why the hatred towards hot fusion by the cold fusioneers? Seems neither is doing well. The late Bussard's group a possible exception, I am watching that one with great interest. I think the initial extremely negative reaction of hot fusion people to reports of cold fusion has a lot to do with the bad feelings. I will say this: an army of willing amateurs is nothing to sneeze at. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
My belief is that the Pd-Ag works because it is able to support a high D/Pd at the surface because the diffusion rate is lower than pure Pd. Also, it does not crack. I have tried pure silver, but it does not absorb D. Ed On Mar 14, 2009, at 8:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:00:02 -0600: Hi, [snip] A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. The Pd in the hydrogen generator used by BARC was the Pd-Ag alloy. Fleischman also used cathodes identified as being the Pd-Ag alloy and claimed good success. The confusion lies in what Type A Pd is really made of. Ed I wonder if the lack of cracking is the reason it worked, or perhaps it had more to do with the presence of Silver. Has anyone tried a pure Silver cathode? (Much cheaper than Pd. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
On Mar 14, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ARRGH! How can everything in this field be so *vague* !? If I read the messages from Jed and Dr. Storms correctly, it's not known at this time whether P&F used pure palladium, or used a Pd/Ag alloy. That doesn't seem like a trivial difference! The fact is that F-P used both pure Pd and the Pd-Ag alloy. However,they did not say and frequently did not know how the Pd they used was made. They made a deal with Johnson and Matthey to supply the Pd for free and J-M decided what to send for testing. Apparently, J-M knows what kind of Pd works best, but attempts to get this information made public have failed. It is interesting to note that, if J-M knows what kind works best, then they also know that there are differences which result solely from the choice of palladium, and therefore they also know with dead certainty that cold fusion is for real. If the effect weren't real it wouldn't matter what kind of palladium you used. Good point and this is probably why they are unwilling to give away the information. I expect they are waiting until the effect is accepted and people are interested in buying the active material, or they are just stupid because by then people will know how to make their own active Pd. Later workers used Pd from various sources and found that some batches worked better than others, but did not have the resources to test all of the properties that might be relevant. Later still, the role of cracking and the role of surface deposits became known. Until recently, no one had the resources to make tests that could identify the critical parameters. Therefore, the information simply is not known. We know now that the Pd needs have a characteristic that allows a high D/Pd ratio. This is not easy to accomplish although Italian workers have now mastered the trick. The Pd-Ag alloy cannot achieve such a high ratio and, therefore, should not work. Peachy. This sounds kind of like the occasional light-water positive CF result which seem to throw monkeywrenches into the works of just about any theory of how it all works, eh? The explanation for why Pd-Ag works involves the assumption that the effect only occurs in the near surface region, the properties of which are much different from the bulk material because of reaction with Li and other impurities in the electrolyte. Pd-Ag alloy allows a higher surface composition to be achieved because the diffusion rate from the surface is slower than in pure Pd. Pure Pd has to have a structure that allows a high bulk composition to reduce the loss from the surface in order to achieve the same high D/Pd ratio on the surface. Anyway, this is my explanation, which shows the complexity of trying to reproduce the effect. Ed To further complicate the problem, Pd electroplated on various substrates is also found to work sometimes for no apparat reason. The problem is not public documentation but simple ignorance about what characteristics are required. People are not hiding this information, they just do not know what is required. Ed It's as though Dr. Jekyll not only couldn't get a working batch of the reagent that would change him back from being Hyde, but he'd forgotten what the compound was that he ordered the one time he got a batch that did work. It does seem like Jed's right -- the level of public documentation here is lacking. It *ought* to be possible to just pull paper number 12321-PF from the Lenr-Canr archives and see for sure what was used. But, apparently it's not that easy. Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. That is my recollection of what he told me. This document says "Fleischmann reported success with pure palladium, as well as silver and cerium alloys." As I recall he said "Type A" is the silver alloy used in filters. We could ask J-M if they ever used pure Pd in filters. I doubt they did. My guess is that the modern reformulated filter palladium would work just as well as the old stuff. My guess is that the reason it works is prosaic: it loads to high levels easily and it does not crack. Those are well known necessary characteristics to achieve cold fusion. Why they are necessary I do not know, but they are. I see that I managed to misspell his name in this document. Good grief! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Energetics Technology website
This is an impressive website and an impressive program, which shows what can be accomplished by a well funded effort run by competent people. It also shows the damage skeptics have done by stopping such progress from taking place all over the world earlier in the field's history. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://superwavefusion.com/
