date:20060202


See:

http://www.slate.com/id/2135236/nav/tap2/

And especially this, from last year, describing Pimentel and Patzek's 
conclusions:


http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

- Jed

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

Much of the criticism about ethanol is simple pessimism, and ignores the
likelihood that the technology will improve as it develops.

www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1556439.htm




 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:09 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

See:

http://www.slate.com/id/2135236/nav/tap2/

And especially this, from last year, describing Pimentel and Patzek's
conclusions:

http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

- Jed

RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?

Title: Message






From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:19 PMTo: 
vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really 
Off-Base?

The way I see it, our dependence on oil is the product of one of the most 
far flung social engineering projects ever undertaken. From dismantling 
trolley lines in the early 20th Century to ensuring auto efficiency standards do 
not put too much pressure on the demand side of oil, to providing 
$10Billions of federal monies each year to protect oil supplies 
overseasmilitarily,the federal government has engineered our 
dependence on oil and has put alternative energy technologies and transportation 
modes at a marketplace disadvantage.

If there was enough need for new refining 
facilities, they would get built. We are now building LNG facilities, we 
have continued to build power plants all over the place. New refiniers 
aren't being built because the industry either doesn't want them to put more 
supplies on the market and depress pricesor more likely they don't see a 
return on investment for a product that will price itself out of the market 
within a decade or two.

see:

www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml

It may take 15 or 20 years to build a refinery, if you can get 
past the political pressure from environmentalists. Power 
plantscan be difficult and nuclear power
plants are simply impossible to 
site.

Barrons ran an article about this, quoting industry leaders 
complaining that they simply can't site refineries in the US- it's nearly 
impossible.

If you've been following the news, the Democrats 
suggested building refineries at shut down military bases BUT the idea was shot 
down almost
instantaneously by environmentalists. The 
politiciansjust gave up.

Is this board so full of satisfied opinions that no one 
even bothers to do a Google search on the facts? If these discussions 
typify the depth of thinking in
alternative energy, we're in bigger trouble than I 
thought.

Re: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

2006-02-02 Thread Harry Veeder

Another hydrocarbon economy.

Harry





Jed Rothwell wrote:

 See:
 
 http://www.slate.com/id/2135236/nav/tap2/
 
 And especially this, from last year, describing Pimentel and Patzek's
 conclusions:
 
 http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/
 
 - Jed

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com


Zell, Chris wrote:


Much of the criticism about ethanol is simple pessimism, and ignores the
likelihood that the technology will improve as it develops.


A terrific amount of money has been invested in the technology and it 
has not improved much. Industry spokesmen claim a 30% net gain 
which is abysmal. If that is the best they can do, the industry 
should be shut down immediately.


Perhaps there will be some fundamental breakthrough to reduce the 
overhead energy costs, but even so, the total energy content of all 
of the food crops in the US is nowhere near enough.


The money we spend on ethanol would be far better spent on 
conservation, hybrid automobiles and so on.


- Jed

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:51 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

Zell, Chris wrote:

Much of the criticism about ethanol is simple pessimism, and ignores 
the likelihood that the technology will improve as it develops.

A terrific amount of money has been invested in the technology and it
has not improved much. Industry spokesmen claim a 30% net gain 
which is abysmal. If that is the best they can do, the industry should
be shut down immediately.

And , of course, the same statement applies to cold fusion,  new
batteries,  and every other alternative technology you can name.  Since
progress
is not instantaneous, we should all freeze in the dark.  Who said 30% is
the best they can EVER do?

A 30% gain  - whether on an energy source or your favorite investment -
is not abysmal.  It's an excellent start, especially in a field where
bias 
is becoming obvious -  is this ethanol hate?  Is the pessimism here
obvious?

How much imagination does it take to foresee the ENORMOUS amounts of
waste heat this country generates being used to aid distillation?
Hasn't Amory Lovins and others complained about this waste?  Do
utilities commonly waste heat?  Would 5 - 10 - 30% of our imported oil 
money be better spent in US rural areas - than on unstable Third World
countries and terrorists?

Has the Almighty told us that cellulose derived alcohol can't work?
Could ethanol get around much of the NIMBYism surrounding refinery
construction
by siteing  distilleries in Midwest states?  Suppose we use it to power
the tractors that gather the feedstock? Does that help?

Ethanol looks to be the quickest and possibly easiest way to get away
from imported oil for cars.

