RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Randy Wuller]

The firm Rossi selected typically does work on a contingent basis.  So they 
don’t collect fees unless they win.  Typically the contract calls for the 
payment of expenses.

 

That wouldn’t prevent them from seeking fees from the other side but if there 
was no recovery, Rossi may not have paid any fees just costs.

 

Just an FYI.

 

Ransom

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 4:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 

Jones, yes lawyers are big winners as in all lawsuits. 

Agree that Rossi got what he wanted and paid for it. If it is junk it remins to 
be seen. IMHO he could retire on 4 mil also.

Dumb Swedes, maybe future will tell. How you KNOW is mindboggling to me. He is 
an entrpreneur, a risktaker and he does search for an answer. not manyof us can 
live up  to that or you show me your contribution in those regards.

i admire your theoretical knowledge *cannot judge the quality. That is good for 
the discussion. your simple negative opinion about the person  is misplaced, to 
not use stronger djective.

Lennart

 

On Jul 27, 2017 15:18, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com"  
wrote:

Living in fantasy land is like living in the desert with head in the sand 
IMHO---not unlike the land where religious dogma is prevails. 

 

My wondering did not take long to be resolved.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Jones Beene  
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 

Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.



The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each, 
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This 
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no 
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.

That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was 
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi 
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may 
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.

Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not 
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still 
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.

As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up 
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of 
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually 
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.

If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford 
minus $20 million)
3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they 
invested in IH

In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ... 
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser 
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of 
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"

... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Randy Wuller]

Gentleman:

 

Any contract requires good faith.  If the report and test wasn’t created in 
good faith (with a reasonable attempt at complying with scientific standards), 
it won’t be sufficient.  Penon was identified as independent, if he wasn’t then 
the contract for Rossi will not be enforceable.

 

The idea Penon could just fraud up the report and Rossi wins is nonsense.

 

Ransom

 

From: Adrian Ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

 

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the deciding factor 
in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  Both sides paid/agreed 
on the man.

I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare 
chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

[Randy Wuller]

It seems to me there is only one issue which will determine the significance of 
this test, was IH controlling it and will they be reporting the results.  If 
so, all the speculation about Rossi being a fraud is nonsense and a figment of 
imagination.

 

If IH wasn’t’ involved and didn’t control the test and won’t support the 
results then the speculation is correct and not nonsense.

 

The ability to test a device over a year under the circumstances would have to 
be child’s play.  

 

So we have to wait to see if IH speaks to the test.

 

Ransom

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV Report

 

From: Alain Sepeda

There is no absolute third party as interest and incentive connect…[snip]… The 
only conspiracy is a consensus… This is not a conspiracy but a groupthink, 
mutual assured delusion as Benabou name it.

Daniel Rocha wrote:

Rossi's definition of 3rd party is somewhat exotic. 

Gentlemen,

I am overjoyed to see that a few others who have studied this ongoing 
tragi-comedy are stepping up to the soap-box to label it as a staged 
rabble-rousing embarrassment … being closer to entertainment than to science. 

It is reminiscent of a recreation of “Waiting for Godot” with Rossi’s hapless 
fan-club believing that an existential magician will appear to save the masses 
from the devil’s excrement -- in the face of doubt from the dreaded 
intelligentsia, their so-called patho-skeptics. 

MAD or “mutually assured delusion” is a better descriptor for those who do not 
want to break it down into the teachable moment that it will morph into – a few 
days after the new wears off the so called “third party report” - and the stink 
rises.

My sincere hope is that there is a grain of truth in the otherwise phony 
results, and that the year-long effort was not a complete work of fiction. 
However, that stance is an extreme minority view: that Rossi can be both 
con-artist-deluxe and misunderstood genius inventor, at the same time. 

He is a one-of-a-kind, no matter what the bottom line happens to be. Six years 
ago, before his almost complete disregard for the truth was exposed, we labeled 
Rossi as the “most interesting man in the world” and that descriptor has a 
little more mileage on it, but my guess is that the house of cards is about to 
implode, and Rossi’s fan-boys will go back to waiting for Godot.

RE: [Vo]:OT fountain of youth?

[Randy Wuller]

Blaze:

 

I agree.  In addition, if life expectancy suddenly got extended significantly, 
it would so completely and irrevocably change the way we think and act, that 
these parochial attitudes would be as obsolete as the dodo bird.  They would be 
replaced by a whole new set of behavior.  It is amazing to me how people 
extrapolate certain societal characteristics to new paradigms without 
understanding that the paradigm itself would alter things irrevocably.

 

 

 

From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 9:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT fountain of youth?

 

Geez, that's pretty grim!   Are you a part of some death cult?

 

There's a lot of great ways a law respecting society can ensure a fresh 
evolution of ideas.   Death doesn't have to be one of them.

 

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com  wrote:

Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com  
wrote:

 

We the death of each individual an irreplaceable world is lost. In particular 
when we are talking about creative and productive people that could contribute 
for centuries to the better of mankind. 

 

Yeah? What makes you think the creative productive people would be preserved? 
No way! It would be the wealthy and brutal people. If we had this in the 20th 
century, Stalin would still be in charge of Russia. J. Gould and the other 
robber barons would still be running Wall Street. The Kim family would run 
North Korea forever.

 

In cold fusion, opponents such as Huizenga would make policy for the next 500 
years, and they would never allow research. Young people would never be able to 
contribute, or even grow up. Even James Watt became an impediment to progress 
at the end of his life.

 

Death leads to turnover. It gives young people with fresh perspectives a 
chance. Most great science is done by young people. If the old scientists never 
get out the way, new ideas will never be published.

 

I agree with Max Planck. Death is sad for the individual, but it is a blessing 
to society, and it is essential.

 

- Jed

 

 

RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

[Randy Wuller]

You are all missing the point.  We are transitioning from the economics of 
scarce resources to unlimited resources.  When you apply economic policies 
designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited 
resources you artificially limit the pie.  That is what we are doing today.  No 
one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally 
be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth.

 

This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they 
think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are 
anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their 
part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is 
taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on.  All this 
does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it 
weren’t so sad.  It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries 
to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices.  Only when he starts 
trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. 

 

In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the 
limited pie.  But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will 
contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits.  
If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those  facts, most would get 
none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you 
artificially limit the pie.  Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and 
since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to 
transition Money also to unlimited growth.  Everyone thinks that will create 
inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the 
price to go up.  That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without 
limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand.   Why limit a money 
supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when 
fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth?

 

It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress 
today. 

 

Ransom 

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

 

Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial 
intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired 
with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had 
to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have 
progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to 
make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when 
time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. 

I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. 
There is already enough of the basic needs available  for everyone. As I see it 
there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for 
lesser cause than keep people alive and productive.

We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can 
ask them to give us something back.

We can share .

I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no 
good for our economy. In addition others will suffer.

I believe  we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide 
a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating  as workforce do 
that just for the paycheck.

I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach 
joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without 
accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not 
all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) 
will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear factor from not 
being able to put food on the table.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  

lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com 
+1 916 436 1899

202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to 
excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

 

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com  wrote:

Chris, you paint a gloomy picture.  The economy can turn around fairly quickly 
under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least 
in the long term.

In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous 
improvements to the standard of living of the world.  Although we may not 
foresee the next big thing due to our 

RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

[Randy Wuller]

Mr. Bowery,  You don’t even know me. And I seriously doubt you have done any 
more than I have on the Solar Centric issue. The anti-immigration and 
anti-government sentiments are idiotic and only when those silly notions are 
slowly dumped in the trash can of obsolete ideas will we be able to institute 
policies that will allow some progress.  Until then these ideas are 
counterproductive.  I do agree we need a solar centric society , it is why I 
led a lobby group on the subject for many years.

 

Ransom

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

 

Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited 
surface area.  The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited 
pie but to second order, even it is limited.

 

Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, 
anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational.  If you 
want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in 
your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as 
a prerequisite.

 

You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to 
achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's 
carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more 
cornucopian than thou with me.

 

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com 
mailto:rwul...@freeark.com  wrote:

You are all missing the point.  We are transitioning from the economics of 
scarce resources to unlimited resources.  When you apply economic policies 
designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited 
resources you artificially limit the pie.  That is what we are doing today.  No 
one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally 
be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth.

 

This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they 
think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are 
anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their 
part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is 
taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on.  All this 
does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it 
weren’t so sad.  It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries 
to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices.  Only when he starts 
trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. 

 

In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the 
limited pie.  But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will 
contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits.  
If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those  facts, most would get 
none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you 
artificially limit the pie.  Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and 
since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to 
transition Money also to unlimited growth.  Everyone thinks that will create 
inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the 
price to go up.  That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without 
limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand.   Why limit a money 
supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when 
fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth?

 

It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress 
today. 

 

Ransom 

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com 
mailto:lenn...@thornros.com ] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

 

Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial 
intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired 
with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had 
to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have 
progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to 
make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when 
time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. 

I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. 
There is already enough of the basic needs available  for everyone. As I see it 
there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for 
lesser cause than keep people alive and productive.

We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our

RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

[Randy Wuller]

Mr. Bowery:

 

The unconditional basic income is not an anti-government measure, it is in fact 
absolutely necessary for government to institute it.  It is however an 
anti-bureaucracy measure which I applaud.  The problem is there is a difference 
between being anti-government and anti-bureaucracy.  Many important government 
functions are being compromised today because the two are being treated 
synonymously.

 

The launch Services Purchase Act was before my time, but I was very involved in 
the “Commercial Space Act of 1998” which has had a significant impact on 
commercialization.  I also drafted a tax credit bill which would have 
stimulated the launch industry but was never passed, so I applaud your attempt 
in 1990 but I am proud of helping accomplish a significant win for commercial 
space between 1995 and 2004.

 

Ransom 

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:31 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

 

Actually, I know that you were no where to be found when I was testifying 
before Congress on the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 that was the 
seminal move toward launch service privatization and I also know that the 
economic studies that try to demonstrate that immigration is not resulting in 
centralization of wealth and destruction of the middle class are flawed in the 
extreme as well as being bought and paid for.  Anti-government sentiments are 
embodied in the launch services privatization movement, of which part you are 
apparently a johnny-come-lately, so it makes little sense that you would be so 
pro-government.

 

The unconditional basic income is an anti-government measure:  it 
disintermediates the entire welfare state.

 

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com 
mailto:rwul...@freeark.com  wrote:

Mr. Bowery,  You don’t even know me. And I seriously doubt you have done any 
more than I have on the Solar Centric issue. The anti-immigration and 
anti-government sentiments are idiotic and only when those silly notions are 
slowly dumped in the trash can of obsolete ideas will we be able to institute 
policies that will allow some progress.  Until then these ideas are 
counterproductive.  I do agree we need a solar centric society , it is why I 
led a lobby group on the subject for many years.

 

Ransom

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com ] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l


Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

 

Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited 
surface area.  The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited 
pie but to second order, even it is limited.

 

Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, 
anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational.  If you 
want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in 
your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as 
a prerequisite.

 

You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to 
achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's 
carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more 
cornucopian than thou with me.

 

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com 
mailto:rwul...@freeark.com  wrote:

You are all missing the point.  We are transitioning from the economics of 
scarce resources to unlimited resources.  When you apply economic policies 
designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited 
resources you artificially limit the pie.  That is what we are doing today.  No 
one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally 
be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth.

 

This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they 
think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are 
anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their 
part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is 
taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on.  All this 
does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it 
weren’t so sad.  It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries 
to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices.  Only when he starts 
trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. 

 

In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the 
limited pie.  But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will 
contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits.  
If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those  facts, most would get

RE: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

[Randy Wuller]

Alan:

 

I don’t think that means that at all.  At best you need to see the various 
agreements between the parties to make such a statement.

 

Ransom

 

From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today

 

Note that the inventor is Rossi, working for IH  ... but the ASSIGNEE is still 
Leonardo Corporation, Miami.

 

So apparently IH didn't get ALL the IP rights   

 

RE: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Randy Wuller]

Jones:

I thought you were a lawyer, what you discuss isn’t fraud.So for
example, let’s say Rossi knew that by setting up the constraints associated
with testing the ash, (1% from stuff that fell out), everyone would be
misled as to what was actually happening.  That’s more appropriately
described as protecting your IP.  It isn’t actionable and I am not even sure
it is unethical.  We have no right to IH’s IP.  Misleading you may be good
business and you are not in privity.

Now if the whole thing doesn’t really work, now that is a horse of a
different color, but even then we wouldn’t be wronged.  The parties with
rights would be those in privity, IH, any other investors.  I doubt even the
testers would have an actionable right, but it would be possible depending
on the agreement.

Ransom

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.


From: David Roberson 

*   Jones-please continue to speculate about new thoughts as that is our
best method of getting to the truth. I get a bit concerned when I hear you
speak of scams. 

Please suggest a better word to describe the actions of an inventor – if he
has a breakthrough which could benefit society hugely, resorts to dishonesty
designed to protect details which he does not understand in hopes that other
cannot benefit, instead of himself. Of course, if he has nothing at all it
is a more obvious scam, but is there a euphemism for this subset? Would
“quasi-scam” be more appropriate? 

This is not “victimless”. Would not society be better off if Rossi chose to
reveal nothing? This level of deceptive conduct could actually be more
despicable than the blatant TV scams such as Acai berries, diet pills, Miss
Cleo or the Video Professor - since it is designed to keep intelligent
people and researchers in the field from finding the truth, instead of
merely enriching the scammer at the expense of the gullible.

*   You apparently have drawn that conclusion at this point due to the
isotope measurements and that is certainly strange. But, have you considered
that something unusual is happening to the fuel that perhaps enabled the
enriched Ni62 to be expelled but trapped most of the other material?

Yes, I have agonized over this for many days – scouring the technical
journals, hoping to find any glimmer of an alternative scenario which would
not imply intentional deception. There is none.  Again, let me paraphrase
JSM: it is delusion that one can do no harm if he sits back, observes and
forms no opinion. Dishonest men need nothing more than that good men should
stay silent and do nothing.
 
Dave - I made it clear that this was my opinion. Can I not
express my opinion? In order to fill in the blanks, to make a complete
scenario – that does require speculation.
 
But it is fact, ABSOLUTE FACT - that the odds of finding
pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. Given that, a scam is the only
probable scenario. From there on, follow the buck.
 
I share some concerns about the temperature measurements and
how they might influence the output power, but there is certainly no serious
evidence that Rossi was able to impact the testing in a serious manner.
 
Temperature is not my concern. In fact, the temperature
measurement could be correct or even on the low side. The odds of finding
pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. That is my problem.

Why do you continue to suggest a scam of some type?  
 
The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. 
 
If anything happened in error I for one believe it was an
honest mistake.
 
The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical.
There is no room for honest mistake given that the testing was done two
different ways by two different people with the same result.
 
This isotope was salted into the sample. From there on, the
details to make it fit together are speculation, but so is extending you
paper model to an un-calibrated experiment which was improperly performed.
 
Jones
 
attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.

[Randy Wuller]

Jones:

If it isn’t a crime it could still be the subject of a civil action, but if
neither apply, what is it?  Maybe there is some moral line crossed but I
suggest the word scam is not the right one in that case.

Ransom

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.



From: Randy Wuller 

So for example, let’s say Rossi knew that by setting up the
constraints associated with testing the ash, (1% from stuff that fell out),
everyone would be misled as to what was actually happening.  That’s more
appropriately described as protecting your IP.  

Randy - I never said anything about a crime. Why are you? None of the TV
scams I mentioned were prosecuted as a crime, as far as I know. If
dishonesty was a crime, we would have to lock up half of the politicians in
DC.

Make that: more than half. And also - aren’t you assuming that he is not
misleading his funder, as well?

Would your opinion change if you found out that his royalty agreement was a
long-term deal structured around performance milestones?  

I have no idea what his deal consists of, but I doubt if he can walk away
with a large sum without some kind of verification that the device actually
works. It is normal business practice with many inventions that a large
portion of the total royalty payment will in escrow pending milestones
and/or will be delayed until cash-flow starts, meaning that a commercial
product emerges. 

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures

[Randy Wuller]

Jones:

In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that
“Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis
added).  It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded
by Rossi.  The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not
the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM
ROSSI”.

I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified.
But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by
other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit.

Ransom

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent
materials at elevated temperatures


You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited
version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like
this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited
version.

From: Blaze Spinnaker 

Care to share where you saw this?

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February
2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested
by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
reactor shutdown and  powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no
further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all
phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration


They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON
ORDERS FROM ROSSI

JR: It does not say that anywhere.

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures

[Randy Wuller]

Jones:

I understand that concept.  But just a quick glance at the data seems to
question your conclusion.  Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1
and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by
the TI camera if your assumption is correct?   I would have expected a much
bigger difference if you were correct. 

Ransom
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent
materials at elevated temperatures


Randy,

No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is
going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous
results. 

The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in
temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the
Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into
huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not
really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a
formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer,
there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but
ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR).

The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active
reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near 1000 however, a
small error is multiplied into a huge error.
_
From: Randy Wuller 
Jones:

In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy
reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY
requested” (emphasis added).  It doesn’t say that the test power level was
determined or demanded by Rossi.  The fact he turned it off after they had
what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher
level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”.

I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am
not qualified.  But some of what is happening here is not objective and may
be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see
from Krivit.

Ransom

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of
semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures


You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised”
or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which
details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read
the edited version.

From: Blaze Spinnaker 

Care to share where you saw this?

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20
PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power
level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and
in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion,
reactor startup, reactor shutdown and  powder charge extraction. Throughout
the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the
collaboration


They did not calibrate above 450 C and this
was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI

JR: It does not say that anywhere.

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Has the secret sauce been revealed by duplicity?

[Randy Wuller]

Jones:

 

With all due respect, I don’t think the text books would support any nuclear 
change under the circumstances.  What makes NI62 which is found in nature and 
was in both the before and after sample disturbing?

 

As to the LI6, why is that product any more unlikely than the nuclear process 
itself which many would say is impossible as to any isotopic or elemental 
change?

 

Just curious.

 

Ransom

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Has the secret sauce been revealed by duplicity?

 

From: Marcus Haber 

 

Hello Jones.

 

Do u have any proof for the allegations your posting here?