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ARRGH! How can everything in this field be so *vague* !? If I read the messages from Jed and Dr. Storms correctly, it's not known at this time whether P&F used pure palladium, or used a Pd/Ag alloy. That doesn't seem like a trivial difference! The fact is that F-P used both pure Pd and the Pd-Ag alloy. However,they did not say and frequently did not know how the Pd they used was made. They made a deal with Johnson and Matthey to supply the Pd for free and J-M decided what to send for testing. Apparently, J-M knows what kind of Pd works best, but attempts to get this information made public have failed. Later workers used Pd from various sources and found that some batches worked better than others, but did not have the resources to test all of the properties that might be relevant. Later still, the role of cracking and the role of surface deposits became known. Until recently, no one had the resources to make tests that could identify the critical parameters. Therefore, the information simply is not known. We know now that the Pd needs have a characteristic that allows a high D/Pd ratio. This is not easy to accomplish although Italian workers have now mastered the trick. The Pd-Ag alloy cannot achieve such a high ratio and, therefore, should not work. To further complicate the problem, Pd electroplated on various substrates is also found to work sometimes for no apparat reason. The problem is not public documentation but simple ignorance about what characteristics are required. People are not hiding this information, they just do not know what is required. Ed It's as though Dr. Jekyll not only couldn't get a working batch of the reagent that would change him back from being Hyde, but he'd forgotten what the compound was that he ordered the one time he got a batch that did work. It does seem like Jed's right -- the level of public documentation here is lacking. It *ought* to be possible to just pull paper number 12321-PF from the Lenr-Canr archives and see for sure what was used. But, apparently it's not that easy. Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. That is my recollection of what he told me. This document says "Fleischmann reported success with pure palladium, as well as silver and cerium alloys." As I recall he said "Type A" is the silver alloy used in filters. We could ask J-M if they ever used pure Pd in filters. I doubt they did. My guess is that the modern reformulated filter palladium would work just as well as the old stuff. My guess is that the reason it works is prosaic: it loads to high levels easily and it does not crack. Those are well known necessary characteristics to achieve cold fusion. Why they are necessary I do not know, but they are. I see that I managed to misspell his name in this document. Good grief! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. The emphasis is on the production method, a method that is normally applied to pure Pd. Consequently, the confusion remains. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. I do not recall him saying it was pure palladium. He mentioned pure palladium in another context, quoted below. As far as I remember he told me Type A is a palladium-silver alloy. Perhaps I am mistaken. Anyway, here are some notes I made on this subject in 2000: For many years Martin Fleischman has been recommending a particular type of palladium made by Johnson Matthey for cold fusion experiments. . . . He handed out several of these ideal cathodes to experienced researchers, and as far as he knows in every case the samples produced excess heat. The material was designated "Type A" palladium by Fleischmann and Pons. It was developed decades ago for use in hydrogen diffusion tubes: filters that allow hydrogen to pass while holding back other gasses. This alloy was designed to have great structural integrity under high loading. It lasts for years, withstanding cracking and deformation that would quickly destroy other alloys and allow other gasses to seep through the filters. This robustness happens to be the quality we need for cold fusion. The main reason cold fusion is difficult to reproduce is because when bulk palladium loads with deuterium, it cracks, bends, distorts and it will not load above a certain level . . . Fleischmann wrote: . . . We note that whereas "blank experiments" are always entirely normal (e.g. See Figs 1-5) it is frequently impossible to find any measurement cycle for the Pd-D2O system which shows such normal behaviour. Of course, in the absence of adequate "blank experiments" such abnormalities have been attributed to malfunctions of the calorimetry, e.g. see (10). [Ikegami et al.] However, the correct functioning of "blank experiments" shows that the abnormalities must be due to fluctuating sources of excess enthalpy. The statements made in this paragraph are naturally subject to the restriction that a "satisfactory electrode material" be used i.e. a material intrinsically capable of producing excess enthalpy generation and which maintains its structural integrity throughout the experiment. Most of our own investigations have been carried out with a material which we have described as Johnson Matthey Material Type A. This material is prepared by melting under a blanket gas of cracked ammonia (or else its synthetic equivalent) the concentrations of five key classes of impurities being controlled. Electrodes are then produced by a succession of steps of square rolling, round rolling and, finally, drawing with appropriate annealing steps in the production cycle. [M. Fleischmann, Proc. ICCF-7, p. 121] Fleischman recently gave me some additional information. The ammonia atmosphere leaves hydrogen in the palladium which controls recrystallization. Unfortunately, this material is very difficult to acquire and there is practically none left in the world, because Johnson Matthey stopped making it several years ago. Palladium for diffusion tubes is now made using a different process in which the palladium is melted under argon. Material made with the newer technique might also work satisfactorily in cold fusion experiments, but Fleischman never had an opportunity to test it so he does not know. There should be plenty of the new material available, so perhaps someone should buy a sample and try it. Johnson Matthey has offered to make more of the older style Type A for use in cold fusion experiments. They will charge ~$20,000 per ingot, which is a reasonable price. [As I noted here earlier, the price later went up because the price of palladium rose. I think it was $50,000.] Fortunately, the precise methodology for making the older material is well-documented and an expert who helped fabricate previous batches has offered to supervise production. So, if anyone out there has deep pockets and once a batch of the ideal material to perform bulk palladium cold fusion experiments, we can arrange it. I do not know any cold fusion research scientists or institutions who can afford $20,000 worth of material, but perhaps several people could get together and pool their resources. . . . When Ed Storms read this description, he immediately thought of a number of important questions about fabrication techniques: "What is the crucib