Biofuels could replace 30% of fuel needs


  www.physorg.com/news10434.html

The idea that this could be accomplished in only 5 to 10 years is
wonderful.  There may be a lot more hope out there than we think.

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com


Zell, Chris wrote:


A terrific amount of money has been invested in the technology and it
has not improved much. Industry spokesmen claim a 30% net gain
which is abysmal. If that is the best they can do, the industry should
be shut down immediately.

And , of course, the same statement applies to cold fusion,  new
batteries,  and every other alternative technology you can name.


That is incorrect. The best input/output ratio recorded for cold 
fusion was inifinite: no input, continuous output, with gas loaded 
cells. That is much better than 100 units out for every 70 input.


Also, the amount of money spent on CF development has been a tiny 
fraction of the amount spent on ethanol, and the APS and the DoE do 
not routinely attack ethanol researchers, so the comparison is unfair.



Since progress is not instantaneous, we should all freeze in the 
dark.  Who said 30% is the best they can EVER do?


Actually, opponents say -70% of the best they can ever do. 30% of the 
best they have been able to do after decades of RD and billions of 
dollars. Woolsey and others think it can be improved, but some 
experts disagree. (Woolsey is not an expert.)




A 30% gain  - whether on an energy source or your favorite investment -
is not abysmal.


For energy, this is abysmal. For an investment it would be great. The 
two are not comparable.




It's an excellent start . . .


30% is not an excellent start for a real world energy system. It is a 
stone wall dead-end. If we had to depend upon such energy systems we 
would starve to death.



. . . especially in a field where bias is becoming obvious -  is 
this ethanol hate?  Is the pessimism here obvious?


It is not pessimism. It is fact-based realism.


Could ethanol get around much of the NIMBYism surrounding refinery 
construction


NIMBYism is not stopping refinery construction. This is a myth. Oil 
companies do not want any more refineries because they know there is 
no more oil. Production will only decrease from now on. It would be a 
waste of money to build any more oil refineries.



Suppose we use it to power the tractors that gather the feedstock? 
Does that help?


Suppose we just burn money and furniture, while we are at it? As long 
as we burning food, why not?



Ethanol looks to be the quickest and possibly easiest way to get 
away from imported oil for cars.


Ethanol can only increase US consumption of imported oil by hundreds 
of millions of barrels per year -- all wasted. It would make more 
sense for us to simply wire transfer a few extra billions of dollars 
directly to the Saudis and Al Qaeda, and not bother to go through the 
charade of making ethanol.


- Jed

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com

 

  We can burn ethanol in cars right now.  There are no cold fusion
cars.  We are still waiting for a commercially available unit, so,
you're quite right,
  ethanol and cold fusion aren't comparable.

  Since we are in the realm of mythology, you can believe whatever
you wish about oil companies - but their LEADERS explicitly state that
NIMBYism 
  is behind the fact that the US hasn't built a refinery since 1976.
Again, this objection has been widely published ( in Reason magazine and
Barrons)
  and came up in recent Democratic proposals in Congress for
refinery construction on former military bases.  Would my citing these
sources make
  any difference? Or is the matter now a religious dogma?  

  

  Studies from academics that are garbage in, garbage out  do
little to enlighten anyone about energy.  As I pointed out, there's an
enormous amount of
  heat going to waste that could benefit alcohol distillation - from
utilities all the way to geothermal to solar - and that strongly affects
the outcome
  of any efficiency projected, academic studies be damned.

  In addition, the feedstock could involve material that's largely
going to waste, right now - a far cry from corn based production.  

  At the very least, we need to see a cold fusion unit that can
cheaply heat a house. Electric generation can wait.

[no subject]

 Groups advocating NIMBYism explicitly to fight against refining and
production

 www.eco-action.org/dod/no7/66-75.html#2

 Note the quote advocating universal nimbyism  and  doing
everything to increase industry costs.

RE: Bush and ethanol in Slate.com


Zell, Chris wrote:

  Since we are in the realm of mythology, you can believe 
whatever you wish about oil companies - but their LEADERS 
explicitly state that NIMBYism is behind the fact that the US 
hasn't built a refinery since 1976.


Oil company leaders are remarkable people, but they are not 
celebrated for their fastidious honesty. Their estimates of reserves 
have been called into question. Their hypotheses about global warming 
are not widely shared by atmospheric scientists. When they were 
called upon to testify before the Senate a few months ago, the 
chairman of the committee insisted that they not be sworn in. That 
turned out to be a a wise precaution, because they would have been 
committing perjury otherwise.