 

Greetings Marcus

 

 

Every textbook in Nuclear physics, that’s all

 

Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

[Randy wuller]

I have listened as long as I can to this discussion of Bitcoin by a community 
of those alleged technical people (ie scientists) on a email list devoted to 
for the most part Cold Fusion/LENR.  Bitcoin isn't valuable because it has a 
limited supply, it is in essence worthless for that reason.  Currency to have 
value in our modern age can't be fixed to some arbitrary value, it must be able 
to grow rapidly as the value of goods and services can and should grow rapidly 
in the future. Human value has almost nothing to do with productivity anymore, 
neither should the money supply.  It should be tied to the almost unlimited 
ability of this world society to produce.  You only limit production of goods 
if you tie it to human labor or a fixed supply of something.  Artificial 
poverty.

There will undoubtedly be a world currency sometime in the future, it won't be 
Bitcoin or anything resembling it and will have nothing whatsoever to do with 
an artificial limit or quantity tied to some antiquated notion of money, it 
will be used to stimulate the almost limitless production of goods and 
distribution of those the members of society.

The sooner you stop thinking like 19th century people the sooner we can start 
living in the world of plenty.
  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?


  What is there in BItcoin is what was there when IBM's deployment of MSDOS 
on its PCs forced everyone to buy MSDOS and write applications for MSDOS:


  The network effect.


  There are two essential ingredients that go into this network effect for 
Bitcoin and neither of them involve speculative fever any more than did 
MSDOS's domination of the personal computer software market:


  1) Cryptographically secure limited number of coins.
  2) Cryptograpicically secure transmission of coins between private keys.


  The transmission of money is valuable in itself.  All has to happen to turn 
that value into the backing for the coinage is a believable limitation on the 
supply.  That belief is not by agreement nor is it by fever -- it is 
mathematical.



  On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 



it seems that test is the object of the bitcoin miners.

they don't mine crytokeys, thet are simply paid for their work to check and 
reconcile the transations log, the accounting registers...





The real problem with Bitcoins is not really security. Instead it is that 
there is nothing there, there nothing but speculative fever.



Anyone contemplating any renegade currency should read up on the Dutch 
Tulip bubble of 1619 and beyond. The parallels are awesome.



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



Fools rush in ..

Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

[Randy wuller]

If he said that I am happy I missed it.  I would have thrown my shoe at the 
TV.  Utter nonsense.  We are about to enter an age of almost unlimited 
prosperity.


- Original Message - 
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?



On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:


The sooner you stop thinking like 19th century people the sooner we can
start living in the world of plenty.


You obviously missed the president's speech the other day when he said
The time of prosperity is over.

sigh

Re: [Vo]:Re: Is there an echo in here?

[Randy Wuller]

Well the problem is your understanding is propaganda.  It isn't true and it 
isn't even supported by the facts.

The first issue is debt, in total it doesn't exist.  

Second, the US isn't in debt, its wealth is higher than ever.


Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 
 I do not understand this argument for an unlimited amount of money. Gold can 
 be given any value in dollars , hence the amount available in physical form 
 can be given as much buying power you want without changing the amount of 
 physical gold.  Right now the price is held at artificial low levels compared 
 to the demand, especially from China.  This is done by creating paper gold 
 that takes the place of real gold.  That process has a limited lifetime that 
 will end badly. 
 
 The bitcoin can be subdivided to any small amount such that if 1 bitcoin has 
 to be equal to 1M$ to be useful in trade, a dollar would be equal to 0.01 
 bitcoins, which would buy just as much as would one bit coin if it were = 1$. 
 
 The US government is creating money to fill the debt hole created by the 
 banks so that they can avoid going bankrupt based on the present rules and so 
 that the government can continue to spend without balancing the books.  
 Having gold or bitcoins as a standard would place a limit on how much of this 
 artificial wealth could be created.  According to my understanding, an 
 unsustainable situation is being created that will only end badly.  
 
 Ed Storms
 On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
 Jed--
  
 What about gold?
 
 That's a complicated subject!
 
 First, gold has considerable intrinsic value, for electronics, fillings and 
 other medical uses, and so on, plus aesthetic value in jewelry.
 
 Second, in ancient times gold was an excellent means of exchange because 
 amounts were limited by mining technology, and because it could not be 
 faked. You can test for gold by primitive methods. You can measure gold 
 density with Archimedes' principle, which was invented for that very purpose.
 
 Nowadays, I believe most economists consider the gold standard barbaric. I 
 do not know enough about economics to comment in detail, but their arguments 
 make sense to me. See, for example:
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/opinion/krugman-bits-and-barbarism.html
 
 The section from General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by 
 Keynes that Krugman refers to is copied below. It is amusing. Keynes sure 
 knew how to write.
 
 Let me add something from my point of view, which is that of a man who has 
 only a hammer to whom all problems look like nails. I see this and most 
 other issues in terms of technology. It is said that gold is available in 
 limited amounts. This will supposedly prevent inflation, which is why 
 goldbugs who do not trust the government are enamored of gold. 
 Unfortunately the gold standard also limits the money supply which means the 
 economy cannot expand. More to the point, nowadays, I doubt that the amount 
 of gold is really all that limited. Suppose we had some desperate need to 
 get lots of gold, say, to keep the sun from exploding (somehow). I'm pretty 
 sure we could find lots more. Gold is available at very low concentrate in 
 the ocean, but there are probably millions of tons and we could find a way 
 to filter the water. It is probably available elsewhere in the solar system. 
 If that does not work out, I expect we could find a way to transmute other 
 elements into gold in industrial quantities.
 
 If we really needed to, we could find a way to get so much gold we could 
 pave the roads with it.
 
 As Arthur Clarke said, the only resource that is truly in short supply is 
 brains. With enough intelligence and science, you can have anything you 
 want, in unlimited quantities.
 
 
 Here is the text from Keynes:
 
 It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd 
 conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly 'wasteful' forms 
 of loan expenditure rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because 
 they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict 'business' 
 principles. For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more 
 readily accepted than the financing of improvements at a charge below the 
 current rate of interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground 
 known as gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real 
 wealth of the world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most 
 acceptable of all solutions.
 If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at 
 suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface 
 with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried 
 principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so 
 being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing 
 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very active.  
Go to xprize.org

I was involved with Dr Peter Diamandis when he first came to St Louis to 
propose a Lindbergh type prize to the St Louis Science Center.  All the legal 
documents for prizes have been hashed over and over since this started with the 
Ansari Xprize in 1996, my has it been that long, I feel old.

Anyway the foundation is constantly setting up new prizes and finding sponsors. 
 I would start with them if you really have an interest.  Prizes are wonderful 
for attracting 10-15 times the value of the prize in investment into capturing 
the prize.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I do not know anything about the X-prize. If someone here would like to 
 submit a proposal, I would be happy to assist in writing it.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. 

I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of the 
players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be 
convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
  
 There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very 
 active.  Go to xprize.org
 
 Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. 
 Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
 
 I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to 
 try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit 
 your proposal.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the 
beginning pitching it in St Louis.

But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, 
what prize do you suggest be funded?

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  
 ***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their 
 press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more 
 than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level of 
 exposure brings to LENR?  
 
 
 On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
 Jed:
 
 I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. 
 
 I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of the 
 players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be 
 convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
 
 Ransom
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
  
 There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very 
 active.  Go to xprize.org
 
 Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. 
 Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
 
 I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to 
 try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit 
 your proposal.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial

[Randy Wuller]

Gentlemen:

The best of the best in the US are as good as the best of the best in the rest 
of the world.  Only the best of the best drive technology in today's world, 
most of the population are not needed to drive the economy and those needed are 
shrinking everyday.

Also, you can't hide technology anymore, if china develops LENR, everyone will 
know before you can blink.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 5, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 That is nonsense. Americans are no better or worse at teaching or learning 
 than anyone else. I attended elite universities in the U.S. and Japan. I 
 assure you, Asian kids are no smarter than Americans, Europeans, Russians or 
 Africans, and no culture has any special ability to educate people.
  
 Jed your arguments are cut from whole cloth; that is to say not valid and 
 made up from wishful thinking.
  
 http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/03/21733705-us-teens-lag-in-global-education-rankings-as-asian-countries-rise-to-the-top?lite
  
 Roughly half a million students in 65 nations and educational systems 
 representing 80 percent of the global economy took part in the 2012 edition 
 of PISA, which is coordinated by the Paris-based Organization for Economic 
 Cooperation and Development, or OECD.
  
 The numbers are even more sobering when compared among only the 34 OECD 
 countries. The United States ranked 26th in math — trailing nations such as 
 the Slovakia, Portugal and Russia. What’s more, American high school students 
 dropped to 21st in science (from 17th in 2009) and slipped to 17th in reading 
 (from 14th in 2009), according to the results.
  
  
  
 
 
 On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
  
 Unlike most technologies, even the new ones, a huge basic understanding is 
 normally in place on which understanding of the new idea can be 
 constructed.  This is not the case with LENR. No one has a basic 
 understanding how it works. Success has resulted from luck.  In addition, 
 the number of people who have even a rudimentary understanding is very 
 limited and growing older by the minuet.
 
 No one in China understands it better than anyone in the U.S. The person who 
 understands it best is Rossi, and he is here.
  
  
 No effective way exists in the West to teach this limited knowledge to the 
 next generation - to the scientists and engineers who would be needed to 
 manufacture the devices.
 
 That is nonsense. Americans are no better or worse at teaching or learning 
 than anyone else. I attended elite universities in the U.S. and Japan. I 
 assure you, Asian kids are no smarter than Americans, Europeans, Russians or 
 Africans, and no culture has any special ability to educate people.
 
 
  A race is on is to acquire this knowledge and Rossi has a head start. If 
 this knowledge is being acquired and developed in China, the rest of the 
 world would have no access.
 
 Anything Rossi can discover, others can rediscover. Even if a direct reverse 
 engineering does not work, no secret of this nature can remain hidden for 
 long.
 
  
  Of course a Manhattan-type program might speed up the rest of the world 
 getting the knowledge after China put generators on the market. 
 
 RD into cold fusion will far larger than the Manhattan project. RD into 
 transistors was far larger. IBM's development of the IBM 360 computer cost 
 more than the Manhattan project in constant dollars.
 
  
  If you suggest the device could be reverse engineered, you would be wrong. 
 If you propose using a lot of bright physicists to figure out the process, 
 you would also be wrong.
 
 If bright physicists in China can figure it out, I am certain bright 
 physicists in other countries can too. No major technology can remain secret 
 for long. After Japan opened up in 1868 and began studying European and 
 American technology, they caught up with every major military technology in 
 20 years. They were 100 years behind. In 1905 they defeated the Russian army 
 and blew the navy out of the water.
 
  
 The active region is too unique and too small to allow reverse engineering 
 unless you know what to look for.
 
 They will figure out what to look for! Or they will hire Chinese people who 
 know.
 
  
 The physics profession has already demonstrated its basic inability to 
 explain the effect.  A physics education is actually a handicap.
 
 First, not all physicists are uniform. I am sure there are many skilled 
 senior physicists who could contribute to this research.
 
 Second, Chinese physicists are not much different from ours. It is NOT 
 POSSIBLE they will gain some magic understanding that Americans and others 
 cannot possibly crack. That is not how the human mind works. There are no 
 cultural or biological differences that would allow that.
 
 Third, there is a new crop of physicists every years. After it becomes 
 generally known that cold fusion is 

Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month

[Randy wuller]

I have watched this discussion this weekend and have purposely stayed out of 
the fray since these issues seem to generate strong emotion from many.

However, I really think that one must drill down to the cause of the problem or 
the solution will continue to evade us.  And the cause has nothing to do with 
MONEY, nothing to do with GOVERNMENT and everything to do with automation.  It 
is a delusion to believe America ever had POLICIES (anymore than today) to 
safeguard or act as a safety net for middle class America.  In the past lots of 
people were needed to produce the things we wanted, so they had some worth.

The truth is as people have continued to become less and less important to the 
production of goods and now even services, measuring what we allocate to them 
based on their worth (as measured by production) has also decreased.  That 
isn't going to change.  In fact, the day will come when machines will be better 
Doctors and Nurses, better Lawyers and Businessmen, better at almost everything 
to do with production of goods and services.  Sadly, because we have this 
antiquated concept that money is real and not simply a measure of what can be 
produced, we allocate less and less of it to average people in society who have 
nothing special to offer the world and are therefore virtually unneeded and 
unwanted to the production of goods and services.  We have decided that they 
aren't worth much.  I suppose carried to its extreme, the only ones who will be 
entitled to buy goods in a world capable of producing huge levels of production 
will be the robots and human beings not being worth much can simply live in 
squalor.

Don't you see the cycle, we produce less because we have decided people aren't 
worth it and with less produced we need even less people to work.  The Swiss 
have it right, only I would raise it to $5,000 a month.  The higher you raise 
it the better the Earth will be.  And by the way just print it, don't tax for 
it.  Inflation only occurs if money chases a limited supply.  In a world that 
is capable of generating an unlimited supply, less money simple means less 
production.  Obviously, this is talking about the extreme but we have no idea 
right now the limit of production as we are self limiting it artificially by 
our antiquated concept of economics.  Economics is the allocation of scarce 
resources.  It doesn't work if resources are unlimited and we are approaching 
the day when resources will be unlimited.  If we limit allocation to those 
responsible for producing it (fewer and fewer every year), we will all die of 
starvation in the Garden of Eden.

The only technological thing holding this back right now is Energy, and if this 
site is correct and LENR will arrive soon, the last barrier to unlimited wealth 
for all society will be removed.  We simply have to understand that we are all 
worth it.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:46 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month


  American Winter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJJR3lG72AA
  .s



--
  Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:23:14 -0700
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month
  From: blaze...
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


  Maybe folks should be worrying about extreme poverty (1.25 / day or ~$40 a 
month) before they worry about 2800 a month.


  
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/ending-extreme-poverty#poverty_scenarios

Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month

[Randy wuller]

Correct, in essence I mean mint it.  We have been trying to re-inflate since 
2008.  
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month







  On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:




 And by the way just print it, don't tax for it.  Inflation only occurs if 
money chases a limited supply.  


  I agree, but the phrase printnit has come to mean when governments incur 
debt by borrowing money from central banks, but what you probably mean is mint 
it, or the creation of legal tender without a corresponding amount debt.

  Instead of being a cash transfer, basic income would work like a 
decentralized mint, where individuals would be ascribed the power of limited 
legal tender creation.


  harry 

Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month

[Randy wuller]

Craig:

Money is not Wealth!  Exactly.  But the goods and services produced depends 
in large part on the amount and allocation of money in society.  In our 
current society money not only allocates goods and services it also effects 
the level of production of those goods and services. You assume in your 
example that the printing of $100 circulated in society simply chases the 
same # of goods and services.  That isn't even close to true.  If on the 
other hand the printing of $100 simply doubled the goods and services 
produced there would be no change at all in the value of goods currently 
held, no inflation no doubling in cost just twice as much to allocate.  This 
is much closer to the current reality.


As long as this notion exists that we are allocating scarce limited wealth 
(resources), we can never embrace the true reality of unlimited resources.



- Original Message - 
From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Switzerland considers giving every citizen $2,800 a month



On 10/21/2013 12:51 PM, H Veeder wrote:


Instead of being a cash transfer, basic income would work like a
decentralized mint, where individuals would be ascribed the power of
limited legal tender creation.

harry



Printing money is no different than if every person had a tax placed on
all of his available cash. Let say, for example, that there is $100
total in circulation in society. Then if I print another $100 and start
spreading it around to people to use; then everyone who does not receive
a portion of the new $100 that I printed will find that the money they
have will not buy as much, because the new $100 will be spent into
society and will bid up the prices.

Money is not wealth. Wealth is the goods and products that people
create; and the services they provide.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage

[Randy Wuller]

Mark:

No (obvious) evidence and probably?

I enjoyed your blog posts.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:

 Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
 Following my last post to my blog on Forbes 
 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/)
  my tenure with that organization has come to an end. 
 
 Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing 
 interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that 
 conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor 
 communication than anything overtly conspiratorial.
 
 I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog 
 (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is 
 considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic 
 won't get covered.
 
 Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings 
 over the last couple of years.
 
 Regards,
 Mark Gibbs.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Randy Wuller]

Your analysis requires fraud.  There is no evidence of fraud, at best what you 
have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to closely 
evaluate the wires.  

Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the likely 
event.

That's the problem with your analysis.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Jack Cole said:
 This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does you 
 notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips as 
 rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with the 
 measured power on cycles.
 
 I'm not saying anything of the sort.
 
 What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied 
 continuously, in addition to the measured power.  Thus, the same 33% duty 
 cycle would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts.  Imagine the existing 
 chart, but with the power in line moved UP by 1/3.  This makes the power out 
 line look just like a lump of steel, with no signs of excess power.
 
 I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the 3-phase 
 power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing nothing.  If 
 the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power in lines, why 
 did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between the power 
 outlet and the E-Cat controller?  If they weren't doing their own surgery, 
 then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd, supposedly dead power line 
 to produce the desired effect.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Randy Wuller]

And arguing with an idiot like you doesn't advance anything.  Just an 
observation John.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:47 PM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson 
 to deflect the issue.
 
 There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 
 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually 
 live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly 
 the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently 
 hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera).
 
 Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other 
 branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR.
 
 John
 
 
 From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
 Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
 
 I agree Ed.  Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I 
 hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said.
  
 I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can 
 be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current 
 ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones.  This is scientific 
 progress as it should be.  For example, Newton's old laws were assumed 
 perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his 
 breakthroughs.
  
 So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always 
 find some reason to complain.  Most if not all of the reasons thus far 
 suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied.  
 This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess 
 we have to cut them some slack.  I would be concerned if what they spread 
 throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs 
 of mankind.
  
 Dave
 -Original Message-
 From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
 Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
 
 Well said, JONES!!!  This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold  
 the governments of the world on spending money for research that has  
 practically no value.  This use of money limits what else can be  
 explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been  
 rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens  
 this spending, as you so clearly state.  When LENR is finally applied  
 at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics  
 community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when  
 so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so  
 great.  Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but  
 rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science  
 can be rejected by a determined skeptic.  We would still be in the  
 Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and  
 applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR?
 
 
 
 Ed
 On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
 
 
 
  From: John Milstone
 
 
 
  For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson.   
  CERN
  doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate  
  their
  work.  Etc, etc.
 
