Re: [Vo]:How does evolution work without selective pressure
Not true in the slightest. Different people fall under different economic and social conditions that enhance or limit the ability to find a mate, intellectual development changes who CHOOSES to have offspring, which is an even bigger selective pressure (Idiocracy, anyone?) On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:49 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Everyone is taken care of and has an equal chance to have offspring. Do genetic disease tend to propagate in such a situation? What effect does unbridled sexual selection have? Do people get nicer looking but sicker? I don't know. I would like to take a peek 10,000 years into the future and see what has happened. I would probably be surprised. We have no past models for the evolution and progression of a technological spices. Maybe we will be like sharks and never change for millions of years. Why do you assume we don't face selective pressure? -Original Message- From: Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:How does evolution work without selective pressure Why do you assume we don't face selective pressure? On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:02 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I have read many times about how we are evolving. How does this work in the absence of selective pressure? In reverse maybe? http://www.popsci.com/node/69854/?cmpid=enews013113spPodID=020spMailingID=5126534spUserID=MTY0NTI4MDIwMTES1spJobID=309174560spReportId=MzA5MTc0NTYwS0
[Vo]:Hello!!
http://www.bankers-corner.com/components/com_content/yaid352.php 2/2/2013 2:30:49 PM Greg Watson _
[Vo]:
Hi, I fall on a patent that looks like Defkalion method of ignition http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1100-German-patent-found-looking-like-defkalionp=3836#post3836 (I OCR'ed and quoted the claims in english) WO2006EP07882 EP1924387 https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP06763022tab=main
Re: [Vo]:
crab, a little red fish which walks backwards a definition corrected by Cuvier I bet that this patent will not make any trouble to Defkalion's patenting program. Peter On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I fall on a patent that looks like Defkalion method of ignition http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1100-German-patent-found-looking-like-defkalionp=3836#post3836 (I OCR'ed and quoted the claims in english) WO2006EP07882 EP1924387 https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP06763022tab=main -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Hello!!
I think [Vo] has been hacked. This thread appears to be an infomercial. When replying you also get the Yahoo email address below, instead of [Vo] I hope Mr. Beaty is lurking nearby. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/ From: Greg Watson [mailto:gowatso...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 7:31 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com; vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hello!! http://www.bankers-corner.com/components/com_content/yaid352.php 2/2/2013 2:30:49 PM Greg Watson _
Re: [Vo]:Hello!!
warning VIRUS 2013/2/2 Greg Watson gowatso...@yahoo.com http://www.bankers-corner.com/components/com_content/yaid352.php 2/2/2013 2:30:49 PM Greg Watson _
Re: [Vo]:
The claims are a bit wide, but the description in the US patent is more clear http://ip.com/patfam/en/37836184 even if not a patent, the description is interesting. 2013/2/2 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com crab, a little red fish which walks backwards a definition corrected by Cuvier I bet that this patent will not make any trouble to Defkalion's patenting program. Peter On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I fall on a patent that looks like Defkalion method of ignition http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1100-German-patent-found-looking-like-defkalionp=3836#post3836 (I OCR'ed and quoted the claims in english) WO2006EP07882 EP1924387 https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP06763022tab=main -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:OT - Global Warming
I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least active it's been since 1915, when global temperatures hit another multi-decadal low. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml * There is a correlation between solar activity and global temperature. The correlation is not as strong, only .53 as I calculate it, going back to 1880, but still a correlation which is being completely ignored by all serious modelers. And if this correlation is real, then it's highly likely that it's the Sun which is causing the Earth's temperature to vary, and not the other way around. * Amateurs are able to build very good climate models based on solar activity. This one correlates to .87, and forecasts a cooling climate until the year 2050, at least. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/ This is something the professionals are completely overlooking. It may be the Sun that is responsible for the warming Earth. Who would have figured? That's all I've got. But note also, that this is all that anyone has. There's no mysterious proof lying around anywhere. The whole thing is just an inference from correlations. And correlations can't prove anything. There's a strong correlation between the number of firefighters and the size of town fires. Thankfully no one is suggesting that we should get rid of the fire fighters so that we can reduce the town fires. Craig