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Does Johnson-Matthey "Type A" palladium still work? Fleischmann and I do not know. The manufacturing method was changed sometime after 1989 to reduce toxicity during manufacturing. The newer formulation probably works. Note that "Type A" is Fleischmann's designation for the palladium alloy made by Johnson Matthey for use in hydrogen filters. It was developed in the 1930s. When Fleischmann & Pons began experimental work on cold fusion, Fleischmann called Johnson Matthey, explain what he wanted to do and ask them to recommend what type of palladium to use. They recommended this type, for obvious reasons. You can see the performance of this type of palladium compared to other types in Table 10, p. 44 of this document: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf What Fleischmann calls Type A is referred to here as "M (F/P) Pd," and I think "P/F) Pd." Researchers at BARC used an actual hydrogen filter machine with the palladium in place to successfully replicate cold fusion in 1989. A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. The Pd in the hydrogen generator used by BARC was the Pd-Ag alloy. Fleischman also used cathodes identified as being the Pd-Ag alloy and claimed good success. The confusion lies in what Type A Pd is really made of. Ed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed, If you understand what I'm saying, then make this clear and stop arguing every point. In any case. I don't have time to get into a nitpicking discussion. I asked a simple question. Exactly how would you promote the field? I'm not interested in general ideas such as do what Obama did. I'm interested in exploring a real, rational, and well focused plan. You say you need the cooperation of researchers. You have all the information known to the field. You would also have the cooperation of many researchers if the plan looks good. You need to realize that many of the researches do have valid points even if they differ with how you interpret the situation. We are not all ignorant of the situation and the need for better promotion. So, if you have a plan, let's hear it. By the way, if any other readers of this exchange have an idea, please feel free to jump in. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what the standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened in the cold fusion arena. Heck, I could write a book about that subject; I am probably one of the leading authorities on the subject. Anyone can see there is a problem, and injustice, and that institutions are dysfunctional. The question is: What can we do about it? The normal methods of overcoming doubt and opposition have failed. Publishing papers in journals has failed. Taking part in prestigious conferences such as the ACS has failed. They have not failed completely, of course. I am not suggesting we should give up all traditional methods. I am suggesting that we should not repeat of these activities unchanged without supplementing them by unconventional methods. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Experimental realities can be defined with confidence. The realities of human behavior and history -- and what will happen in the future -- are not clear. No one can say with any certainty that my plans will work, or that they will surely fail because they are unconventional. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress trying to convince the establishment. If alternative approaches fail and I waste a few more years, I will not mind. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like "study history". It is not patronizing at all! It is a big mistake for you to think it is. You have missed my point. Furthermore, you know me too well to imagine that I patronize or make flippant or empty statements. I am a serious guy, engaged in a serious effort, and by golly I have paid my dues to prove that! I am suggesting that you should look carefully at how other people have overcome similar opposition, and borrow their tactics. That may seem like an obvious thing to do but people often fail to do it. People ignore history and repeat disastrous mistakes. They do this in business, politics, science, war, investing and other areas. Look at the Iraq war and the Wall Street bubble. There are examples everywhere you turn. Cold fusion researchers have failed to learn from history. Not with regard to the science itself but with regard to overcoming academic political opposition. To give an example that I have pointed out countless times, the Wright brothers failed disastrously for five years until they began paying attention to Hart Berg, who was a marketing expert. His business was selling big ticket high technology, such as battleships. If they had not heeded his advice they would not have been given credit for developing the airplane. They would have been forgotten. Cold fusion researchers are making mistakes so similar to the ones the Wrights made, it is uncanny. Not just tactical errors: the letters, assertions, attitudes and style of the brothers and of many researchers are so similar you might confuse the two. I guess it shows that smart people make similar misjudgments. If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. I cannot implement them without the cooperation of the researchers. I think that it is clear, and this statement of yours was obtuse. All that I have accomplished in this field (for what it's worth) has been with the cooperation of researchers, you especially. You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, and a commitment to help newcome