 
 
 
 
  This is complete bull crap !  Big Science is doing much worse than  
  that.
 
 
 
  But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big  
  Science
  projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN.
 
 
 
  The physics establishment  is essentially selling franchises to  
  every
  overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be  
  fired,
  if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR.
 
 
 
  CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects  
  with
  routine $250k salaries would bite the dust!
 
 
 
  That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an  
  elite group
  to tow the company line ...  That is far more despicable than Rossi
  struggling for investment capital.
 
  winmail.dat
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

[Randy Wuller]

Your hunch amounts to overwhelming evidence?  Rossi is public figure?  You 
think you can accuse someone of fraud and not be subject to possible suit? 

As a practicing lawyer, your comments make me shudder!

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

 
 On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
 In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific 
 and compelling evidence.  I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says 
 about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public 
 forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk.
 
 It is not a problem. Both Levi and Rossi are public figures. E.g. Obama does 
 not sue you if you are accusing him a liar from false basis or that you think 
 that Obama has secretly visited Mars in 1980's.
 
 For me the evidence is overwhelming against Rossi and if Rossi is a scammer, 
 this makes also Levi as a partner. Note that this does not imply that Rossi 
 and Levi are doing something that is criminal ― they are just making money!
 
 Note also that evidence is only for me overwhelming. This means that my 
 opinion is strong. However I do not claim that I have positive evidence for 
 the fraud. It is just that my hunch is pointing towards scam.
 
 ―Jouni
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

[Randy wuller]

Joshua:

You make that point all the time.  It is one of your favorites, but it is 
really unsupported speculation and not worth considering.

First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is 
clearly beyond your knowledge.  As Eric suggested making those claims without 
proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self 
serving on your part.  You must recognize that it doesn't mean anything to 
those reading your critiques, unless they don't think critically.

Second, this isn't 1989.  Most scientists who read the report are aware of the 
history.  The idea that we will have a repeat of 1989 is unlikely.  The 
scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long 
ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real.  I can 
speculate just as you.  My speculation is that based on this report the 
scientific community will likely pay more attention to the developments in this 
area and will await further testing and other disclosures before taking active 
steps to investigate.  Some might begin doing some testing and in fact that has 
probably occurred since Rossi first presented his demo, but most will likely 
wait and watch. However, I doubt they will conclude as you do that the report 
is meaningless.

But that is mere speculation, no different than yours.

One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific 
community.  If you do, please identify by what authority you achieved that role 
and position and I will stand corrected.

Ransom  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


  On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


  That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case. 
Deception on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific 
revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.


Perhaps.  But I think we should refrain from speaking on behalf of most 
observers (or scientists, or physicists) until a systematic poll is carried out.








  That's not necessary. A lot of people have seen these claims now. If a 
majority of observers felt that the likely explanation at this point is that 
there's could be some new science to be worked out, there would be an epidemic 
growth of interest; a stampede like in 1989, to mix the metaphor. That has not 
happened.





  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5869 - Release Date: 05/30/13

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

[Randy wuller]

Cude:

You seem to be morphing into troll mode.  Reasonable discussions with you are 
apparently at an end.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question


  On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

Joshua:



First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is 
clearly beyond your knowledge.  As Eric suggested making those claims without 
proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self 
serving on your part.  







  Garbage. Everyone, including skeptics, repeatedly sings about the revolution 
this would bring if real. And many people have seen the claims, now. If they 
believed them, they would not ignore it.




  The scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this 
science long ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real.







  Nah, they gave it far more attention than it deserved, and concluded there 
was nothing there, and moved on.





  
One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific 
community.  





  You're right about that. I'm only expressing what is common sense to all but 
the true believers.






  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5869 - Release Date: 05/30/13

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

[Randy wuller]

Joshua:

Your initial response was to my reply to Guglielmi's claim of an ethical 
violation because the paper wouldn't advance knowledge. You have now come full 
circle.

You said he was talking about the paper not the results. Now all you are saying 
is that the methodology used by the testers wasn't sufficient to advance 
knowledge. That means Guglielmis criticism is misplaced and he should not have 
been talking about ethics but instead methodology. The paper could have 
advanced knowledge if the methodology had been as you later proposed or in many 
other ways.

To further the point, if Rossi can, as you have mentioned a number of times, 
perform a demonstration that would convince the world, surely the scientific 
community can perform a black box test that does the same. So Guglielmi is 
wrong about the issue of ethics, the paper can advance scientific knowledge as 
I stated and the only thing that is required is a proper methodology.

Of course, that raises the real issue. There is nothing scientifically wrong 
with the methodology used in this test. You haven't been able to scientifically 
criticize the output energy so the need to heat a tub of water is unnecessary 
and one of your many red herrings. The methodology to measure input is also 
acceptable unless fraud is occurring, so to be determinative, all the testers 
need do is tighten the input measures to assure your requirement for an 
isolated location (that is what you really mean). So again the issue isn't an 
ethical one but instead one of tightening the methodology to eliminate the 
concern for fraud.

However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which absent 
fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the scientific 
community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is patently 
obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and especially for a 
lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a test which fails to 
eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be determinative, it is a level of 
real proof and would stand in any court of law. Further absent any real 
evidence of fraud the proof is actually even stronger. It clearly is sufficient 
to put the scientific community on notice to pay closer attention to the issues 
and to demand further tests which will result in a conclusive determination. 
Anything less from them would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy 
to prosecute the claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of 
human progress). 

Ransom

- Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi


  On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

Jed:


His two questions can easily be answered.


1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be 
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a 
potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is 
a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may 
produce.




  He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper 
would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change 
the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for 
this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to 
test the claims, and that's not possible.

2) Mankind.




  Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would 
benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote 
that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits 
Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to 
help him do it.


  If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they 
will believer




  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5865 - Release Date: 05/28/13

Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question

[Randy wuller]

Gentlemen:

This argument can't be won or lost because at this point fraud can't be proven. 
 There is no evidence of fraud even if that possibility has not been excluded 
by the tests,

What seems clear is that the measure of output energy was reasonable in the two 
tests.  The input measure of energy is reasonable absent an intentional 
deception by Rossi or Rossi with the aid of one or more of the testers.  That 
is significant.

In my opinion this is a report that can be built upon which I suggest should be 
the purpose of the scientific community.  There can be little doubt that 
mankind and indeed science would benefit from a clear determination of the 
reality of this effect. The scientific community is currently expending little 
effort on the issue and if it is true that is very unfortunate.

It is also clear that if the scientific community comes to believe that the 
effect is real, significant effort will immediately be spent trying to 
understand it.  This is also a good thing.

So instead of endlessly debating the past tests the real goal should be making 
sure there are next ones and that they satisfy the skeptics.

I assume the skeptics would find it very unlikely (assuming a fraud is being 
committed) for Rossi to agree to further testing. This would be telling and 
evidence particularly since further testing has already been discussed.  
Instead of trying to prevent them, given the issues that exist, (and I am 
referencing Guglielmis letter) it seems the scientific community should now 
insist the next tests be scheduled as soon as possible and include as many 
safeguards as the scientific community can imagine to exclude fraud (consistent 
with a real legitimate interest on the inventor's part to protect IP).

In other words, Guglielmi's apparent suggestion that future tests should be 
prevented is exactly the wrong approach at this point.  His concern voiced 
can't be remedied by ignoring the tests or precluding further tests but by 
insisting on them as quickly as possible.  (Since for all intent the Ecat is 
out of the bag)

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question




  The point of bringing in the Swedes, surely, was because an experiment done 
only by Levi would not have the same impact, because he has been associated 
with Rossi, and also because his incompetence was obvious from the steam tests.


  But if the Swedes are constrained by Levi in the choice of measuring 
equipment, then that argument is greatly weakened.

Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported underestimation of radiated power

[Randy wuller]

Joshua:

Don't you find the following scenario just a little disconcerting.

For 24 years the scientific community has been certain (to the point of 
claiming that Cold Fusion was pseudoscience that the anomalous heat found by 
P  F was delusion.  They now have tests clearly demonstrating the effect which 
they can only explain away by proposing acts of fraud.  And before they should 
consider them in any way you feel it is necessary for the entrepreneur (clearly 
not a scientists) to demonstrate it in public so that there can be NO doubt.

How foolish do you want the world's scientific community to look?  Wouldn't it 
be better for the scientific community to get on top of it now and either help 
prove it to the world or expose the fraud?

I find your point of view incomprehensible.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joshua Cude 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pekka Janhunen analysis supports the reported 
underestimation of radiated power


  On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

You are letting your emotions influence your thinking.   Try to keep an 
open mind for a change 


  No, that's you. Cold fusion would benefit everyone, so emotionally I'd like 
it to be true, but I'm rational.


  You, on the other hand, are completely governed by your deep desire for cold 
fusion to be real, that you can't think straight.  Try to keep an open mind for 
a change, and realize that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.



  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5863 - Release Date: 05/28/13

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

His two questions can easily be answered.

1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be 
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a 
potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is 
a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may 
produce.

2) Mankind.

His analysis must assume the results are a fraud to advance his ethical charge.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:
  
 One question for Mr. Guglielmi.
 
 If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test 
 unethical?
 
  
 . . . Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my remarks!
 
 Ah, he did answer the first question, with a song and dance:
 
 . . .  I would consider the test unethical if the answers to my two 
 questions:
 
 1) How does your paper advance knowledge?
 2) Who will benefit from it?
 
 would come out as something like: 1) It doesn't; 2) Rossi and his associates.
 
 Obviously, if the test exposed a fraud the answer to question number (2) 
 would become `Nobody´, and this would somehow mitigate the lack of ethics. 
 Still, the answer to question (1) might be the same, and we still have to 
 consider that these scientists did make experiments in a commercial facility 
 and without being in control.
 
 
 Guglielmi is a logician in computer science. A logician in the classic 
 academic sense; an expert in splitting hairs and chopping logic.
 
 When people like this come out of the woodwork with daft arguments I get a 
 sense we may be making progress. This is the best they can come up with.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:The Real Space Age

[Randy Wuller]

Terry:

It is the fulfillment of a lot of effort by citizen groups who lobbied 
Congress.  I led some of them. We asked that they encourage NASA to withdraw 
from the transportation industry and stimulate the private sector to take its 
place.

Had the economy not crashed in 2008 and had Congress implemented some of the 
proposals more aggressively, I think the roll out would have already occurred.

If LENR verifies, the age of space will open with a flurry in the next 10 
years.  It's what got me interested in watching LENR.  Even without this 
revolution in energy, the space age will open to non government participants 
shortly.  Should be fun.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was saddened by the day that NASA essentially abandoned manned space
 flight thinking it was the end of the Space Age.  Was I ever wrong!
 You probably know about most of these companies; but, here is a
 compilation:
 
 http://nymag.com/news/features/space-travel-2013-5/
 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Randy Wuller]

The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity.  You 
can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did.  That is nonsense. It was also 
tested (emissivity that is) and it wasn't similar to a metal.  You were right 
to ignore the output side.  By even suggesting it Motil and Ekstrom were as 
disingenous (deceitful) as Rossi is suspected to be on the input side.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making 
 a mistake about emissivity.
 P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K).
 At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value 
 used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be 
 less than the calculated value.
  
 Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, 
 then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1.
  
 It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got 
 deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I 
 remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong.
  
 Andrew
  
  
 - Original Message -
 From: Jed Rothwell
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
 Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
 
 Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a 
 reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et 
 al.
 
 Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University
 
 http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf
 
 
 This document stands as its own rebuttal.
 
 - ed
 

Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity.  When the Thermal Scanner 
takes a reading it is imaging from the object.  In order to convert that image 
to temperature one must know the emissivity.  The scanner has a formula based 
on the emissivity.  You are absolutely right that by inputting an emissivity of 
1 the calculated temperature is at the lowest level calculated by the scanner 
and thus the most conservative.  Thus the temperature calculated in the study 
is conservative.

If that was the end of it, the use of 1 for emissivity would be quite 
conservative. 

However, for the report that isn't the end.  To calculate the energy from the 
reactor this temperature is used in the Stefan boltzmann constant and 
emissivity has to again be input to calculate the energy. Using an emissivity 
in this formula of 1. At any given temperature gives an inflated value of 
energy for a body with an emissivity less than 1.   In this calculation using 
an emissivity of 1 is not conservative but inflating.

The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates (calculations) 
would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they most likely offset each 
other.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2013, at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e 
 (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
 
 The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 
 [2]. The lower value would
 obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1.
 
 He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, 
 meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1.
 
 Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), 
 some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, 
 Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

[Randy Wuller]

Andrew:

Your point is not well taken.  Proof is a continuum.  In this case you must 
posit fraud to counter proof.  Fraud may or may not be actually possible in 
this case but it can always be imagined.

The real question is whether the scientific community is required to ignore 
these results because they can imagine fraud.  Such a position is beyond lunacy 
to me.  Of course not.  What they should do is consider them in light of the 
range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they feel conclusive proof is 
absent, insist that the next investigation remedy the issue.

They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a 
possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1) ignore the 
results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception conclude NO proof exists.

You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the possible.  This 
the kind of silly position taken by Cude.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:

 The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis that all 
 the output power derives from the input power. The due diligence exercised by 
 all these august testers was quite frankly of a disappointingly low standard, 
 because they failed to obtain a resolution to this question. What is worse, 
 they appear not to have been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the 
 report. Elephant in the room syndrome, quite likely.
  
 Andrew
 - Original Message -
 From: Rich Murray
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude
 Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis
 
 Thanks, Duncan --
 
 I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, 
 no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on 
 cold fusion.
 
 My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert 
 detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims.  I am totally 
 willing to be convinced.  I'm playing the critical role, because then the 
 enthusiasts have to succeed at the public evidence game, which is much of 
 what drives overall scientific progress.
 
 So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the apparent 
 electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size of a bowling pin.  
 
 So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one well hidden 
 wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can have a very small 
 diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even be a tube of elastic 
 conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden within a larger plastic water 
 tube -- somewhere in the world by now, this stuff may exist -- or, high 
 voltage conducing wires that are hidden within the insulation of what appears 
 to be conventional power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this 
 ball...
 
 [PDF]
 Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA 
 nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf
 The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical flexibility 
 and tunable optical properties of some conducting polymers make them 
 attractive ...
 
 So, this is proof that subtle, unexpected ways of providing extra electric 
 power may be developed by a highly motivated dare I say?... inventor.
 
 So, if what Rossi is actually doing is hiding a thin high temperature 
 tungsten or conducting ceramic straight wire in the center of his device, 
 then the first step is to to find out whether he has or will allow this to be 
 publicly vetted with video records.
 
 Joshua Cude raised the question of whether the many evenly spaced horizontal 
 lines on the outside of the glowing case were from the heater resistor wires 
 looking hotter, or were from the resistor wire shadows from an even  brighter 
 central source inside the cylinder of heater resistor wires -- has this been 
 ascertained?
 
 within the community of service,  Rich
 
 
 
 On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info 
 wrote:
 I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would like 
 to consider the meter A / meter B issue.
 
 There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a current clamp, 
 incapable of detecting DC. Meter B is a current shunt or hall effect clamp, 
 capable of detecting DC. The way to bamboozle meter A is a simple diode in 
 series with the load, costing under a dollar. Hardly rocket science. There 
 is, of course, a simple way to uncover such a fraud - just use an 
 oscilloscope to measure the current waveform.
 
 It is much cheaper and easier to procure meter A than meter B, and also much 
 easier to use. It is a pain to break the cables and insert current shunts, 
 plus some power is wasted in the shunts. Also, you need a floating power 
 supply and true differential amplifier to power the amplifiers after the 
 

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Randy Wuller]

It is a waste of energy to be against scientific investigation no matter how 
you perceive the chance of success.  It is a sign of the times, just like Parks 
book Voodoo Science.  It smacks of Dogma and Religious belief and the lack of 
openmindedness.  Go get a life.



Sent from my iPhone

On May 8, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
   What he can't explain is why anyone would run around the internet trying 
 to stop people from investigating a phenomenon. 
 
 I think cold fusion is a pipe dream, and I like people to agree with me. You 
 can't seriously be unaware that all manner of trivial subjects are argued 
 with equal or greater passion on the internet. The simple truth is that good 
 argument can be invigorating.
 
  
 It makes no sense and is probably a symptom of the very negative period (I 
 would describe it as the age of pessimism) we find ourselves living through. 
 
 
 Other than in the field of cold fusion, progress in science has continues 
 apace. Shechtman (who should be sensitive to inertia in science because his 
 discovery of quasicrystals was ridiculed by Pauling) identified 3 surprising 
 discoveries on the structure of matter in the 80s: quasi-crystals, 
 fullerenes, and high temperature superconductivity. Conspicuously absent: 
 cold fusion, which would be the most surprising of all.
 
  
 When the pendulum shifts
 
 pendulums swing, they don't shift
  
 and we enter an optimistic age, everything will seem possible and as such 
 being for something will be much more productive (it always is) than being 
 against something. 
 
 Everything? It will be much more productive to be for perpetual motion 
 research?
 
 
 You will find a lot less Cude's running around, thank goodness.
 
 I don't know. Skepticism of cold fusion seems to pretty common among the very 
 best physicists. What has a cold fusion true believer done for the world 
 lately?
 
  
 Personally, while he is obviously bright, Cude's position is just about the 
 dumbest fool thing I have ever read.
 
 But shared by a lot of smart people like Gell-Mann.
 
  
  
 In answer to your question, of course we should investigate a phenomenon of 
 the significance of Cold Fusion even if the chance of it being real is 
 miniscule.
 
 Our main difference is in the magnitude assigned to miniscule. 
 
 
  
   I also think it is absurd to believe we have an adequate understanding of 
 physics today to rule it out.
 
 
 There is a reason lawyers are not consulted about the adequacy of current 
 physics understanding.
  
 

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Randy wuller]

Cude would argue that there isn't a newly discovered (new is of course 
relative) phenomenon and that everyone investigating it is deluded, incompetent 
or both.  What he can't explain is why anyone would run around the internet 
trying to stop people from investigating a phenomenon.  It makes no sense and 
is probably a symptom of the very negative period (I would describe it as the 
age of pessimism) we find ourselves living through.  When the pendulum shifts 
and we enter an optimistic age, everything will seem possible and as such being 
for something will be much more productive (it always is) than being against 
something.  You will find a lot less Cude's running around, thank goodness.