RE: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Thanks for the summary Craig... I like it when Vorts take time to look into an issue and then report back and provide references... Here's a link to a site which keeps track of the peer-reviewed papers which present the skeptical side of AGW: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htm l And, unfortunately, scientists are only human: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/duplicate-science-funding-agencies-may -have-awarded-millions-and-possibly-billions-of-dollars-to-scientists-for-du plicate-studies/ As usual, our tax $ being wasted... -Mark -Original Message- From: Craig [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least active it's been since 1915, when global temperatures hit another multi-decadal low. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml * There is a correlation between solar activity and global temperature. The correlation is not as strong, only .53 as I calculate it, going back to 1880, but still a correlation which is being completely ignored by all serious modelers. And if this correlation is real, then it's highly likely that it's the Sun which is causing the Earth's temperature to vary, and not the other way around. * Amateurs are able to build very good climate
Re: [Vo]:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: The claims are a bit wide, but the description in the US patent is more clear http://ip.com/patfam/en/37836184 even if not a patent, the description is interesting. It is a patent assigned to http://www.purratio.ag/ I like this: http://www.purratio.ag/PurratioAG%20eng/html/technologies.html AquaFlame: THERMAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY - newly developed and highly innovative technology to produce thermal energy with the use of water as fuel. and SolFire: REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY - ”the” technology for the controlled utilization of fusion energy. A technology which is unique in meaning, benefit and value. Contacts in Germany, Austria and Hungary.
Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming
Nice analysis, Craig. However, I think the wrong issues are being discussed. I think we can agree and a wide range of date show that the average temperature of the earth is going up, the ocean levels are rising, and the pH the ocean is shifting in a more acid direction. All of these effects are having bad consequences regardless of the cause. Personally, I believe that even if the CO2 is being produced by man and this is the major cause of warming, we are too late do do anything about this. The reason is both political and based on the very slow response of the earth system to any change man might make. The question is, How must each country respond to what is happening. The consequences will be slow in coming so that time is available to respond. Rather than fight over the cause, I suggest we should work on adjusting to the obvious future. For example, discourage building in regions that will flood first. Design the infrastructure so that it is either above the early flood or anticipate in its design the use of dikes and barriers. Personally, if I were young, I would not buy a house near the coast or where severe weather was known to occur or would make the electric system unusable for extended times. We know what is coming so let's work to reduce the consequences. Ed On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Craig wrote: I took another look at Global Warming these past few days, and I have to say that I'm still not convinced that CO2 increases are leading to increases in global temperatures. I am not even sure that humans are causing the CO2 increases. This isn't to say that it's not happening; just that the evidence doesn't convince me. Not that it matters. I am not someone who needs to be convinced. I wanted to believe it this time. I was right there. Arctic sea ice is melting to record lows. The last decade was the warmest decade since the middle ages. CO2 is continuing on its ever-present march to higher and higher levels. But when it comes down to the evidence, all that's present is one correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature -- and that's all there is to it. Here's what's known: * CO2 is increasing -- pretty much in a linear fashion. * CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the total atmosphere; something