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Snip Frankly, I am somewhat fed up from hearing from you -- and much more often from cold fusion researchers -- that nothing can be done and that we should not even try, and that I do not understand scientists or how science is done. Scientists are people, and I know a thing or two about people, and how to appeal to them, and convince them. Obama and I share that characteristic. You researchers should give me what I say I need, and let me take a shot at it, instead of insisting that I will fail and it isn't worth trying. As I said that, such attitudes are unbecoming of experimentalists. I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like "study history". If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. I don't agree. As for me, my time is better spent getting the critical information I explained is needed by any promotional effort. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better. Remember, this is science, not selling soap. THAT is your first mistake! This is not science. It is selling soap, and more to the point it is politics. Do you see any science in the Scientific American attacks, Charles Petit's article, or the annual plasma fusion program dog and pony show on Capital Hill? The people who try to sell science like soap always fail. Hot fusion does not have to sell the reality of their product. They are only selling the practical application. Charles Petit and any other such examples are only repeating the myth, which was created before the CF field had anything to prove the myth wrong. Now we have the evidence but unfortunately the myth is in place. We can't counter the myth because the gate keepers to the media believe the myth. Nevertheless, occasionally accurate accounts are published or shown on TV, but with modest effect. Only certain methods are acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other promoters have done, much to their discredit The plasma fusion people have been raking in a billion dollars a year in a scam, much to their discredit. No doubt they cry all the way to the bank. They took out the carving knives and eviscerated cold fusion within a few days of the 1989 announcement, in the pages of the Boston newspapers. They demand that you use "only certain methods," while they play by the rules of hardball politics. Frankly, you people are good-natured patsies for going along with them. Hot fusion is not a scam. The process is accepted by everyone in science and in government. The only issue is whether it can be made into a practical source of energy. However, we do agree that such a successful application is unlikely. This does not make it a scam. It is supported for three reasons - 1. It has a large economic and political inertia, 2. It promises a source of clean energy, and 3. It provides a way to investigate plasmas that keeps physics busy. Science requires claims be published. This has been done and attempts are regularly made to reach a wider audience. Science requires the work be replicated. This has been done. In addition, contact has been made with the Media and with the general scientific profession by giving talks at regular APS and ACS meetings. Contact has also been made with the government. Yes, you have done everything that scientists are supposed to do. Yes, obviously, if this were a scientific dispute, it would have ended 19 years ago, and every scientist on earth would accept that cold fusion is real. Yet only a few scientists have been won over. You have done all that is required, while the opposition has done nothing. They have not published a single credible scientific paper disproving any major experiment. Therefore this process has nothing do to with science. I agree, the myth has nothing to do with science. The challenge is to overcome the myth. Science has always been directed by myths and these myths are always removed by obtaining the required scientific proof. Can you suggest any other method? Occasionally, big drug companies, for example, create myths about their products, but these are directed to sales not to proving that a drug works. But let's assume a person had enough money to put an ad in the NY Times or a similar paper claiming the reality of CF. Do you think this would have any effect? No scientists would be convinced. You have made no progress treating this like science with traditional methods. Repeating the same actions for 20 years and expecting a different outcome is Einstein's definitizing of insanity. It is also unbecoming of experimentalists. Success of these efforts depends on the willingness of the listener to accept the information. And on the speaker's ability to shape the message. How would you shape the message and where would you have this message published? Until the effect can be explained in a way that is acceptable to a normal scientist and the effect can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. Not just difficult: impossible. If that is the test we must meet, we might as well give up. I do not think that cold fusion will ever become easy to replicate any more than cloning, open heart surgery, or making an integrated semiconductor will be. I did not mean the reproducibility to be as extreme as you assumed. All of these examples can be reproduced by competent people. That is what I say is required of CF. But I think that history shows this test need not be met. Plasma fusion, top quarks, las
[Vo]:promoting CF
Jed, On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better. Remember, this is science, not selling soap. Only certain methods are acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other promoters have done, much to their discredit Science requires claims be published. This has been done and attempts are regularly made to reach a wider audience. Science requires the work be replicated. This has been done. In addition, contact has been made with the Media and with the general scientific profession by giving talks at regular APS and ACS meetings. Contact has also been made with the government. Success of these efforts depends on the willingness of the listener to accept the information. Until the effect can be explained in a way that is acceptable to a normal scientist and the effect can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. Nevertheless, how would you suggest the field be better promoted? Ed
Re: [Vo]:Author believes energy breakthroughs have been suppressed
On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Some follow-up comments I presume this was from Jed, though I have not received the actual post: If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm Actually that was me. I have to say I have found the things you and Ed have been saying to be extremely interesting. As Ed seems to have guessed, I'm kind of a pathological skeptic in this area, as well as certain other areas which come up now and then (and which I try to avoid commenting on) but the statements I've been seeing here have got me thinking seriously about this. Perhaps ... I should look into this a bit farther. After all, I could be wrong... I wonder if any of the seminal works on this are available in Mobipocket format? I'll look around; that's always a painless way to add yet another book to the queue of things I read bits of now and again. I suggest you read "UFOs & Abductions", which is a collection of articles edited by Jacobs. It gives a good overview of modern thinking on the subject. Ed