Personally, while he is obviously bright, Cude's position is just about the 
dumbest fool thing I have ever read.

Anyway, if you push him he will morph the argument to government support (no 
one can really argue against private investigation of Cold Fusion) for 
investigation of Cold Fusion and act like a citizen advocate against wasted 
government spending as though we don't waste enough on other energy 
investigations like ITER.

In answer to your question, of course we should investigate a phenomenon of the 
significance of Cold Fusion even if the chance of it being real is miniscule.  
I also think it is absurd to believe we have an adequate understanding of 
physics today to rule it out.

Ransom

But you waste your time on Cude, he is a rock head.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial


  Joshua, cold fusion is either a real phenomenon in Nature or it is not. You 
argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many mistakes made 
repeatedly by many well trained scientists. Regardless of what is suggested as 
evidence, you will find a way to reject it.  While this approach is useful up 
to a point, you frequently go beyond this point into arbitrary and irrational 
argument done apparently simply to saying something. In the process you confuse 
people who are new to the subject and are trying to wade through the complexity 
that is cold fusion. 


  My following comment is only for readers who are still following this 
exchange. I do not have the time to refute all of what Cude says, which would 
only lead to an growing collection of comment and rebuttal without end.   For 
your benefit, I need to emphasis that I and most other believers are just as 
skeptical of what we observe as is Cude. We question and repeat until we are 
sure the results are real, which we now accept as reveling a new phenomenon. 
However, no data is perfect. The goal after any new phenomenon is discovered is 
to keep looking until it is understood. Cude would stop that process.  You, as 
a new evaluator of the claims, need to decide whether the investigation process 
needs to be stopped or expanded. That is the only question of importance.  I 
would be very interested in your answer.  


  If I get no response to this request, I will make no further response to 
Cude. 


  Ed Storms





  On May 7, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
wrote:





  Nevertheless, when many people report seeing the same behavior, the 
reality of this behavior grows.  You take the approach that none of the claimed 
behavior has been observed, consisting instead of bad interpretation of random 
events, unrecognized error, and wishful thinking. This opinion is applied to 
all the trained scientists who have been well accepted when they did studies in 
other subjects.  


This argument is a favorite among believers, and has been addressed many 
times in these discussions. Here are 4 parts of a 5 part response I wrote for 
another forum:  


1) Pathological Science


The phenomenon of many scientists subject to bad interpretations of random 
events, unrecognized errors, and wishful thinking is sufficiently common that 
it has been given a name: pathological science. It happened to a lesser extent 
with N-rays and polywater, and to a greater extent (though perhaps at a lesser 
level) in homeopathy and perpetual motion machines.


It isn't as if 100 scientists (or however many) were chosen at random to do 
cold fusion experiments and they all claimed positive results. The people 
claiming positive results are the remainder after considerable filtration. In 
fact in the 2 cases when panels of experts were enlisted to examine the 
evidence, their judgements were that cold fusion had not been proven.


After PF, cold fusion experiments were done all over the world -- by 
probably tens of thousands of scientists. A few of the negative results were 
famously presented, but most researchers simply went back to their previous 
interests when their experiments showed nothing, and after they had examined 
the positive claims 

Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100

[Randy wuller]

Ed:

I really respect you and your work in Cold Fusion but I think the whole process 
has soured you.  I am sure I don't need to remind you and everyone else on the 
vortex that 2100 is 87 years away.  I also think it is self evident that we 
likely have NO idea what the world will be like in 87 years, what advances will 
have been achieved, what world economics will look like or the state of energy 
production.  I also think I am safe in predicting that even our best guesses 
are probably wildly off as is our current notion of what if anything we will be 
able to do to combat weather changes..

I would also like to say to Ed personally that if LENR is ever shown to be 
commercially viable the investment in the field will more than likely be like a 
tsunami and advances will very likely occur at breakneck speeds.  That in my 
opinion is the way revolutions occur.  They seldom sneak up on anyone.  More 
often they just sweep the landscape.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100


  Yes and we can see this being implemented in the movie Water World.  
Meanwhile, people have to be encouraged to move to higher ground.  Rather than 
insure houses in impacted areas to rebuild, why not pay only if the person 
moves? 


  Ed



  On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:


This response is a thought toward problem solving and not climate change 
which I have agreed to avoid without proper provocation. 


One way to handle habitation when water is the only area available is to 
actually build floating structures or to build habitats that are underwater.  
With the advancements in material sciences that are taking place, I can readily 
visualize new building structures that use carbon fibers or perhaps silicon 
ones that are super strong and flexible.  It is not impossible for a large 
structure or group of structures to be constructed that float with the tides.


If future generations figure out ways to commute around by air instead of 
roadways, then this will be a natural progression.  Besides, I suspect that 
most work will be performed at home in the not so distance future and travel to 
large city structures will be minimized.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100


You don't. You build dikes and pump out the water, aka Holland.  But you 
start now to put the system in place as is being considered but not implemented 
yet.  


Ed 

On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Axil Axil wrote:



  How do you move the New York subway system or the Big Dig in Boston to 
higher ground?
  Cheers:Axil

  On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Ed stated:
“The discussion now must be how do we respond to the loss of land 
presently occupied by millions of people and important infrastructure.”

There is NO emergency… Sell the house or start moving important 
infrastructure to higher ground.

*IF* the oceans do rise significantly, it won’t happen overnight… it 
will take years and more likely, decades.  
For important infrastructure, planning needs to be done to determine 
how much time would be needed to relocate to higher ground.

For homeowners, pack up your stuff and MOVE!  It is that simple for 
them…
If you’re smart, sell the place now while beachfront property is 
valuable… when your house is underwater it won’t be worth much!
And if all this does happen, it wouldn’t surprise me if those 
homeowners think they are entitled to govt aid when they were too stupid to 
just move.

-Mark

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms

Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100





Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate 
change issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting world-wide and the 
average temperature is increasing. The glaciers are melting and the Arctic 
regon is losing ice. This fact is acknowledged by all sides in the debate. The 
question is only about the cause. Is the cause part of the natural cycle or is 
it caused by man?  Either way, the ocean is and will continue to rise and 
people had better plan to move if they are in the affected areas. 

I believe, like many other people, that if the main caused is CO2 
production, we are too late to stop the process or even to slow it down. 
Therefore, the discussion about CO2 is irrelevant. The discussion now must be 
how do we 

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Randy wuller]

Ed:

The housing bubble didn't almost bring down the entire world economy. That is 
pure sensationalism. As with any bubble, when it pops those holding the bag 
usually suffer.  In the case of 2008, the bag holders got the world governments 
to spread the suffering. 

Your comments sound like many of the doomsday predictors, peak oil etc so 
prevalent today.   Your concern is understandable given this age of pessimism 
but instead of getting worked up maybe you should stick to LENR, if that 
technology verifies this age of pessimism will certainly end and all your 
concerns will evaporate.  By the way, my take is that this age of pessimism is 
going to end soon even without LENR.

- Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment




  On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Ed Storms wrote:

  Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the
  people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
  predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .


Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such as here, 
in 2005:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0


He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as junk.


  Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual generalities. 
He observes that a bubble was being created in the housing market. He even 
observed, apparently approvingly, that the government would create another 
after this one bursts, although he did not anticipate the way this is presently 
being done.  He made no mention that this bubble would almost bring down the 
entire world ecconomy.   I will give him some credit, He was not as calm about 
the problem as was Sir Greenspan.  Meanwhile, other people were very exact 
about what would happen and when - three years later from this article.




  In fact the
  difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
  problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.


Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a panic 
for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a personality 
thing. 


  I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of money 
during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not intend to 
let this happen again.


  Ed




We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in point: my 
mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on November 1, 1950. 
President Truman was living there while the White House was being rebuilt. 
There was a series of loud bangs. Someone said, they're trying to assassinate 
the president!! My mother said, don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring 
and went back to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate 
the president.


- Jed




  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date: 01/29/13

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Randy wuller]

Call it social security, call it a citizen dividend, call it whatever you want, 
if world productivity continues to increase (ie, more is available to 
distribute) so will the give away to those living and not producing or not 
producing much.  Even if no one is working we will find a way to allocate the 
goods to those living on this planet, unless you want to give it to the robots 
who are doing the work.  In essence funding is unnecessary, allocating the 
productions is all that is needed.  

Many of you are missing the point of the article on automation,  the only thing 
that really matters is whether the pie increases and it is, dividing it up is 
never easy but will always be resolved by some method.

However as to the method, what I am hearing is this antiquated notion that 
Human Beings are really productive today or ultimately needed for production.  
That may be true of some of us but far fewer then in the past and far more 
today then will be needed in the future.  Most of us even now are just 
entertaining each other. It is made up work.  Everyone needs to get used to it 
and we really do need to find a better way to allocate the productivity of the 
world.  The problem in a service society is average ability is practically 
unwanted.  We all want the services of those on the edge of the bell shaped 
curve (those with something exceptional to give), so those are the ones who get 
paid a lot.  Everyone else is interchangeable and not worth spit and paid 
accordingly. So is that how you all want to allocate resources in the future? A 
tiny portion of the world population have 99% of what is produced and everyone 
else lives poorly (keeping in mind that we will be able to produce enough to 
allow everyone to live like the kings of the past if we want.)  I don't think 
that is such a good idea,   We need a better way to allocate production. We 
also need to expand beyond this planet to give us something to do before we go 
stir crazy.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Zell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment


  Business Insider recently reported that Krugman may be discreetly admitting 
that he has made a serious oversight with regard to the viability of Social 
Security.  Automation is eliminating jobs at such a rate that the payroll tax 
funding source may be in peril.  



--
  From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Cc: Edmund Storms
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment




  On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Ed Storms wrote: 

  Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the
  people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
  predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .


Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such as here, 
in 2005:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0


He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as junk.


  Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual generalities. 
He observes that a bubble was being created in the housing market. He even 
observed, apparently approvingly, that the government would create another 
after this one bursts, although he did not anticipate the way this is presently 
being done.  He made no mention that this bubble would almost bring down the 
entire world ecconomy.   I will give him some credit, He was not as calm about 
the problem as was Sir Greenspan.  Meanwhile, other people were very exact 
about what would happen and when - three years later from this article.




  In fact the
  difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
  problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.


Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a panic 
for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a personality 
thing. 


  I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of money 
during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not intend to 
let this happen again.


  Ed




We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in point: my 
mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on November 1, 1950. 
President Truman was living there while the White House was being rebuilt. 
There was a series of loud bangs. Someone said, they're trying to assassinate 
the president!! My mother said, don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring 
and went back to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate 
the president.


- Jed




  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Randy wuller]

Ed:

An idiot would have taken their money out of the stock market in 2008 and 1929. 
 Now a really good prognosticator would have taken their money out in 2007 and 
1928 and put it right back into the market in 2009 and 1930, (but if you know 
any of those, you may want them to take a lie detector test) but truly 
pessimistic people rarely (the type who would have taken it out in 2007) find 
the courage to put it back in.  They just see the next disaster.

However, had you stayed the course, your assets would be worth more today than 
in 2007.  Also, keep in mind that secular bear markets (like the one we have 
been in since 2000) have a tendency to run their course in 15 years or so and 
we are at 13 now, so the market bear is getting really long in the tooth.  And 
what ends the age of pessimism is always interesting and rarely identified 
until years later.  I suspect it will have something to do with energy because 
that is one of the governors restricting world growth today.  Which by the way 
is the reason I have been watching LENR and chose to sign up to the Vortex. 
Nanotechnology may also be the stimulus.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment




  On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Randy wuller wrote:


Ed:

The housing bubble didn't almost bring down the entire world economy. That 
is pure sensationalism. As with any bubble, when it pops those holding the bag 
usually suffer.  In the case of 2008, the bag holders got the world governments 
to spread the  suffering. 


  That conclusion is in conflict with what was claimed at the time and provided 
justification for the Tarp funding.  As for pessimism, this is the description 
someone applies when they do not believe what is being described.  The 
description is acknowledged as being a true representation of reality if a 
person believes what is said. The question at this point is, who's view of 
reality is correct?  In 2008 and in 1929, a pessimist would have taken their 
money out of the stock market. The optimist did not.  Your choice.  We all make 
choices that have consequences and these choices must be based on what is real. 
I'm trying to understand what is real. Are you?




   By the way, what ends the age of pessimism?  Do people get their jobs and 
homes back? How soon does this happen?


  Ed


Your comments sound like many of the doomsday predictors, peak oil etc so 
prevalent today.   Your concern is understandable given this age of pessimism 
but instead of getting worked up maybe you should stick to LENR, if that 
technology verifies this age of pessimism will certainly end and all your 
concerns will evaporate.  By the way, my take is that this age of pessimism is 
going to end soon even without LENR.

- Original Message -
  From: Edmund Storms
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Cc: Edmund Storms
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on 
employment




  On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Ed Storms wrote:

  Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the
  people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
  predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .


Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such as 
here, in 2005:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0


He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as junk.


  Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual 
generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the housing 
market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the government would 
create another after this one bursts, although he did not anticipate the way 
this is presently being done.  He made no mention that this bubble would almost 
bring down the entire world ecconomy.   I will give him some credit, He was not 
as calm about the problem as was Sir Greenspan.  Meanwhile, other people were 
very exact about what would happen and when - three years later from this 
article.




  In fact the
  difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
  problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.


Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a 
panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a 
personality thing.


  I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of money 
during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not intend to 
let this happen again.


  Ed




We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in point: 
my mother

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Randy wuller]

Ed:

Not pessimistic at all.  But, yes we can probably all be replaced.  However, 
Human Beings will just find something else to do.  

The dilemma between Government directed and market directed is that the 
Government does a real bad job of running a business. I spent years on Capital 
Hill trying to encourage a change in the Space program to a more commercial 
model in which government provided incentives ( I even wrote a tax credit bill 
for the space transportation industry )  to encourage investment and let those 
investing direct the effort.  That is the model that needs to be implemented, 
especially in the sciences.  But alas, it is hard to change the thinking of 
those in charge.  But government is good at collecting resources and 
redistributing them.

- Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment


  I agree Randy, we need a way to distribute the goodies being made 
increasingly without human help. The free enterprise system worked well in the 
past and many other ideas have failed. However, transition to a new system will 
not be easy. I suggest every one read the book Essentials of Economics.  I 
was impressed about how the system actually works in contrast to the impression 
I got from less educated sources. The system is a well oiled machine with 
interconnected parts, all of which have to interact in certain ways. Of course, 
governments often throw sand in the works.  Nevertheless, certain rules must be 
followed or the machine stops working.  Before people suggest what is required 
to solve the growing problem of robots, I suggest you learn about how the 
machine actually works.  By the way, this problem is not new. Machines have 
been taking over for almost 200 years with growing effect.  The only difference 
is that the machines are now moving up the food chain and starting to affect a 
growing number of people especially at the higher skill and economic level. The 
natural expectation is that we all can be replaced - or is that too pessimistic?


  Ed





  On Jan 29, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Randy wuller wrote:


Call it social security, call it a citizen dividend, call it whatever you 
want, if world productivity continues to increase (ie, more is available to 
distribute) so will the give away to those living and not producing or not 
producing much.  Even if no one is working we will find a way to allocate the 
goods to those living on this planet, unless you want to give it to the robots 
who are doing the work.  In essence funding is unnecessary, allocating the 
productions is all that is needed. 

Many of you are missing the point of the article on automation,  the only 
thing that really matters is whether the pie increases and it is, dividing it 
up is never easy but will always be resolved by some method.

However as to the method, what I am hearing is this antiquated notion that 
Human Beings are really productive today or ultimately needed for production.  
That may be true of some of us but far fewer then in the past and far more 
today then will be needed in the future.  Most of us even now are just 
entertaining each other. It is made up work.  Everyone needs to get used to it 
and we really do need to find a better way to allocate the productivity of the 
world.  The problem in a service society is average ability is practically 
unwanted.  We all want the services of those on the edge of the bell shaped 
curve (those with something exceptional to give), so those are the ones who get 
paid a lot.  Everyone else is interchangeable and not worth spit and paid 
accordingly. So is that how you all want to allocate resources in the future? A 
tiny portion of the world population have 99% of what is produced and everyone 
else lives poorly (keeping in mind that we will be able to produce enough to 
allow everyone to live like the kings of the past if we want.)  I don't think 
that is such a good idea,   We need a better way to allocate production. We 
also need to expand beyond this planet to give us something to do before we go 
stir crazy.
  - Original Message -
  From: Chris Zell
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on 
employment


  Business Insider recently reported that Krugman may be discreetly 
admitting that he has made a serious oversight with regard to the viability of 
Social Security.  Automation is eliminating jobs at such a rate that the 
payroll tax funding source may be in peril. 



--
  From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Cc: Edmund Storms
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[Randy Wuller]

Ed and others:  

The US net wealth after all debt is deducted is higher now than it has ever 
been in US history.  Print the money, default or make the citizens of the US 
pay it off, it makes almost no difference.  Debt is more or less an illusion.  
Picking one or the other of the above choices will cause different 
redistributions of wealth among the weathy of the world but will have almost no 
impact on overall product production. 

Those that claim otherwise do so principally to promote allocation of wealth to 
those protected by their policy approach.

Nothing is more  illusion than the concept of debt. (From the world's point of 
view).

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 I ranted:
  IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided
  belief that balancing the national budget is the most
  important thing, above everything else, that must be
  tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that
  money is nothing more than a contractual
  representation of the exchange of goods and services
  between individuals and legal entities.
  
 Ed replied:
  
  No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is
  that money has been lent to the US in various forms and
  by various people and they want their money back
  eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The
  US is rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if the
  interest rates rose to normal levels, we could not pay the
  interest without shutting down significant parts of the
  government. The US is presently printing dollars to cover
  this expense.  As a result, the debt is growing because
  this money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is
  a private bank owned by individuals who want to be paid.
  At some point in the near future, the debt will be so
  large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is
  in default, and the financial system of the world
  collapses. This means starvation and civil strife.  The
  problem is serous and can not be solved without great pain,
  which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress
  over the last 20 years have created a no win situation
  that very few people understand.
  
 I'm 100% in agreement with your debt analysis, Ed. I suspect we are probably 
 discussing the same issue, but from slightly different angles. And perhaps 
 with slightly different objective as well.
  