like .039%. It's also not a very strong greenhouse gas. Water vapor is something like 55 times stronger than CO2, and water vapor comprises about 2% of the atmosphere. * Temperatures are increasing. Are they? It depends on how you look at it. Temperatures are still lower than they were during the Middle Ages, which were still lower than they were around the time of the Romans. Also, global air temperature hasn't increased since 1998, in the respected HadCRUT4 series. *http://tinyurl.com/9qkytww* The stall is even more visible in sea heat measurements. *http://tinyurl.com/bb2gtbr* And even more visible in the North Atlantic. *http://tinyurl.com/ag89bps ** There is a correlation between increases in CO2 and the global increase in temperature. In fact, there is a very strong correlation, going back to 1958, when CO2 levels were first measured on a regular basis. The correlation is .96, by my calculations, which is extremely high. But correlation cannot show causation here. Throughout history, CO2 levels have varied in step with temperatures. You can even see this variation on an annual basis, as the northern hemisphere varies in temperature from summer to winter. *http://tinyurl.com/b7xvruy *Now look at this. Do you remember 1992-1994? Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991, which caused the Earth to cool in 1992-1994. Notice here that global CO2 levels also fell significantly. During this cooling, the CO2 level fell, and it fell as a result of the Earth cooling, and not as the cause. *http://tinyurl.com/a6jbxgd ** The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is continuing to cool. This is a huge 60 year cycle, which appears to be entering its cool phase for the first time since 1940. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg * Arctic sea ice is reaching record lows, going back to the 1970s. But Antarctic sea ice is now reaching record high levels, going back to the 1930s. http://www.meto.umd.edu/~kostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.meto.umd.edu/%7Ekostya/Pdf/Seaice.30yrs.GRL.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p023549.pdf * Solar activity has been at a record high level during the 20th century. *http://tinyurl.com/bdrb8mf *This may be significant. If there has been warming since the 1800s, and solar activity has been at a record high during this period, and if there is a correlation, then a decrease in solar activity may lead to cooling, and this may be why global warming has stalled now. * Solar activity is significantly declining now. Nasa is predicting a significant drop in solar activity during the current solar cycle. The sun is now the least
RE: [Vo]:
Ed: You might want to visit the link that Terry just provided to Purratio... Although there isn't a whole lot there on the technical details, there is this excerpt re: neutron detection: A neutron detector was installed in about 1m distance from the plasma to detect neutrons. As detector a commercially available instrument from Berthold Technologies LB 123 with a read out electronic LB 6411 was used. The detector measures a constant back-ground radiation of about 0,010uSv/h without plasma jet operation. At appropriate experimental conditions a neutron signal of 3uSv/h can be generated during burning of the plasma in 95% D2O vapour. -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 9:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: The claims are a bit wide, but the description in the US patent is more clear http://ip.com/patfam/en/37836184 even if not a patent, the description is interesting. It is a patent assigned to http://www.purratio.ag/ I like this: http://www.purratio.ag/PurratioAG%20eng/html/technologies.html AquaFlame: THERMAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY - newly developed and highly innovative technology to produce thermal energy with the use of water as fuel. and SolFire: REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY TECHNOLOGY - the technology for the controlled utilization of fusion energy. A technology which is unique in meaning, benefit and value. Contacts in Germany, Austria and Hungary.
RE: [Vo]: Purratio
This is about the same neutron flux that every passenger on a Jet is exposed to. IOW - it means there is a low grade nuclear reaction - probably neutron stripping and that is the good news, but the energy content is absurdly low. I suspect they are a factor of 10^7 away from breakeven. Maybe purrratio relates to the energy content of a cat's purr. You can do better with a Farnsworth Fusor. A neutron detector was installed in about 1m distance from the plasma to detect neutrons. As detector a commercially available instrument from Berthold Technologies LB 123 with a read out electronic LB 6411 was used. The detector measures a constant back-ground radiation of about 0,010uSv/h without plasma jet operation. At appropriate experimental conditions a neutron signal of 3uSv/h can be generated during burning of the plasma in 95% D2O vapour.
Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: I calculated for german capacity factor 19 % from 2011 data. There was on average 28 GW wind power installed during the year and total output was 46 500 GWh. Therefore I would assume that your sources used misleading data. Your assumption is incorrect. The data I used is for the U.S. Our on-shore wind is stronger and steadier than Germany. The 19% capacity factor for Germany has been published elsewhere, but it does not apply to the U.S., the U.K. or to offshore wind. U.S. prime wind locations such as N. and S. Dakota are the best in the world (on-shore). N. and S. Dakota could supply all of the electricity in North America from wind, if there was a way to transmit and store it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It must be considered that windmills in Germany are quite old. And efficiency has improved quite significantly in recent years. The equipment wears out in 20 years and it is scrapped and replaced. Only the towers remain. Fortunately, the tower is the most expensive part, by far. The replacement equipment is the most efficient available, except that the older towers only support small turbines with short blades. In some cases the entire tower is replaced. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?
In solving the baseload elex coal problem, I had to generate enough ammonia to photosynthetically fix all fossil fuel elex CO2 into algal biomass. One way I looked at was to carpet the Dakotas with wind energy generators to drive conventional water electrolysis to generate hydrogen for the Haber-Bosch process: http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Template:Cost_to_Build_Ammonia_Synthesis_Wind_Generators_($) Yes, this doubles the electrical generation capacity of the US but the storage and transmission medium is ammonia and that's all used up producing algal biomass. You'll notice that if you're allowed to include industrial learning curve, the cost per installed watt comes in at around $3.50. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It must be considered that windmills in Germany are quite old. And efficiency has improved quite significantly in recent years. The equipment wears out in 20 years and it is scrapped and replaced. Only the towers remain. Fortunately, the tower is the most expensive part, by far. The replacement equipment is the most efficient available, except that the older towers only support small turbines with short blades. In some cases the entire tower is replaced. - Jed
[Vo]:The Evolving Internet
What's the next big thing? Stream-browsing: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/the-end-of-the-web-computers-and-search-as-we-know-it It's almost like a sixth sense.
Re: [Vo]:Skynet Advances
More from Boston Dynamics: http://www.fastcompany.com/3005313/evolved-brains-robots-creep-closer-animal-learning Big Dog actually does better on the ice than I. Here's where it gets scary: They’ve 3-D printed an advanced quadruped robot called Aracna, to further examine evolved gaits. The next step is to evolve larger, more modular brains that will hopefully approach natural brains in complexity opening up the possibility of creating an entirely new breed of robots. Did they have to name it after a spider? I hate spiders. Except those from the sea, with drawn butter. Self-replication is just around the corner.
Re: [Vo]:The Evolving Internet
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What's the next big thing? Stream-browsing: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/the-end-of-the-web-computers-and-search-as-we-know-it It's almost like a sixth sense. quote Does this sort of precise control limit the serendipitous nature of the web? In a way, yes. But it’s about time: “Bring me what I want” is almost always more useful than “Let me rummage around and see what I can find.” No matter how fast it seems, most search is a waste of time. In a way, we are using time (i.e., the time-based structure) to gain time. ahem...he can speak for himself. This guy obviously does not enjoy visiting places like used book stores or junk yards. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Dave, Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? Harry On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The guys at MFMP are still experimenting on the Celani device. They have a stainless steel version that is just now beginning to be tested and I have my fingers crossed. A new calorimeter is also being perfected and it will be capable of detecting excess power in a sensitive manner if any appears. My program suggests that the results are null at this time, but others may not share that opinion. The MFMP guys are doing a wonderful job and we all should be appreciative of their efforts, and I am confident that they will continue to perform a great service for us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I'm not sure the MFMP have shown more than a null result -- I doubt it can be taken as a negative result. Celani's P_xs was on the order of many watts, if I remember correctly. It seems like he would have had to have some pretty egregious instrument artifact to get those graphs that have been circulating. Also possible is that MFMP have not succeeded in triggering whatever Celani has been seeing. This is not to say that Celani has necessarily been seeing anything -- he might or he might not be. Eric
RE: [Vo]: Purratio
Jones wrote: Maybe purrratio relates to the energy content of a cat's purr. You can do better with a Farnsworth Fusor. Or better with a real cat! :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Purratio This is about the same neutron flux that every passenger on a Jet is exposed to. IOW - it means there is a low grade nuclear reaction - probably neutron stripping and that is the good news, but the energy content is absurdly low. I suspect they are a factor of 10^7 away from breakeven. Maybe purrratio relates to the energy content of a cat's purr. You can do better with a Farnsworth Fusor. A neutron detector was installed in about 1m distance from the plasma to detect neutrons. As detector a commercially available instrument from Berthold Technologies LB 123 with a read out electronic LB 6411 was used. The detector measures a constant back-ground radiation of about 0,010uSv/h without plasma jet operation. At appropriate experimental conditions a neutron signal of 3uSv/h can be generated during burning of the plasma in 95% D2O vapour.
Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: In solving the baseload elex coal problem, I had to generate enough ammonia to photosynthetically fix all fossil fuel elex CO2 into algal biomass. An interesting hybrid approach. Things that sound complicated like this sometimes work surprisingly well. A hybrid automobile is a good example. At first glance you think it add steps from combustion to propulsion so it should be less efficient. It works because the step taken just before propulsion varies with speed, so it is more effective. Technology systems tend to get complicated, followed by a grand simplification, followed by another phase of increasing complexity. A classic example is piston aircraft engine giving way to the jet engine (a simplification -- at least in overall design), which then become more complicated as it grew larger and more efficient. Jet engines are now being simplified again for small aircraft, with a so-called one-piece turbine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: In solving the baseload elex coal problem, I had to generate enough ammonia to photosynthetically fix all fossil fuel elex CO2 into algal biomass. An interesting hybrid approach. Things that sound complicated like this sometimes work surprisingly well. Well, in this case I ran into a problem: Long before I'd fixed the US elex CO2, I was generating many times the amount of protein that could be consumed by the world's population without producing gout. Of course, even earlier than that about half of all arable land in the world would have returned to its native state including most of the now-cultivated Amazon River Basin. Coal companies and the DoE don't care about solving the global nutrition problem let alone the resulting global extinction event going on.
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
Does anyone know what the status is of the Nanor device at MIT? Has it been kept running? Has anyone duplicated the device and successfully run it? Nope --- But if you trust a dog (Shih-tzu), Dr Bob has some comments on Schwartz's presentation : http://www.drboblog.com/where-is-bob/ (Jan 28) http://www.drboblog.com/mit-class-day-2/ (Feb 1) Quick summary : they are regularly getting a COP of 40 (at 80 the equipment melts) -- but it's not yet at commercial watt-levels.
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Harry, I can only say that my program has not calculated any significant excess power during all the trials that I attempted. My current belief is that the amount of infrared radiation compared to heat energy that escapes through the surface varies with time. Unfortunately, IR from the wires is not all captured by the glass envelop so a portion does not leave a heat trace behind. On occasions a deposit of material has been discovered on the Celani wire that likely changes the IR emissivity of that particular wire with time. If less IR is released, then more direct conducted heat through the hydrogen is measured since the sum of these is known. I consider this behavior as a drift in the calibration which then appears to indicate more or in some cases less excess heat. In every program run that immediately follows an accurate calibration, I find very good correlation between the input power calculated by my curve fit and the actual known value. Now, if excess power were generated, it would likely depend upon temperature of the cell and its contents. This additional power pulse should impact the behavior of the temperature versus time curve that my program produces. More excess power should increase the slope of the curve when it happens while any absorption should do the reverse. So far, I have not seen clear evidence of this effect. Additional evidence that only a small amount of excess power is generated is demonstrated by the excellent quadratic curve fit that I obtain with a test run that uses well defined power steps. This very close curve fit has so far always been observed. My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. If this actually were to occur the curve fit would be poor. I have simulated an escaping radiation system that appears to behave in a like manner. The forth order power radiation from the wire was made to vary in my simulation. A significant portion of this was captured within the simulation along with all of the conduction equivalent heat energy. At the outer glass equivalent test point, I noticed that it was easy to get an excellent quadratic curve fit with just a little distortion caused by the escaping forth order radiation effects. I was amazed that I could choose values for the radiation escape process that resulted in a curve fit which came close to the R^2 values that I typically observe. Much of this could be coincidence, but at least it appeared to come close to what I see. And, of course, as I adjusted the effective radiation, the calibration appeared to drift similar to what I think might be happening in the real testing. So Harry, my program seems to be capable of weeding out the behavior of the Celani replication device in real time provided