 As we all know the nation is getting more and more in debt. However, as Jed 
 points out in a follow-up post, I also suspect this debt crisis is a 
 contrivance with a specific objective in mind. That objective being that 
 those with the most amount of money now stand to end up making even more 
 money in the future! This obviously can't continue. Such a scam will 
 eventually break system.
  
 For me, this gets back to my prior comment that money is nothing more than a 
 contractual representation of the exchange of goods and services between 
 parties. The only thing that gives value to money is the generation of goods 
 and services the piece of paper attempts to represent at the precise moment 
 of the exchange. It's not due to the fact that we have printed up a fixed 
 amount of money that others then, through hard work, try to accumulate - as 
 if money itself has some mysterious kind of intrinsic magical value in itself.
  
 Massive debt on the national level can only be created as a result of keeping 
 the amount of money that can ever be allowed in circulation maintained at a 
 fixed aggregate amount. There are those in power who want to keep everyone 
 worshipping the notion that the total amount of aggregate money in the system 
 must remain a FIXED amount. And they are ...duh...  those with the most 
 amount of money languishing about in their vaults. Under this convenient 
 arrangement the temporary illusion of extra cash that suddenly flows into the 
 macroeconomic system can only be generated by those who have more money than 
 they know what to do with who, in turn, generously LEND it back into the 
 system. And we all know what happens when it's finally time to pay the piper. 
 The rich end up with an even bigger slice of the entire pie while everyone 
 else ends up with less. This simply can't continue. Some archetypical form of 
 a Robin Hood scenario will eventually force itself upon the political area as 
 the only means left to help balance the books in a more equitable manner. 
 IMHO, the only means left to a nation rapidly growing its debt load would be 
 to start printing up more money - money which will not be paid for through 
 issuing more bonds. Printing up more “unaccountable” money would be the only 
 means left to a nation as a means to better redistribute slices of the pie.
  
 If we don't, I think we will ironically sow the seeds of where the intrinsic 
 value of money will become devalued, if not seriously damaged. This will 
 happen because more and more of the 

Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....

[Randy wuller]

Jojo:

I don't understand your passionate position on this issue.  Given some evidence 
either way, the only logical position is one of caution.  If there is a 
possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we 
should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about 
what our meddling will change and it is harmless.
It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel 
differently.  It is a puzzle to me.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: Vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming 



  Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 

  Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.

  This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion that 
Global Warming must be accelerating???

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/


  Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming is 
occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into the 
atmosphere 


  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/


  But, what do I know.  I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where NOT 
bribed or threatened in any way.  And since, there's 2000 of them; there's only 
one of me.  They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning their 
conclusions must be nuts.  Right Jed?


  Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW 
propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... 
right?




  Jojo


  PS:  BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) 
propaganda from this forum.



  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12

Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....

[Randy wuller]

Jojo:

I think it is unlikely that the science will be settled for everyone in the 
foreseeable future.  Some will have a vested interest to oppose certain steps 
and will likely seek experts who will find reasons to call other opinions into 
question.

It seems much more irresponsible in the face of opinion which rises above 
noise, to ignore the possibility of adverse consequences.

As a result, I do not see the logic in waiting to make sure there is a 
problem before taking steps to avoid causing a problem.  Especially, when the 
making sure part may be quite difficult and likely will occur after the 
adverse events are irrefutable.

Free markets are great and are efficient in many areas, however, government has 
also proven to be a necessary and a good thing in certain areas.  If you feel 
differently you will probably be forever unhappy because government 
intervention in some areas is unlikely to go away and in fact is demanded by a 
majority of your fellow human beings. If anything that kind of intervention is 
likely to increase in the future. But you answered my question, you are a 
libertarian, rather strong one it seems.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


  Randy,

  It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, we 
must first make sure there is a problem.  Taking steps to correct a 
non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a 
whole new set of problems.  We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a 
possibility.  This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible.  Settle the 
science first and do not cram it down people's throats.

  I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead oil 
by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas.  That is 
also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it.  However, 
such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. 
 They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial 
tenable.  As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt 
the more sensible solution.  I just despise big, overreaching, 
communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to 
promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. 

  That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative or 
not, it's just common sense.


  Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Randy wuller 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


Jojo:

I don't understand your passionate position on this issue.  Given some 
evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution.  If there is 
a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we 
should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about 
what our meddling will change and it is harmless.
It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives feel 
differently.  It is a puzzle to me.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: Vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


  Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 

  Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.

  This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the conclusion 
that Global Warming must be accelerating???

  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/


  Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global warming 
is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps out into 
the atmosphere 


  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/


  But, what do I know.  I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who where 
NOT bribed or threatened in any way.  And since, there's 2000 of them; there's 
only one of me.  They must be right and I am wrong and anybody questioning 
their conclusions must be nuts.  Right Jed?


  Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding AGW 
propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... 
right?




  Jojo


  PS:  BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or Anti-AGW) 
propaganda from this forum.



  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release Date: 12/17/12

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global Warming ....

[Randy wuller]

Jojo:

The sun is unlikely to go supernova in any time frame measured by human 
lifespan and indeed human societal lifespan. Further, at this point in our 
existence we can't do a thing about it.  The effect of AGW if true will happen 
in our lifetimes and may be preventable.

The first is thus discounted and ignored and the second even if much less 
certain must be considered.

Ransom

- Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


  John,

  This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise.

  OK, let me throw that premise back at you.

  What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun going 
supernova?
  What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it going 
supernova?


  After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go supernova than 
there is of AGW. 

  I trust you see my point.  If not, I'll be more than happy and willing to 
spell it out for you.


  Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do 
anything about it? 
What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something about it?


On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Randy,

  It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a problem, 
we must first make sure there is a problem.  Taking steps to correct a 
non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps would cause a 
whole new set of problems.  We should not take DRACONIAN measures to correct a 
possibility.  This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible.  Settle the 
science first and do not cram it down people's throats.

  I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from raghead 
oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas.  That is 
also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it.  However, 
such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some global agenda. 
 They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and financial 
tenable.  As you will find, when you give people a choice, people will adopt 
the more sensible solution.  I just despise big, overreaching, 
communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to 
promote their Environmental Worshipping agenda. 

  That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being conservative 
or not, it's just common sense.


  Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Randy wuller 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


Jojo:

I don't understand your passionate position on this issue.  Given some 
evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution.  If there is 
a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems to me we 
should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no doubt about 
what our meddling will change and it is harmless.
It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most conservatives 
feel differently.  It is a puzzle to me.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: Vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:New Data Worrying 2000 climatologists about Global 
Warming 


  Here's some new data that is worrying 2000 climatologists about 
Global Warming 

  Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be wrong.

  This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the 
conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating???

  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/


  Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link definitely shows that Global 
warming is occuring that is correlated to the amount of C02 that man pumps 
out into the atmosphere 


  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/


  But, what do I know.  I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists who 
where NOT bribed or threatened in any way.  And since, there's 2000 of them; 
there's only one of me.  They must be right and I am wrong and anybody 
questioning their conclusions must be nuts.  Right Jed?


  Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity regarding 
AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with impunity... 
right?




  Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized

[Randy Wuller]

Jojo:

The Wealth of the US is owned by a small portion of its citizens.  It doesn't 
seem out line that those who own it pay for it. 

Instead it seems you would prefer that those who have little or no ownership in 
the assets of this country pay the country's bills.

This is after all another way to look at it.





Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 My friend, I think you should be the one seeking professional help.  For ... 
 How could one consider THEFT to be a trivial matter.  How would you feel if I 
 stole your life savings?  Hey, to save us the trouble, why don't you just 
 send me your life savings so that I can have more discretionary spending.
  
 And Income Redistribution is THEFT.  It is not individual theft as we would 
 understand;  NO, Income Redistribution is Institutional Theft.  The very 
 government sworn to protect your rights is the one stealing from you. 
  
 And just because MORE people want to redistribute Bill Gates' income, that 
 makes it correct and moral, right?  That, my friend, makes you a communist.
  
 Communism is characterized by mob-rule.   Whatever, the majority wants goes, 
 without regard for the rights of the minority.  Income Redistribution is mob 
 rule.
  
  
 Jojo
  
 PS, You have no idea how much I give to charity and church work.  So, don't 
 presume to lecture me about basic human relationship, compassion and charity. 
  I give out of my free will.  That is the essence of human choice God gave 
 us.  Forcing me to give to lazy bums in Wisconsin so that he can buy a new 
 HDTV is neither basic human relationship, nor compassion nor charity.
  
 BTW.  I am probably giving more and will give more to charity and church work 
 than your whole lifetime income.
  
  
  
  
 - Original Message -
 From: Daniel Rocha
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 2:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized
 
 I am not doing an analogy at all. I am just talking about logic  If A has 
 something in common with B, it does not follow that A=B.
 
 I hope this issue of redistribution does not affect your personal life. It's 
 something really trivial to understand and it is behind basic human 
 relationships, like compassion and charity. If you cannot see in that way, 
 your mind must be full of paranoia and you should seek a professional 
 counseling.
 
 2012/10/7 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
 You say this with such hutzpah and authority as if this analogy were really 
 appropriate.
  
 You analogy is faulty and I reject it.  It does not even follow basic 
 logical reasoning at all.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com
 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Randy wuller]

Mark Gibbs:

Mark, I agree with you.  However, I am not a journalist.  As a journalist, I 
would expect you to have SOURCES I don't have.  I would expect a journalist who 
is obviously interested in the subject to know more than I know, But, I read 
your articles and find that you provide me NO more information than I already 
have which I might say is very disappointing.

Frankly, by now I would expect the media (and an investigative reporter and 
journalist) to have either, confirmed a fraud OR confirmed something 
newsworthy.  I find they and you have done neither and it makes me wonder why 
the media in this case seems so inept.

Ransom


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Gibbs 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; E-Cat newsletter ; Sterling Allan ; Hank Mills 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:23 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed


  In the piece by Hank Mills it claims PESN has obtained satisfactory 
confirmation that a report covering the test does indeed exist. ... the 
article then goes on to completely avoid any details as to what the 
satisfactory confirmation might be or who might consider it satisfactory.


  The piece concludes with If the test reports that are expected to be 
released at Zurich and then in October show evidence of the above, they are 
worth waiting for. Sure, and if the tests reveal that unicorns are real that 
would also be worth waiting for. 


  Hank Mills continues: I would go further; if they show kilowatts of excess 
heat and temperatures of up to 1,200C, the wait will have been trivial.


  If, if, if ... 


  As my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.


  [Mark Gibbs]


  On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Sterling Allan 
sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com wrote:

We could have published this much sooner, but with all of the negativity 
going around presently about Rossi, I thought it deserved a story by itself.


http://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/
 
  a.. 
  Featured / Best Exotic FE: Nuclear  Cold Fusion  Rossi  
  Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed - PESN has obtained 
confirmation that a report about a third-party test of an E-Cat module, 
reaching 1,200 degrees Celsius, does indeed exist. We're not a liberty to say 
more than that, so don't ask. (PESN; August 22, 2012) 
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5217 - Release Date: 08/22/12

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Randy wuller]

Mark;

That is BS, there are people in this society that can't fart without the media 
taking measurements.  I guarantee you if there is anything to Rossi's claims 
and even if there isn't, their are people in industry, our government or other 
governments that know. Have you interviewed any of them?  Did you interview 
Bruce Tarr of Mass?  How about Zawodny, Bushnell?  Did you talk to Lori Garver 
of NASA and ask for an official position? 
Have you talked to any of Rossi's Licensees, interview any of them? 
 
Now here is the point.  I doubt you have done any of those things.  Not real 
investigative reporting, probably not even some of the stuff that nut Krivit 
has done.  Of course if it turns out there is nothing to this and Rossi is a 
fake or a fraud you are really out nothing.  Of course if not, you basically 
sat on the best chance you will ever have to do anything important in your 
chosen occupation.  And even if you had expended some effort and found Rossi a 
fraud, it would still have made an interesting story.

Being a journalist doesn't mean just sitting at a desk waiting for someone to 
drop shit on your desk.  Obviously, I am frustrated by the whole thing.  Those 
interested in this should know the truth by now and Rossi is principally to 
blame, but Mark this isn't a story about science, it is either a story of fraud 
or about one of the most important changes mankind has seen in quite some time. 
 I would think you as a journalist would want to get to the bottom of it either 
way.  And don't tell me you or your brethren don't have the means. See my first 
comment.

Ransom

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Gibbs 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed


  it makes me wonder why the media in this case seems so inept. ... you 
wonder because you have no idea what you're talking about. In this case, PESN 
and Hank Mills are tossing out a claim that has nothing to follow up on ... 
there's no who, where, or when to chase. 


  Also, your expectation that the media should have either, confirmed a 
fraud OR confirmed something newsworthy is equally nonsensical. Just consider 
that all of you on the Vortex list with all of your enormous brains applied to 
the topic for way longer than I've been following it and with far more 
scientific knowledge than I have on the topic and with all of your connections 
can only, at best, come up with what are ifs and hopes and theories. 


  [m]


  On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

Mark Gibbs:

Mark, I agree with you.  However, I am not a journalist.  As a journalist, 
I would expect you to have SOURCES I don't have.  I would expect a journalist 
who is obviously interested in the subject to know more than I know, But, I 
read your articles and find that you provide me NO more information than I 
already have which I might say is very disappointing.

Frankly, by now I would expect the media (and an investigative reporter and 
journalist) to have either, confirmed a fraud OR confirmed something 
newsworthy.  I find they and you have done neither and it makes me wonder why 
the media in this case seems so inept.

Ransom


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Gibbs 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; E-Cat newsletter ; Sterling Allan ; Hank Mills 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:23 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed


  In the piece by Hank Mills it claims PESN has obtained satisfactory 
confirmation that a report covering the test does indeed exist. ... the 
article then goes on to completely avoid any details as to what the 
satisfactory confirmation might be or who might consider it satisfactory.


  The piece concludes with If the test reports that are expected to be 
released at Zurich and then in October show evidence of the above, they are 
worth waiting for. Sure, and if the tests reveal that unicorns are real that 
would also be worth waiting for. 


  Hank Mills continues: I would go further; if they show kilowatts of 
excess heat and temperatures of up to 1,200C, the wait will have been trivial.


  If, if, if ... 


  As my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would 
ride.


  [Mark Gibbs]


  On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Sterling Allan 
sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com wrote:

We could have published this much sooner, but with all of the 
negativity going around presently about Rossi, I thought it deserved a story by 
itself.


http://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/
 
  a.. 
  Featured / Best Exotic FE: Nuclear  Cold Fusion  Rossi  
  Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed - PESN has obtained 
confirmation that a report about a third-party test of an E-Cat module, 
reaching

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Randy Wuller]

Actually, ultimately science is a very small part of this story if LENR 
verifies.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 When the cold fusion research community finally comes up with devices meeting 
 your criteria, the world will be grateful to you Mr. Gibbs.  Because of your 
 strong stand for serious scientific proof, in the end, science will win 
 because of your steadfastness.
 
 
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
 In the piece by Hank Mills it claims PESN has obtained satisfactory 
 confirmation that a report covering the test does indeed exist. ... the 
 article then goes on to completely avoid any details as to what the 
 satisfactory confirmation might be or who might consider it satisfactory.
 
 The piece concludes with If the test reports that are expected to be 
 released at Zurich and then in October show evidence of the above, they are 
 worth waiting for. Sure, and if the tests reveal that unicorns are real that 
 would also be worth waiting for. 
 
 Hank Mills continues: I would go further; if they show kilowatts of excess 
 heat and temperatures of up to 1,200C, the wait will have been trivial.
 
 If, if, if ... 
 
 As my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
 
 [Mark Gibbs]
 
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Sterling Allan 
 sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com wrote:
 We could have published this much sooner, but with all of the negativity 
 going around presently about Rossi, I thought it deserved a story by itself.
 
 http://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/
  
 
 Featured / Best Exotic FE: Nuclear  Cold Fusion  Rossi  
 Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed - PESN has obtained 
 confirmation that a report about a third-party test of an E-Cat module, 
 reaching 1,200 degrees Celsius, does indeed exist. We're not a liberty to say 
 more than that, so don't ask. (PESN; August 22, 2012)
 

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Randy Wuller]

Jojo:

I really don't mind you voicing your opinions about evolution etc., the vortex 
is for an exchange of ideas, but could we get back on track.  This week and 
next are important weeks for LENR and these other discussions can wait. 

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability


  Now you see the point.  Natural Selection would chose the Individuals who 
outsurvice others; but that choice may not be optimal for the further 
propagation of the species.  In fact, if a mutation causes one to outsurvive 
others but causes that individual to be infertile; natural selection would 
still chose that individual.  Now you are beginning to see the fallacy of 
Natural Selection as a mechanism of life.

  Outsurvival and Reproductive Fecundity normally does not come hand in hand.  
For example, a person who have more male steriods/hormones would grow to be 
physically bigger and thus would outsurvive others; but with the increased 
steriod levels come the price of less reproductive fecundity.  Natural 
Selection would fail in this case.

  Humans are not perfect and our DNA are full of errors because of our decline 
due to the curse of Sin.  Humans have been declining in both physical 
attributes as well as mental ability ever since.  The Bible speaks of people 
who can run continuously for hours and then fight continously for a day without 
getting tired and without eating.  We do not have those abilities anymore.  We 
will never see the likes of Isaac Newton, Micheal Faraday, Louis Pasteur and 
Albert Einstein anymore.  We are just not as smart as our ancestors.  Can you 
find an Individual who can speak and write 40 languages fluently today?  Just 
as recently as 1611, you can find them.

  We are so arrogant to think that humans are at the peak of development today 
that we fail to see the declining status of our physical and mental capacities.

  Doesn't Darwinian Evolution say we should be improving?

  Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: Colin Hercus 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic 
Improbability


Jojo, 

You say survival is not necessary the best of all possible outcomes and I 
totally agree, but survival which also includes success at breeding is what got 
us here and possibly also why we aren't perfect. Humans aren't perfect and 
certainly we're not the best possible outcome for evolution. I think a planet 
that failed to evolve an intelligent species may last longer than one that did.

Colin


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

  I am familiar with genetic programming.  Richard Dawkins like to use 
these to point out that an evolutionary approach works to reach certain 
results.  While interesting, it has nothing much to do with the real Darwinian 
Evolution.  If anything, genetic programming proves that Darwinian Evolution is 
faulty.  Why?  Because in the end, genetic programming requires intelligence to 
set the goal or criteria of the algorithm.  Random processes can not decide 
what the final goal is.

  Darwinists always like to misrepresent what Natural Selection can do.  
It's as if Natural Selection is this all encompassing process that can decide 
a priori what the good results are.   They always like to imply that Natural 
Selection can somehow foresee a future result and work toward it.  No, natural 
selection does not work that way.  Natural selection can not decide between any 
of the many future results.  It takes intelligence and the foresight of 
Intelligence to do that.  Natural Selection simply chooses those who survive, 
each generation along the way;  and survival is not necessary the best of all 
possible outcomes.

  Genetic algorithms does not in any way have the foresight to determine 
what the best results are.  In fact, many of the claimed successes of genetic 
programming can be solved more efficiently by more deterministic algorithms.  
Genetic algorithms are simulations, and simulation program are not the best 
way to solve problems.  Simulation implies the random testing of results based 
on random inputs to the problem.  Not the best way.

  And before you claim you know more about programming than I, let me just 
say I'm an Electrical Engineer and I have programmed many times before.

  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Colin Hercus 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic 
Improbability


Hi Jojo,

You might also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming  
and some of the related links. 

Colin


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jojo Jaro 

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

Krivit makes you more than stop and think.  A decent person would not use the 
death of another to further themselves. Krivit is not a decent person.  Martin 
Fleishmann deserves better. Personally, regardless of the nature of the 
phenomena, I hope it is always termed Cold Fusion in honor of Martin 
Fleishmann.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 4, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory...
 
 He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad 
 form. 
 
 I suppose a person does not get to write his own obituary, so Steve took this 
 opportunity to feature himself.
 
 . . . It makes you stop and think. I myself prefer short obituaries. I like 
 the ones that capture the essence of a person, without wasting words or 
 boring the reader. Since I will not be around to write my own obituary, let 
 me take a crack at it here:
 
 
 Jed Rothwell died [a long time from now I hope]
 
 
 Rothwell was inordinately fond of cherries.
 
 
 That should do it.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17

[Randy Wuller]

Peter;

The systematic careful detailed analysis you seek will likely happen in 
overwhelming quantity and quality if Defkalion or Rossi publish independent 3rd 
party tests and do definitive demonstrations.  The idea that they could do the 
above and don't leads to paralysis and very real and legitimate doubt as to 
this reality.  That is all that is now missing.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: CMNS ; VORTEX 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:50 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Open Letter to ICCF-17


  Dear Friends,


  I have written an Open Letter to ICCF-17-


  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html


  It is a co-product of my discontent due to how the LENR field is progressing
  and of my desire to help.
  Appreciations, critics and even insults are all welcome, being forms of
  popularity and attention.


  Peter
  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more?

[Randy Wuller]

Peter:

Do you have a timetable for your next Defkalion report?

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more?


  Dear Akira,


  The simplest thing is to ask them.


  As regarding Defkalion, they are just relocating due to the
  situation of Greece, but they will be present at ICCF-17.


  Peter


  On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com 
wrote:

Hello group,

I just noticed that Brillouin Energy Corp. aren't attending ICCF-17 
anymore. See here. This is a cached snapshot of the ICCF-17 program:

http://i.imgur.com/LLGUC.png

This is the current program. There are several differences, try spotting 
them:

http://www.iccf17.org/program.php

Does anybody know or suspects why they are not attending this important 
event anymore? I have some speculations as to why this happened myself, but 
they're probably too wild to be posted here.

Cheers,
S.A.







  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Another Solar Firm Shuts Down

[Randy Wuller]

Chemical:

I wouldn't respond but your point grinds on me like chalk on a blackboard.  
First, the incentives we as taxpayers give to these technologies through our 
Government are only a waste if you believe we would be employing the efforts of 
the citizens of this country at maximum utility without them.  That concept is 
so inane that it makes me want to throw up when I hear it.  Pure capitalism 
doesn't maximize utility and if you think it does, please read a little 
history.  Under either system there will be wasted effort but encouraging 
technical investigation which may not otherwise occur is not a waste.  Some of 
it may turn out to be fruitless but you would have to measure all the results 
to determine if a better approach would have been better.  So if government 
wouldn't have provided incentives to the Solar Energy industry do you think 
more people in this society would have been investigating LENR.  I doubt it.  
We might have a few more casino's though.

Finally, there is no debt.  Debt is an illusion.  This country, if it wanted 
could pay all the debt now.  The net worth of the U.S. is 6 times the level of 
debt. This isn't about debt, it is all about who takes a shave for the greed 
which created leverage on assets which were not sufficient to cover the debt.  
Those that loaned the money don't want to lose so they have been pushing for 
all of us to pay so their wealth is retained.

All the while the country has much unused effort and overall we all lose for no 
reason other than to protect a few.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Chemical Engineer 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another Solar Firm Shuts Down


  Don't you mean frightening for taxpayer's?  That is where billion's  have 
come from while the US government goes trillions into debt.  If LENR happens to 
be real your solar boom will be a colossal bust!

  On Friday, July 20, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Here is another article about that, with a few more technical details:



http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/amonix-closes-150-mw-las-vegas-hcpv-plant


Solar energy is booming but there are too many players and too many 
different technologies being developed. A shakeout is inevitable. It is what 
happened with personal computers in the early 1980s, and with automobiles circa 
1910. This is how capitalism works. It is frightening for investors!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots

[Randy Wuller]

Deflation is a concept based on the money supply, as it chases goods and 
services.


If the money supply is constant and the goods and services chased increase, 
prices deflate.  If the money supply is constant and the goods and services 
decrease, prices inflate.


If you change the money supply (which happens today) any alternative is 
possible, so even with increasing goods and services, inflation can happen 
if the money supply is increased enough. The real problem today with the 
money supply is the slow down in the velocity of money which in effect 
changes the supply, decreasing it.  The risk adjusted return today (seen as 
very poor) is causing a significant reduction in the money supply and 
productivity.


The important thing is productivity, how many goods and services can be 
produced with the same effort, cold fusion will take many of the limiters 
off productivity.  Of course part of our problem today is the real lack of 
need of human effort which will simply become worse with cold fusion.  Since 
we want to give money to people for their effort, when it isn't needed one 
has to wonder how we will allocate money to them (and thus their ability to 
participate in the allocation of the productivity).


But by far the biggest impact today of cold fusion would be to change the 
concept of risk adjusted return.  If you think things are going to improve, 
you are less risk averse, spend and invest more often and in effect increase 
the velocity of the money supply.  This stimulates productivity throughout 
the economy decreases the possibility of a deflationary spiral and 
recession/depression.


In any event, the current notion of austerity is nonsense and is tied to a 
tired and outdated concept that money is real or has some intrinsic real 
value which it doesn't.  Austerity = Stupidity and I think every so often we 
as a society have to go through stretches of it before we remember that 
basic truth.


Ransom


- Original Message - 
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots


Long term deflation?

Harry

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Alain wrote:

“since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy 
is

around 10%”

“maybe I miss the point?”

Did you consider the following???



Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and
everything is built on top of it.  A significant change to a fundamental
will propagate to anything built using that fundamental.



*If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY,
moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e.,
transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel).  If competition is allowed 
to

take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down.  But the
ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this
would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at
this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long
term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable
species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial
markets will adapt…

-Mark



From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Alain Sepeda
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots



just to guive data
I've made some quick computation
http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139

since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is
around 10%,
that you can interpret as productivity increase.
The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, 
that

can easily be self-financed by the saving.
Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some
investment.

It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10%

of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but
even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as
expensive (and I have under estimated their cost).
Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution,
longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water,
health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity
gain.

Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to 
be

so important... 10% only.

maybe I miss the point?

Re: [Vo]:defkalion considering to leave Greece (?)

[Randy Wuller]

Seems to me, Peter Gluck may be the one to ask.  

- Original Message - 
From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:defkalion considering to leave Greece (?)



On 2012-07-18 23:01, Andre Blum wrote:

according to http://lenrnews.eu/?p=113, DGTG is considering to leave
Greece.

Source is unclear and we are used to better English from Xanthoulis.
Maybe this is a translation by someone from a Greek letter.


Wording aside (it appears it's a translation from Greek), the content of 
this email doesn't really seem to come from a company reportedly almost 
ready to commercialize a revolutionary product, does it?


To put it bluntly, it looks like a last call for potential investors, 
implicitly urging them to hurry and take advantage of this opportunity 
before DGTG will go elsewhere. Incidentally, this is a known investment 
scam tactic, often used as a last move before the scammer disappears 
into oblivion.


This doesn't look good at all and probably will make many wonder if DGTG 
have been bluffing all along about their status and their upcoming 
products, or in other words, that Stremmenos and Rossi were right about 
them.


In my opinion this email is highly damaging for DGTG.
Its authenticity should be verified as soon as possible.
Its authors should also take full responsibility for it, if it's a fake.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology

[Randy Wuller]

Peter:

As a lurker on the Vortex, I seldom comment, but I think your reports on 
Defkalion are important and I am glad Defkalion is allowing you to lay the 
ground work for their later reports.

The most important issue that remains unanswered is whether Defkalion is 
producing commercial levels of energy?  I know your next report will address 
that subject but I certainly hope they are not getting millawatts or even watts 
of power but the kilowatts they have been advertising.  Any advance general 
tidbit on that issue?

Thanks 

Ransom 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Gluck 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:principles of DGTG 's technology


  The team is working very hard on this and they will publih the data soon. I 
have noticed your wish and will try to let you know at least the spirit of 
the results- they say about the first real theory.
  Peter


  On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:50 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Good work, Peter

Thanks for the informative update.

Do you have, or can you get data on the isotopic composition of the
reaction products?

-- Lou Pagnucco


 My dear friends,

 I have just published:

 
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07/some-basic-principles-of-defkalions.html

 This action of publishing will continue and we will get fine realistic
 answers to questions that have
 obsessed us for long years.
 It will last a bit longer to get rid of fuels that are natural, but not
 good at all.

 Peter
 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com









  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LERN in an oil-based economy - the epic clash

[Randy Wuller]

Jones Beene:

This is a remarkably naive analysis. I really think you will only be slightly 
right if the LENR technology improves very very little for a long time, say 
decades. That also seems very unlikely.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Caveat:  ... just finished watching the fabulous BBC series State of Play
 which is fiction, of course, but so close to perceived reality that the
 oil-tainted message resistance is futile comes through loud and clear ...
 U-EX is the Borg. Get used to it and submit. AYBABTU !
 
 Looking at the 'big picture' geopolitically, and starting with the
 assumption that in 2012 a person or group, but probably not Rossi or DGT,
 will introduce an independently validated, robust and replicable version of
 Ni-H in prototype form (none of which criteria are met thus far, despite
 hints and claims) here is the utopian/dystopian tradeoff that is
 emerging from looking at the implications of this development. 
 
 First - the belief that this technology is not fully compatible with oil is
 completely misguided, if not ironic. In fact, it is very likely that the
 biggest early users of LENR, possibly the exclusive early users, will be the
 oil-shale and tar sands industry in the USA and Canada, and especially in
 the Orinoco tar belt of Venezuela. 
 
 BTW - Together these previously out-of-reach  petroleum resource offer
 triple the capacity of ALL of the World's present day conventional oil
 reserves  All you need to get 4 trillion barrels of thick, gooey gunk to
 market is ... ta da... cheap heat. Otherwise, it is tar. 
 
 Sure, if LENR were to come out of the gates as a safe, mature and ready
 source of electrical power, with zero radiation threat and at a net cost
 lower than oil, then the new technology would supplant petroleum eventually,
 but not quickly. That will take decades, even if prototype LENR does happen
 this year. It always takes many years to go from prototype to mass market,
 and sunk costs and inertia are a huge issue for supplanting any old
 technology. In the meantime there could be a nasty compromise.
 
 It takes capital to get to market, and it is no secret who has most of the
 available investment capital as well as the largest potential need for
 thermal energy (if that energy can be placed in a deep hole to make tar
 pumpable) ... not to mention the political connections. Now, who would that
 be? If you guessed the shale, heavy oil and tar-sands industry, then move to
 the head of the geopolitical class. Plus, they do not mind if it is slightly
 radioactive since it is going in a well.
 
 Many LENR advocates, naively seem to think that Big Oil wants to kill the
 new technology, when on the contrary they will embrace it, invest heavily in
 it, and become the biggest customer for decades. A more careful appraisal of
 the future situation, based on probabilities and economic realities, would
 include the following facts and assumptions, all of which are defensible.
 
 1)The cheapest old oil can be produced for very little cost, but is
 declining in availability. It provides lots of cash flow which ideally would
 go into replacement resources, if there were any.
 2)Most new oil (from shale, tar or offshore wells, etc) has a high
 production cost, often a factor of 20 times more than the old, onshore
 wells. Only one segment of high cost oil can employ LENR to expedite its
 production, creating an internal problem for OPEC.
 3)The cheap heat from LENR should make new oil from tar extremely
 competitive, and could destroy the offshore oil business. Being able to drop
 a small reactor into a hole and use copious heat to soften the tar so that
 it can be pumped - wow - this turns the tables on all prior economic
 assumptions. 
 4)This is a new paradigm, which segments of the industry will embrace
 and others will ignore. There could a future internal schism of major
 proportions in Big Oil - based on the availability of LENR to expedite tar
 and shale. 
 5)Fossil fuel production from well-to-road produces massive tax
 revenue. This is true even if the industry also receives lots of tax breaks.
 Politicians always favor proved tax revenue flow over alternatives. No help
 there for LENR.
 6)There are possibly half a billion motor vehicles burning fossil
 fuel, world-wide, with at least ten years of useful life remaining. This is
 a sunk cost.
 7)Most consumers with $20k to $30k of value invested in a vehicle will
 not abandon that vehicle, or abandon oil, to save a thousand per year in
 fuel cost - even if the comparative fuel cost for LENR was zero. The
 overhead of LENR will be substantial. The tree-hugger market is
 insufficient.
 8)The unholy combination of the supply and profit cushion of low cost
 old oil, the sunk cost of half a billion oil-burners, and the high tax
 revenue, means that LENR cannot penetrate that market effectively, no matter
 how clean 

Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR

[Randy Wuller]

Craig:

The U.S. Government does not have the right to take your life or property at 
will.  You argument is ridiculous.


If you are a citizen of this country, you maintain that status by agreeing 
to live by the law, which is established by the will of its citizens under 
the constitution.  You certainly don't have to maintain that status, no one 
is forcing you to maintain the status.  You do not have the right to that 
status and at the same time refuse to obey the law of this country.


This system of government is not perfect and someday a better system maybe 
established but it is the best designed up to this point.  If you don't like 
how your taxes are used, you can voice that opinion and see if you can 
effect a change.  That is it.  Otherwise either live with it or leave, there 
are plenty of people in this world who be happy to take your place.


Ransom


- Original Message - 
From: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR



On 05/31/2012 04:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com 
wrote:


If the technology is cost efficient, then the market will bring
it. Even if delayed by 20 to 50 years, this is a small price to
pay for a moral society run without threats of violence.


You want to talk about violence?

If France and the UK had delayed developing aviation before WWI they 
would have lost the war. They had a slight edge thanks to aircraft such 
as the Sopwith Camel (the best fighter of the war, based on enemy 
aircraft losses). Slight, but crucial.
So is it your argument that national defense is so important that 
therefore, we have to use a little aggression here and there to protect 
ourselves from a larger aggression from invading armies? If so, then I 
suggest that you live in the best of all possible worlds because this 
'little aggression' is used for justification for every program, policy, 
law, regulation, and statute, that governments create. There is no such 
thing as minor aggression which can be used for a larger good. If we want 
to protect our lives and property, does it make sense to give one large 
institution the one great exception, which allows it to take our lives and 
property at will?




Or if the British had delayed the Hurricane, the Spitfire and radar in 
the 1930s, Hitler would have won in 1940.


If the U.S. had not invested in the bomb, I am sure there would have been 
a million more Japanese killed or died of starvation, hundreds of 
thousands more Americans killed, and Japan would have been divided 
between the North and South, like Korea, because the Russians were 
preparing to invade from the North. U.S. invasion forces in Japan 
included 800,000 men, compared to just over 100,000 in the Normandy 
invasion.
If enough people are worried about staying ahead of the enemy, and if the 
government has to budget its limited resources to protect the country, 
then nothing is stopping them from trying to raise the money to do so. I 
am just saying that we have to get rid of this moral exception. Do we know 
that the government could not raise enough money to maintain its nuclear 
arsenal, to deter foreign aggression? No one is even thinking about it. No 
one is trying to find alternate solutions which don't involve aggression. 
It would be a different world, and one which probably would not come about 
without a large number of people who believe in it; and if a large number 
of people from all over the world started believing in non-aggression, 
then it's likely no new Hitlers will show up, and if they did, they would 
still have to face a voluntarily funded nuclear arsenal.


In every case, the overall investments made by governments has
paid back many times over. Individual ventures failed but
overall the projects succeeded.

Not true. There was no return for the people whose money was
taken. There was no poll of those people, before their money was
taken, asking if they'd be willing to invest.


Yes, there was. It is called an election. The Erie canal was a major 
political issue and policy. Road building has always been a make or break 
local issue, as it is in Atlanta this year.


The election did not poll the individual people whose money was taken, and 
did not give them the choice to invest or not. The election takes a 
majority of those who show up at the polls and gives them, and their 
party, the authority to use force against others, so that they can pursue 
their own pet projects.


[...]


This is another way of saying that the other investments during
this period were both profitable and of lower risk. Who knows what
would have come out of these investments if these people had had
more money to invest in the ventures they were interested in,
instead of having their money taken from them.


Wonderful in 

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

[Randy Wuller]

You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle 
and its operation. 

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft  
 bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.
 
 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/08/secret-air-force-x-37b-space-plane-mission-pectacular-success/
 
 Without the shuttle  crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.
 
 
 On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Ransom Wuller wrote:
 Jed:
 
 The leap too far point is incorrect.  That had little to do with the
 shuttle's issues.
 
 The main problem was that it was designed to be everything.  A truck, a
 car, a lab all rolled into one.  You wouldn't design a passenger carrier
 and add a large truck carrier to it.  It makes both complicated.
 
 The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking
 40,000 lb payloads.
 
 The whole thing was incompetently designed to do all things for all
 people, because there was no will at the time for multiple projects.  That
 was it's big problem.  Now maybe that added complexity which you point out
 but it was a process problem not a technology problem.
 