the calibration does not drift too quickly. But you should also consider that it might not capture the excess power generation if it comes into existence in some very slow manner. Of course, the program would display any slowly rising excess power after the transient step response has settled down. This is very much like shooting at a moving target. It is apparent that a better method of capturing and measuring the excess power is required if we are to have confidence in our determination. The MFMP guys are testing a much improved calorimeter that everyone hopes will achieve that goal. This does not appear to be such an easy task, but they are working hard toward that end. After the calorimeter is completed and calibrated, I hope that we can gain confidence in any conclusions that are made. For now, there is a lot of speculation that needs to be proven one way or the other. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Dave, Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? Harry On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The guys at MFMP are still experimenting on the Celani device. They have a stainless steel version that is just now beginning to be tested and I have my fingers crossed. A new calorimeter is also being perfected and it will be capable of detecting excess power in a sensitive manner if any appears. My program suggests that the results are null at this time, but others may not share that opinion. The MFMP guys are doing a wonderful job and we all should be appreciative of their efforts, and I am confident that they will continue to perform a great service for us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I'm not sure
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
I agree Jed, you would think that the Celani device should be capable of self sustaining operation with insulation applied if the actual excess power were accurately measured. I worry that the application of the forth order radiation estimation is not working as expected. All of the calibrations that I have performed on the replication device show a very good fit to a quadratic function instead. It is not obvious why this difference exists between the two test systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
On Feb 2, 2013, at 16:22, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. Your curve-fitting analyses are always interesting. But I think we should be careful about adopting this particular assumption. I have read on more than one occasion that a decrease in power-in can trigger anomalous heat. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
That is a good point. I have developed certain beliefs after a lot of test runs and observations and I realize that I may have missed things along the way. Did you download the latest Excel example file that I ran on the recent MFMP test data? I recommend that you take a look at the close fit that is generated and review the various relationships between the variables that are revealed by the formulas included. I also derived a similar functional relationship that predicts the falling edges when steps are moving in the downward direction. Unfortunately, there is not too many transitions contained within the downloaded data for me to test against, hence the concentration on rising edges. I am currently waiting for results from the new air flow calorimeter with fingers crossed. My fear is that the actual amount of excess power will only be in the 1 watt range on a good day. You may recall my work on surface area comparisons between the Celani wire and Rossi's claims. I hope I screwed up in that analysis, if not, the calorimeter is our only hope of proof. Then again, I hate to screw up! Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP On Feb 2, 2013, at 16:22, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. Your curve-fitting analyses are always interesting. But I think we should be careful about adopting this particular assumption. I have read on more than one occasion that a decrease in power-in can trigger anomalous heat. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Does anyone know what the status is of the Nanor device at MIT? Has it been kept running? Has anyone duplicated the device and successfully run it? Nope --- But if you trust a dog (Shih-tzu), Dr Bob has some comments on Schwartz's presentation : http://www.drboblog.com/where-is-bob/ (Jan 28) http://www.drboblog.com/mit-class-day-2/ (Feb 1) Quick summary : they are regularly getting a COP of 40 (at 80 the equipment melts) -- but it's not yet at commercial watt-levels. In the second link it says that, according to Hagelstein, the flux of the gamma rays produced by the Nanor device is comparable to that emitted by a banana. In light of this, here is a video about measuring gamma banana rays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_SJH7VNAE0 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed My understanding of their analysis is that the reputed excess power comes and goes and is much less than it was when they first began the experiment(s). Harry