 Ransom
 
  This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning
  critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew:
 
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html
 
  Many people consider the Shuttle a technical triumph. I always had my
  doubts, and after the first accident I thought they should scrap it. This
  article shows that may people were aware of the shortcomings. The problem
  with the Shuttle was that it was a leap too far. They tried to accomplish
  too much in one generation of improvements. There have been many similar
  failures in the history of technology, such as the IBM Stretch Computer.
  The Stretch caused no harm. It lost a lot of money, but within a decade
  IBM
  recouped the loss by using most of the technology developed for it in
  other
  machines.
 
  Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds
  me
  of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the Dornier
  Do X:
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X
 
  And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane
  ever
  built:
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60
 
  Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different
  types. That is a hallmark of bad technology.
 
  - Jed
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

[Randy Wuller]

I'm sorry but the Shuttle and the ISS have simply gobbled up funding with very 
little real purpose. When you lose sight of a real goal, government funding 
turns into a jobs program. 

There were a lot of better alternaives for funding space development. I was 
involved in lobby groups for years talking to Congress and the Administration 
about the issues, it did very little good.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 If that was the only accomplishment of the shuttle i might give your argument 
 some weight 
 
 On Saturday, May 26, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
 
 You could have replaced the Hubble many time over for the cost of the Shuttle 
 and its operation. 
 
 That is true. See the book Hubble Wars. The cost of the Shuttle mission to 
 repair the Hubble was greater than the cost of launching a new Hubble would 
 have been. I regret to say this, but it was a publicity stunt.
 
 - Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

[Randy Wuller]

Open space to the people so they participate in reality not vicariosly through 
others. Being personally involved is a great motivator. How to do it, lower 
cost access to space. How do you achieve lower cost access? Building a private 
commercial transportation industry. You do that with Government acting as a 
good customer with incentives for investment and some revenue subsidies.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On May 26, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Douglas Hill hil...@lemoyne.edu wrote:

 Now that the shuttle is gone, how do we keep kids interested in STEM?  What 
 inspiration does a teenager get from cargo drone launches?  What would get 
 you pumped up and want to spend your future doing science?
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:57 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980
 
  
 
 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  
 
 Condemning the shuttle program is like condemning jet fighter aircraft  
 bombers now that we have drones to do the dirty work.
 
  
 
 No, it is like condemning the F22 Raptor because that airplane was too 
 ambitious, it tried to do too many different missions, and it costs way too 
 much. The history of military aviation is filled with cost overruns and badly 
 designed aircraft.
 
  
 
  
 
 Without the shuttle  crew Hubble would be a piece of space junk.
 
  
 
 As noted, it would have been cheaper to abandon it as space junk, and launch 
 another. Sending the Shuttle to fix it was a publicity stunt. That mission 
 alone cost more than a replacement, never mind the whole Shuttle project.
 
  
 
 It is not surprising that a new Hubble would have been cheap. The Hubble is 
 similar to the spy satellites the U.S. has been launching for decades. This 
 is a mature technology with lots of experienced people. Unfortunately, when 
 they were designing the Hubble, they ignored many of the lessons of the spy 
 satellite business. The spooks contacted them and offered to help, but the 
 designers blew them away. That is one of the reasons the Hubble had a bad 
 lens and other problems. It was a fiasco in many ways.
 
  
 
 It was also overrun by academic politics, which degraded performance. Much of 
 the design and operation was focused on preventing junior-level astronomers, 
 staff or -- God forbid -- members of the public from making important 
 discoveries, by locking up, restricting or degrading the data. Before the 
 Hubble, a junior astronomer made a major finding by looking through the raw 
 data. She got to it before the big-gun, well established experts got a 
 chance. So they vowed to prevent this by structuring the whole project in the 
 Mushroom Management Mode: keep your employees in the dark and feed them 
 manure.
 
  
 
 Again, see the book Hubble Wars.
 
  
 
 - Jed
 
  

Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi

[Randy Wuller]

And that comment is actually very misleading.  Dick Smith didn't even bother 
to try an negotiate anything with Defkalion.  He backed away almost 
instantly when they in principal accepted his offer.  The idea he could test 
without an NDA of some sort is ridiculous.  Certainly Defkalion would have a 
right to protect some aspects of information disclosed to or discovered by 
testers and they never ever suggested results of the tests would be governed 
by an NDA.  Dick Smith is not serious about this and has a preformed bias 
about what is happening.


Ransom
- Original Message - 
From: Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi



2012/3/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:
Hyperions, then there is no reasons to doubt their words. (Too bad that 
Dick
Smith cancelled the opportunity to test hyperions rigorously, if he had 
not,

then we already would know whether Hyperions are real or phoney.)


That's a little misleading.  If I remember correctly, Dick Smith
cancelled because Defkalion didn't agree to full disclosure of the
test results (or something like that)

Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi

[Randy Wuller]

No problem:

Dick Smith published the entire back and forth with Defkalion, which was 
published on Ecat News.  See the below blog for the entire story.  Defkalion 
then posted a reply to their forum and that was it.  Dick Smith just 
imagined an issue and backed away as quickly as possible.


See http://ecatnews.com/?p=2068

Hope that helps.

Ransom

- Original Message - 
From: Xavier Luminous xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi


On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
And that comment is actually very misleading. Dick Smith didn't even 
bother

to try an negotiate anything with Defkalion. He backed away almost
instantly when they in principal accepted his offer. The idea he could 
test
without an NDA of some sort is ridiculous. Certainly Defkalion would have 
a

right to protect some aspects of information disclosed to or discovered by
testers and they never ever suggested results of the tests would be 
governed

by an NDA. Dick Smith is not serious about this and has a preformed bias
about what is happening.


Could you (or anyone) post the actual terms that were rejected?


Ransom
- Original Message - From: Xavier Luminous
xavier.lumin...@googlemail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan drops his support of Rossi




2012/3/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:


Hyperions, then there is no reasons to doubt their words. (Too bad that
Dick
Smith cancelled the opportunity to test hyperions rigorously, if he had
not,
then we already would know whether Hyperions are real or phoney.)



That's a little misleading. If I remember correctly, Dick Smith
cancelled because Defkalion didn't agree to full disclosure of the
test results (or something like that)

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[Randy Wuller]

Guys:

Nobody can win the Dick Smith Prize because he isn't offering it to anyone 
doing LENR/Cold Fusion, now if you belong to some respected organization, he 
says he'll give it to you for confirming Miley, assuming the rest of the world 
agrees with you. In other words itvis a joke.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:09 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Yes - pretty expensive, but as Daniel Rocha points out, they might be able
 to claim the $1M prize with an investment of $60,000.  Also, it's worth
 noting that the nanoparticles are not pure Pd.  Perhaps, too, if Miley
 were to accept the challenge, a Pd supplier might provide it just for
 advertising value.  And, lastly, if the Miley group could win the $1M,
 then they would probably be deluged with offers of investment money.
 
 Also, let's not forget Miley also works with Ni-H - so an analogous cell
 might work with nano-Ni as well.
 
 Peter Gluck wrote:
 I hope that at the 25th Anniversary of CF, palladium will be history. Its
 limits are inherent and incurable.
 And it's its scarcity is annihilating the chances to
 be an important source of energy.
 350W per kg...multiply it by 1000 and it starts to become interesting
 Peter
 
 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
 
 Corrections:
 Title line should read 350W/Kg - date is March 23 - session URL is
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
 
 Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
 whether Miley would accept?
 
 Lou Pagnucco
 
 
 A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
 (LENRs)
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
 
 To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
 NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
 http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
 
 EXCERPT:
 Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
 has
 been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy.
 While
 there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded
 kW-MW
 LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
 important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell
 construction.
 Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power
 unit
 at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas
 (H2
 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J
 heat,
 well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
 conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely
 chemical
 reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
 negligible power input with gas loading! ...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)

[Randy Wuller]

The problem with Dick Smith's Prize is that it is being offered to the 
independent tester.  On its face it seeks to compromise the independence and 
credibility of the tester.  Nothing could be dumber.  In addition the reason 
to establish a prize is to stimulate investment in an attempt to break a 
technological barrier, in that regard prizes are really effective.  The 
Orteig prize won by Lindbergh was only $25,000 but generated investment of 
over $400,000.  Smith's prize which is not paid to the LENR 
researcher/inventor does not even create this stimulus.


Ransom
- Original Message - 
From: Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)


It depends on what he loses it for.  Why do milliionaires give a million 
dollars to charities?  It would be a much better use of money to spend it on 
proving cold fusion is real.  I think Dick Smith's offer is genuine, and he 
won't try to back out of paying the million dollars if it is proven.  I do 
think he is kind of stupid with the protocols he was expecting Defkalion to 
make though.

On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com 
wrote:
If cold fusion is real, Dick Smith immediately makes millions of dollars, 
so

I don't think he would care much about losing a million.


It's been my experience that people with millions of dollars do care
about losing a million dollars.


T

Re: [Vo]:NanoSpire Inc.

[Randy Wuller]

Krivit actually reported it a long time ago.  Go into his archives.  I have 
no idea what happened in the meantime or whether the report is credible. 
The main guy, LeClair was even ranting about Rossi possibly irradiating 
Miami unknowingly with his Ecat, that might have been in January or February 
of last year.


Ransom

- Original Message - 
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NanoSpire Inc.



From Francis:



If this experiment occurred in 2009 and resulted in radiation sickness and
transmuted elements at only 840 watts in I have to ask why it is only
becoming news now and why the news isn’t all over the front page.. what
I am missing that makes this less than earth shattering news?


Good heavens, yes! Good question Francis.

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

Re: [Vo]:NI and Rossi not related anymore

[Randy Wuller]

Did Krivit ask if NI was working with any partner/customer/joint venturer of 
Rossi/Leonardo Corp.

At this point if Rossi is legit he has to Partner with an entity with resources.

Frankly, it would be just like Krivit not ask that question or tell if he did.

Also, NI could be working under an NDA.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/18/national-instruments-denies-relationship-with-rossi/
 
 Confirmed by NI.
 
 -- 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com
 

Re: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens

[Randy Wuller]

Honestly, when I first heard that the theory for the origin of heavy 
elements in this universe was super nova's, my reaction was, that's got to 
be at best a SWAG (silly wild ass guess).  I can't imagine we have enough 
evidence to confirm such a theory.  Just a lawyer's gut reaction.


Ransom

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens



Where do the elements heavier than iron originate?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-rare-earth-element-tellurium-ancient.html

T

Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll,and Physicists

[Randy Wuller]

Until today I had never heard of Lubos Motl, however, having followed LENR/Cold 
Fusion since last January his attitude doesn't surprise me.  Pardon the 
generalization but it just seems that Physicists have the notion they are 
experts on everything.  Until this last year I had thought that arrogance was 
reserved for Lawyers.  The difference though is that while lawyers think they 
can be experts on all things Human, including physics, generally they do 
recognize how little they actually know about anything (In other words Human's 
are still savages in the universe and we most likely know nothing if measured 
by all knowledge).  Lobus's silly comments clearly indicate he hasn't learned 
that lesson.

And again I speak only in generalizations and I don't mean to offend either 
Physicists or lawyers who have learned some humility.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alain Sepeda 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Lubos motll, physicis talk of CERN CF conference, and bash 
it...


  I don't feel that “respected” skeptics are retiring from the field in the 
face of the growing evidence... you should read Judith Curry... in fact it 
seems that, fair or not, the history is tumbling... first rats start to flee 
the drowning boat...

  anyway, about LM, I've always been shocked by his lack of moderation in any 
opinion, his rough US Republican Coffee party vision of economy, and nearly 
faint on some things not to say (sorry here it is  a crime, and a proven 
stupidity; also a family insult in every large family)...

  anyway, his opinion and vulgarization on QM is great and cutting edge.

  an example why one should avoid ad hominem critics.




  2012/2/13 Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com

His career will suffer for poor timing, while other “respected” skeptics 
are retiring from the field in the face of the growing evidence, they are 
letting the young blood charge forward to take their place under the oncoming 
bus.  Although there was once good reason to be skeptical those reasons 
continue to erode and that rate has been increasing rapidly of late. The longer 
 Lubos keeps his head buried the more he shortens his own career.  



Was Daniel suggesting Lubos has made both sexist and racist remarks? [snip] 
He was banned(sort of) from Harvard due his strong opinions  on women and  
black people. He's been unemployed for around 5 years because of that.[/snip]. 
I would hate to think we are giving any consideration to this man if so.



Fran

Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years

[Randy Wuller]

I must say, when I see the words simply NO way used to describe the 
capabilities of a process we don't understand, my annoyance meter starts to 
twitch.  (Which is why I found it necessary to respond)  I really wish these 
kind of comments weren't so common in our society with regard to the future.  
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Lynn may be exactly correct, but making those 
predictions with the knowledge we have now seems premature.  

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Robert Lynn 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release  
Report: NASA's 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 years


  There is simply no way that LENR will be useful for getting stuff to orbit - 
unless it is used as a method for making cheaper chemical rocket fuels, and 
even then rocket fuel costs are only a few % of a launch.
  - LENR power density is far too low (a 3500kg SSME delivers 9GW of power, ie 
2.5MW/kg)
  - The temperature (700°C) is too low to heat hydrogen sufficiently to give a 
competitive specific impulse to match the density and performance of other 
chemical fuels.  With LENR/LH2 at 1000°C you might get to 6000m/s exhaust 
velocity but LOX/LH2 can do 4700m/s and is a far more dense and cheap fuel 
combination than using all expensive LH2 (a tremendously bulky and expensive 
fuel requiring enormous well insulated tanks).


  However LENR will be tremendously useful for moving stuff around slowly in 
orbit and interplanetary space using various types of high Isp plasma drives.



  On 5 February 2012 21:06, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


  
http://ns1.nianet.org/workshops/pdfs/Olds%20LaRC%20Workshop%20Presentation%20Final.pdf




  Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009 - 18 GW!


LENR Rocket
Fully Reusable SSTO Vehicle powered by Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 
Propulsion
Reactor Power
Payload
LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket
(H2) with LENR Reactor
18 GW
20,000 lbs to LEO


On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com 
wrote:

  I will interpret Nuclear Thermal Propulsion to including LENR... 5 
years would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago.  
Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least 
something to heat our coffee.


  http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13354 


  -- radiation mitigation for human spaceflight; 
  -- guidance, navigation, and control; 
  -- optical systems; 
  -- long-duration crew health; 
  -- solar power generation; 
  -- high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies; 
  -- environmental control and life support systems; 
  -- electric propulsion; 
  -- detectors and focal planes; 
  -- instruments and sensors; 
  -- fission power generation; 
  -- lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures; 
  -- nuclear thermal propulsion; 
  -- entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems; 
  -- active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and 

Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection

[Randy Wuller]

IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent lawyer but 
I do know that the patent application can protect your intellectual property if 
written correctly. So I think the issue with Rossi is was his application 
sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual property? And frankly, no matter 
the answer to that question, lawyers will likely have a field day litigating 
that question if he starts selling a product.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 From James,
 
 An executive has fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders.
 This means he must pursue due diligence regarding the protection
 of the assets of the company.  Since the USPTO has made the
 patentability status of cold fusion claims unclear, for Rossi to
 expose his trade secret in a patent disclosure could be viewed
 as a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
 
 Snipers who aren't under this sort of responsibility who demand
 that Rossi trust the USPTO to act in a rational manner are not
 to be taken seriously.
 
 Daniel, I know you've already said that you've said everything you
 want to say on this topic, but do you have anything more you might
 like to add to Jame's commentary? I seem to recall that you have some
 first-hand knowledge of how a patent office works.
 
 As for me, INAL either, but I would speculate that Rossi's current
 patent would be defined by a gaggle of lawyers as having been written
 so badly that it would offer little or no protection against all forms
 of illegal attempts to reverse engineer the Andrea's work.
 
 James, you seem to be saying that under the current climate Rossi is
 in a catch-22 situation. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't.
 
 Did I miss something here?
 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 

Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection

[Randy Wuller]

I don't understand your point, of course Rossi is faced with a difficult 
choice, and of course it is easy for us to say what we would do in his shoes, 
since we aren't, but ultimately, Rossi has no real choice. If he is ever going 
to make the fortune he obviously desires, he needs to risk no patent and prove 
and sell his product. His only other choice he seems to have passed up, prove 
cold fusion and live off the lecture tour.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 From the Washington Post:
 
 Research money has dried up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has 
 refused to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. According to 
 Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents, this is for the same 
 reason it wouldn't give one for a perpetual motion machine: It doesn't work.
 
 No one has yet countered my argument.  Merely asserting what you think the 
 USPTO will do under various circumstances and merely asserting what you think 
 the relative risks are to the net present value of the intellectual property 
 of keeping it a trade secret is to skirt the issue.  You aren't the one 
 responsible for the loss of value if it occurs.  You can offer an opinion of 
 what you would do in Rossi's shoes but that is all you are doing.  You aren't 
 there.  He is.
 
 
 On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 We don't know yet if his catalyst is unprotected. There is a secret period of 
 18months after filing. 
 
 
 2012/2/3 Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
 There are real problems with his patent. Not only is there a host of un-cited 
 prior art, patent and public domain, but his existing patent application has 
 limited application to even his current product line.
 IANAL, but his patent application centers on the physical construction of his 
 early tube reactor construction, and seems to only gloss over the underlying 
 process.
 He cannot patent the Ni-H by itself, because it's prior art. He refused to 
 divulge the catalyst, so he's unprotected. It's messy, but it is what it is.
 
 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Sure, Rossi is basically cornering himself. He could license and protect
 right now his invention, given that patents, unlike trademarks, are
 granted provisional protection from the day it was filed.
 
 2012/2/3 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
 
  At 05:21 PM 2/3/2012, Randy Wuller wrote:
 
  IAAL, does that stand for I am a lawyer, anyway, I am not a patent
  lawyer but I do know that the patent application can protect your
  intellectual property if written correctly. So I think the issue with 
  Rossi
  is was his application sufficiently clear to protect his intellectual
  property? And frankly, no matter the answer to that question, lawyers will
  likely have a field day litigating that question if he starts selling a
  product.
 
 
  This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based on an
  assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a patent that
  claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that patents for perpetual
  motion machines are impossible.
 
  However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many failed
  cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available.
 
  My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears to
  be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but if there
  is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion should not be
  claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not important, if the device
  clearly has the major claimed use.
 
  It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still impossible,
  but the conditions would have been set up for a legal challenge to the
  USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been granted for electrodes
  used in cold fusion experiments, in fact, where the primary claim did not
  mention excess energy. But subsidiary claims did.
 
  It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not a
  lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues.
 
  The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The
  USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or protection.
  If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the technology, the
  inventor may still be able to claim the protection of patent law, in court.
 
  But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy, which
  is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many times. Maybe he
  thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud, maybe, maybe.
 
  I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well know
  things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions based on less
  knowledge
 
 
 
 
 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com
 
 
 
 -- 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com
 
 

Re: [Vo]:The Believers - Documentary about CF History.

[Randy Wuller]

Vortex:

By coincidence I will be in Chicago on the 11th and in the Spirit of the 
year of Cold Fusion :) I thought I would go see the film.  Anyone from the 
Vortex planning to attend the event.  Just Curious.


Ransom


http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.

The Believers test screening February 11

Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center
If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is
your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is
presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday,
February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers
Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q  A
session after the film.

You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer.  Click here
for information on how to do it.

We hope to see you on February 11!
---

Harry

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

This post prompted a reply from Maryugo.  Since MY is banned here and at the 
Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent 
me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to 
post.  She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally 
because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if 
Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in 
violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted 
her response.

However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves 
(being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to 
post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond.  Further, 
while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed 
out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would 
not have been troubled.  MY does make valid points, it is just after reading 
the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH.

I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to 
discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker 
better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much.  
However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy 
the dialogue which has improved since the banning.  I think site works best 
assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works.

Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post 
MY's reply.  If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power


  At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to 
Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket 
history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted 
in the Defkalion forum. It is here:


  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html 


  He nailed it. I could not agree more.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Randy Wuller]

As someone who has watched Vortex since last February, I agree with your 
assessment that many on Vortex have raised valid objections to many of Rossi's 
demos and his business strategy.  I would certainly not characterize the vortex 
as a Rossi investor clubhouse, far from it. And of course because most of you 
have shown reasonable skepticism concerning various issues, the posts which 
caused the bannings were very irratating, even to an outsider like me. 
Notwithstanding, some of MY's points are valid, not conclusive but valid. The 
problem with MY, once a point is made we get it, people don't need someone 
clubing them over the head ad naseaum.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:25 PM, zer tte c_foreig...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however 
 unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know.
 So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, 
 unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk 
 through maybe ?
 Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the 
 MY does make valid points part, those points where already known and 
 established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope 
 this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood.
 
 I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became 
 Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.

[Vo]:Re: Maryyugo rsponse to suggestion of Alan Fletcher

[Randy Wuller]

Hi All:

Maryyugo asked me to forward a response to Alan Fletcher's suggestion and since 
it seemed to be a constructive comment, I agreed:

See below:

Ransom

Re: [Vo]:Re: Defkalion GT send video of internal testing

Alan Fletcher, wrote:

Hmmm ... very cylindrical. I think that my Concentric Conductive Calorimeter 
would work quite well, and give the heat output as well as just a spot COP 
test. Summary -- wrap the hyperion in cylinders of highly conductive putty, 
then low conductivity putty and another high conductivity cylinder -- with the 
ends capped off by aerogel insulators. (I couldn't find anything exactly like 
my CCC in the literature). The inner high-conductivity cylinder evens out any 
hotspots/shape irregularities of the hyperion, and the outer evens out any 
difference in heat conduction/convection/radiation to ambient. The heat 
transfer is related to the radii of the middle cylinder and the temperature 
difference across it by a very simple formula. [ ISTR Q = k dT / ln(R2/R1) 
where k is the conductivity ] 

Any specialist in heat transfer physics will find that ridiculous.   Instead of 
the aerogel, cylinders of putty goop and all the other impossible mess Alan 
proposes, all you have to do is buy some of these (below) and stick them on the 
device under test with any thin high temperature glue or cementing material, 
then connect them to a simple and inexpensive data reduction card and any 
laptop.

Commercially available:  http://www.omega.com/pptst/HFS-3_HFS-4.html
and 
http://www.hukseflux.com/campaign/heatFluxMeasurement/heatFluxSensor.html?gclid=CMSssbKq-K0CFQVwhwodsA7Tsw

Generic info and do it yourself:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor 

Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)

[Randy Wuller]

I agree, this weekend's diversion regarding Maryyugo's secret identity is just 
slightly less irratating then last weekends free for all.  Why can't the Vortex 
get back to real science.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com wrote:

 --- On Sat, 1/28/12, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
 
 As the one who 'rode her ass' a number of times, I have said
 that her (his)
 technical criticisms were WELCOME... but to lay off the
 focus on the
 personalities. 
 
 Good idea. Discussing the science and analysis of the tests is what we should 
 be talking about. 
 
 Except that you and others are now doing exactly what you say she was banned 
 for. Focusing on the personal nature/personalities. Why don't you do as you 
 suggested before, drop this garbage, and let us get back to the real heart of 
 the matter, the technology (whatever it is) itself?
 
 But it's a much different taste when the tables are turned, isn't it? You 
 (not just you personally, Mark, a bunch of you) really didn't like what Mary 
 had to say, and it pissed you off so much you just can't drop it. You have to 
 dig it back up and keep going with it. The desire for the last word, the last 
 insult, is just too much. And who can blame you? No one. You're only human, 
 after all, and just as fallible as any of the skeptics you so despise.
 
 Meanwhile, the rest of us are all hoping, or praying, whatever the case may 
 be, for a truly revolutionary thing that gives us essentially free (or at 
 least far cheaper) heat during the winter, or clean water.
 
 She ignored all suggestions and continued
 with the barrage of
 postings...  She (he) deserved to be banned, and this
 forum is much better
 off and more functional without her (his) presence.
 
 Yes, by my count things have drastically improved. In the last 24 hours, only 
 a little greater than 50% of postings to Vortex-L have had to do with Mary's 
 identity and motivations. Yes, indeed, this is grand progress. Good work, 
 gentlemen, pat yourselves on the back.
 
 Three posts of the many in this thread have to do with the original topic. 
 The rest have to do with the Mary legacy.
 
 Think about that. And maybe, just maybe, drop this garbage, and let's get 
 back to the fun stuff that Vortex used to be about.
 
 --Kyle
 

Re: [Vo]:Matts Lewan blog and the ecat.

[Randy Wuller]

And of course since the initial news was leaked by Krivit, it is not 
surprising it was inaccurate.  Krivit is the master of the half truth, 
including a part of the truth to purposely mislead.  That is what he does, 
that is at the heart of what he is, ie, the master of the half truth.
- Original Message - 
From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Matts Lewan blog and the ecat.



On 2012-01-25 12:59, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Rossi also told me that the work of the University of Bologna
has already started with meetings together with National
Instruments to prepare the whole system analysis.


So let's recap:

- On January 12 in an ecat.com interview Rossi said that a joint work with 
two unnamed universities would have started soon.


- On January 25 Dario Braga informed the public the contract between EFA 
and UniBo has been terminated, but the university is still looking forward 
to test the E-Cat, as long as test results will be made public.


- On the same day, Mats Lewan informs us (as far as I understand it is ok 
to discuss publicly about this) that the work of the University of Bologna 
has already started with meetings with Rossi and National Instruments to 
prepare the whole system analysis.


It looks like the formal contract termination didn't actually affect the 
work with the University of Bologna.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:video from NASA about lenr (cold fusion)

[Randy Wuller]

I was wondering how long it would take Maryyugo to wade in with nonsense like, 
I wonder if NASA management; she, he or it just doesn't get it. NASA 
management knows all about this, and this type of public info is not introduced 
willy nilly. I know many of these so called management people.

I  am sure this is all going to be really hard for her and the moletrap people, 
the possibility of an energy breakthrough goes against their dark age thinking. 
My advice to her and them is get used to it.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 You can reach the video from here:  http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/and 
 it's headlined like this Feature Stories: NASA's Method for a Clean Nuclear 
 Energy For Your Power Operated Technology
 
 This is, well... sort of weird.  I wonder if anyone in NASA's PR department 
 or higher management has seen it.  First of all, the production values are 
 lousy.  It looks as if it was shot with a cheap web cam.  It features Zawodny 
 who is mostly out of focus during his strange, hesitant talk which is hard 
 enough to understand, it's subtitled!They talk about an un-named fuel of 
 some sort which is unchanged in mass by the reaction which is basically 
 unexplained.  They don't say where the excess heat is from.  They keep 
 referring to this fuel as it.  And they only say somehow carbon, nickel and 
 hydrogen are involved.  The rest is the usual obvious and irrelevant comments 
 about how inexpensive thermal energy can be used.  Everybody already knows 
 that.
 
 As Angus wrote on the Moletrap forum:  Oh goodie. Another we're looking 
 at it, and if we can get it to work it could heat your house and do other 
 wonderful things video.  There's nothing new about the idea of using surface 
 plasmons to bung neutrons into atomic nuclei. NASA has been looking at it 
 since 2005. So far nobody's house is getting heated.  I might add nobody has 
 made a cup of tea with it either.
 
 Craig Brown, still, amazingly enough, a Steorn believer, is promoting this 
 clip as a breakthrough.  It's nothing of the kind.  There is no real theory 
 presented, there is no experiment, and there are no results.  I am 
 disappointed that NASA would air such a contentless clip.  I have no idea 
 what they're thinking.
 
 

[Vo]:Re;Home Depot sells and services HVAC equipment.

[Randy Wuller]

David Roberson:

Go to the Home Depot website.  They provide HVAC services including sales 
through authorized dealers and installers.  Obviously, they don't sell heat 
pumps to customers off the shelf but do provide the kind of service Rossi might 
be interested in.

Who would be the authorized dealer to install and service the E-Cat is anyone's 
guess.  Further, I think Home Depot would have to be satisfied with Safety, 
Reliability, and Performance before pedaling the E-Cat as an alternative to 
Trane, Lennox etc.  Rossi needs an HVAC company to partner with if this is 
truely in the works
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi 
interview on Ca$h Flow: “I translate pressure as responsibility.”


  That is what I would hope will happen some day.  Does anyone know whether or 
not Rossi or Defkalion are designing their devices to standards required for 
the refit?  My main question is related to the knowledge required for the 
installation and the local rules.  Here, Home Depot does not sell heat pumps 
because they say you must have a license in order to install it.  I actually 
asked once when my unit failed.  Would there not be a major warranty issue if 
the customer just took it home and then screwed up the install?

  Dave 



  -Original Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 2:02 pm
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi interview 
on Ca$h Flow: “I translate pressure as responsibility.”


  David Roberson wrote:


One problem with small units is the localization of the heat.  A modest 
sized home is much more comfortable with a  central heating or cooling system 
that uses air ducts to transport the heat throughout the house.

  An eCat heater would use the same air ducts. It would replace the gas fired 
furnace, or heat pump.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Once again, I advise Defkalion to show Stremmenos their reactors

[Randy Wuller]

Maryyugo's explanation always sounds more rational because he, she conveniently 
omits the part that Rossi has allowed independent tests (although not performed 
to his liking) and these tests do show O/I, especially Lewan's 2nd test and the 
one performed by E  K.  If you added the following to the facts, that Rossi 
has allowed independent tests which are suggestive of O/I of at least 3/1 as 
well as the reports of others doing similar tests who are reporting O/I of 2/1, 
then his conclusions appear much less rational and coherent and more like 
someone conveniently omitting information they don't wish to discuss.

Based on my watching this at least as long as Maryyugo, my best explanation is 
that while Rossi has a LENR reaction he 1) can't completely control it and 2) 
when controlling it can't reach the energy level he needs and continues to work 
on it in hopes of solving the engineering problems he has.  Defkalion, knowing 
it is real don't want to give up on it (given its enormous potential) and 
having some knowledge of the process are probably getting similar results which 
are not ready for commercial application.

The idea that neither has anything given all the evidence is less likely, 
although for yugo it is an easy leap since he denies the evidence in the Lewan 
test by hiding from them and pretending they don't say what they say.  But 
there is no sense arguing with him since all of this is conjecture anyway if 
you dispute the Rossi demo's and even if you believe them, fraud would still be 
possible and we are dealing with probabilities and speculation.


  How come Mary Yugo explanations of the current events sounds always the 
most rational, well thought and coherent? 
  It just fits all the facts. 
  Giovanni




  On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:


Defkalion's responses have a highly Steornish flavor. They are tangential.  
Evasive.  I doubt it's a language problem.

The most likely reason Defkalion answers Jed the way they do is that they 
depended on Rossi's word and his delivery of technology which never happened.  
My best guess is that it didn't happen for only one reason:  Rossi had nothing 
which would stand up to detailed scrutiny so he created the conflict with 
Defkalion in order to postpone his exposure as long as possible.  That is 
perhaps also the reason why his *only* client is anonymous.  Why else would 
Rossi break with the one company that could have helped him efficiently and 
relatively safely market his E-cats and develop the technology?

Continuing my theory, for unfathomable reasons, Defkalion may have pressed 
on without Rossi's core, claiming they developed one of their own.  Really?  
How?  And in such a short time?  Most likely Defkalion also has nothing.  
Certainly, they have shown nothing and best as I can determine have never made 
promised arrangements for government tests or any other tests or visits.  All 
of those were supposed to happen in Q4 2011 or earlier.  And the delays, if 
that's what's going on,  have not even been acknowledged or explained by 
Defkalion.

IMO, both Rossi and Defkalion are simply bluffing and delaying, maybe 
hoping they will be able to develop the technology, whatever that turns out to 
be.   Steorn, Dennis Lee, Carl Tilley and Sniffex, all had no exit plan and 
neither, it seems, does Mark Goldes.   It doesn't seem as if Eestor and BLP do 
either.  With time, either the perpetrators get in trouble with the law or if 
not, the claims and interest in them just fade out.  Perhaps Rossi and 
Defkalion don't have exit plans either.  Maybe both are playing the current 
game of words by ear.

Re: [Vo]:Celani claims to have replicated Rossi

[Randy Wuller]

I doubt the deadline has much to do with being used and more to do with trying 
to force action out of Rossi.  The UniBO will suffer the loss of funding if 
Rossi doesn't carry out the contract.  Under maryyugo's view of the world it 
will be because Rossi has nothing real to provide the UniBO to test.  However, 
it may also mean he has an American substitute for his reasech needs and 
doesn't need them anymore.

My prediction is he let's it lapse for either of the above reasons.

   I guess they don't want to be used indefinitely and for free as an excuse 
for Rossi's failure to get proper testing.

Re: [Vo]:Celani claims to have replicated Rossi

[Randy Wuller]

I don't think this debate needs to take place on the Vortex.  It is maryyugo's 
litany.  Why no independent tests?  Well maybe Rossi doesn't want them, at 
least the kind that satisfy Maryyugo. It might be because he has nothing or 
maybe because he is no fool.

You see if it were me I would not want tests particularly ones that satisfied 
the skeptics who are helping keep a lid on this.  If LENR tests were ever 
performed to satisfy the skeptics and entice coverage by the media, well watch 
out.  In other words if the world thought this was all real, the flood gates to 
investment research would open like you have never seen before and the tidal 
wave would wash over those doing this research like nothing you can imagine.  
These reactors aren't that hard to make and it doesn't cost much to make them 
(not really).  You could literally do thousands of tests in a matter of months 
if you had the itch and if real that itch will be compulsive.  Rossi better 
pray he has a big jump on everyone if it is real, he is going to need it.

Re: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF

[Randy Wuller]

Members of the Vortex:

I joined last night to address an issue raised by Maryyugo. Being a lawyer I 
really have no special expertise in the sciences and thus have little to 
offer on technical issue. Thus, not wanting to burden all of you I will 
likely either stay a member and be quiet or exit the membership in the near 
term.  I do read your website and have enjoyed all the debates and wonderful 
information many of your members have to offer.


The above being said, I have a very strong opinion about this latest posting 
by Lattice Energy.  I think it is utter nonsense to draw a distinction 
between the term Cold Fusion and LENR.  In my opinion they are both 
moniker's for the same physical anomaly, ie anomalous heat described by Pons 
and Fleischmann in 1989 and many others thereafter.  I don't think a 
definitive theory has been accepted, indeed plenty of mainstream scientists 
seem not to accept it at all under either moniker. While I appreciate that 
theories for the anomalous heat differ, I could care less which turns out to 
be correct and talking for the general public (only because I like them am 
not a scientist) I doubt they do either.  I also don't care if the name 
given to the process is particularly accurate from a scientific standpoint, 
you guys can call it whatever you want once you figure it out.  Personally, 
I think the term Cold Fusion is cool and would prefer to keep it as the 
moniker of choice.


What troubles me about this letter from Lattice Energy and Krivit's apparent 
obsession with the distinction is the notion that somehow the people who 
have used the term Cold Fusion to describe what they have been doing are 
talking about a different physical anomaly.  It also suggests these people 
who from what I understand simply have a different theory to explain the 
anomaly have been doing bad science.
This in my opinion is outlandish and the scientific community (ie YOU guys) 
shouldn't stand for it.


If LENR, Cold Fusion CANR (call it what you wish) becomes a commercial 
energy source for the world, everyone who has worked on it regardless of 
their theory should be applauded and recognized for keeping the torch 
burning for mankind while many of your brethren scoffed at the subject.


Just a lawyer's two cents.

Ransom
- Original Message - 
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:12 PM
Subject: [Vo]:New Posting from Lattice Energy - LENR compared to CF




Lattice Energy LLC-LENRs and Cold Fusion are Different Concepts - Dec 13 
2011


http://dev2.slideshare.com/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-and-cold-fusion-are-different-conceptsdec-13-2011

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see how theyworkwithout LENR?

[Randy Wuller]

Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to establish 
O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have been 
questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests failed to 
demonstrate O/I, it is unique.

While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical energy 
were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant measured 
output over input.

Maryyugo's proposal would confirm the above because in essence her test would 
be simple. Since the measured energy input was insufficient to vaporize any of 
the 11.160 liters of water pumped through the Ecat and since all the output, 
vapor and condensed water was collected by Lewan in a bucket, Maryyugo could 
just pump 11.160 liters through a hose into a bucket. If she had more in the 
bucket then the 5.4 liters measured by Lewan her test would confirm significant 
O/I in the 2nd Lewan test.

Ransom