Again, this objection has been widely published (in Reason magazine and
Barrons)


I think Deffeyes has more credibility.



  Studies from academics that are garbage in, garbage out  do
little to enlighten anyone about energy.


In my opinion, the studies by Pimentel and Patzek are not garbage. 
They seem well documented and carefully researched. In any case, as I 
said, even if they are wrong and we accept the industry spokesmen's 
numbers instead, it is still a losing proposition with present-day technology.



As I pointed out, there's an enormous amount of heat going to waste 
that could benefit alcohol distillation - from utilities all the way 
to geothermal to solar - and that strongly affects the outcome of 
any efficiency projected, academic studies be damned.


The academic studies take this into account of course. The problem 
with utilizing waste heat is that you cannot transport it. The raw 
materials for ethanol are very bulky and heavy and they are processed 
far from population and industry centers, where the waste heat is 
needed. You need waste heat for industry in places like New York City 
or Rome Georgia (where they manufacture carpets). I suppose you could 
bring the corn and all the way from Iowa to Georgia and then 
manufacture ethanol in a cogeneration plant where you use the waste 
heat for industrial heating. But I think any energy savings you 
accomplished by this method would be lost transporting the corn.


It is possible someone will make a breakthrough based on something 
like bioengineering which greatly reduces the energy needed to make 
ethanol. If that happens, obviously the numbers will change. However, 
such research should not be supported with hundreds of millions of 
dollars from the taxpayers. A small contribution from the government 
might be in order, but not hundreds of millions.
Agribusiness in the US has plenty of money, and they can afford to 
pay for this research. Between 1995 and 2004, federal corn subsidies 
averaged $4.6 billion per year. That's enough to pay for plenty of research.




  In addition, the feedstock could involve material that's largely
going to waste, right now - a far cry from corn based production.


Define going to waste. Biomass does not go to waste when you leave 
it in the ground. It is essential to the health of the land. If you 
keep extracting a year after year and burning it after a few hundred 
years the US will look like Iraq does today -- the whole country will 
go to waste! Present-day corn production is rapidly destroying the 
topsoil and the water table. It is not sustainable. Add to that the 
burden of producing switchgrass and other biomass and you have the 
makings of the largest ecological catastrophe in human history. It is 
beyond me why any environmentalist thinks this is a good idea. 
Extracting more biomass out of North American land is lunacy. We 
should be putting it back, letting forests regrow and leaving more 
fields fallow.



  At the very least, we need to see a cold fusion unit that can 
cheaply heat a house. Electric generation can wait.


If cold fusion can be made to work at all, it will not be cheap, it 
will be many orders of magnitude cheaper than any other energy source.


- Jed

Let's kill all the remaining whales, too


Zell, Chris wrote:

Note the quote advocating universal nimbyism  and doing everything 
to increase industry costs.


Explain how it would reduce industry costs to build unnecessary 
refineries when the total volume of oil can only decrease rapidly in 
the coming decades.


Chris, you need a reality check. Even some of the top oil industry 
executives now admit that oil supplies have peaked. If you are living 
on Easter Island and you have one tree left standing, why would you 
bother to build a new sawmill? How will that reduce the cost of lumber?


Your suggestion is similar to the notion that we should combat Third 
World starvation by building a thousand more large fishing boats -- 
factory scale ships. The problem is, fish populations have crashed in 
every ocean and there are no more fish to catch, and if we build more 
fishing boats we will simply hasten the day when the remaining stocks 
of edible fish are driven to extinction.


That gives me an idea. While we are building more refineries, let us 
also hunt down the remaining blue whales and right whales, and use 
the oil from them too.


- Jed

Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field

2006-02-02 Thread Harry Veeder

Horace Heffner wrote:

 
 On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
 
 
 Could Gravimagnetism be involved in the precession of the perihelion
 of planet mercury?
 
 http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
 
 Harry
 
 
 
 Gravimagnetism has much to do with the precession of non-circular
 obits.  Gravimagnetism embodies the relativistic effects due to
 retardation.  It  does not account for red shift due to gravitational
 or acceleration time dilation.  Jefimenko noted that the entire rate
 of precession of Mercury's perihelion could be accounted for by
 merely reducing the speed of gravity to less than c.  Since the time
 he wrote his book, however, the speed of gravity has been measured at
 c.  (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm)
 This implies Einstein's explanation of the remaining bit of
 precession is still necessary.
 
 The reason gravimagnetism plays a strong role in orbit precession is
 that it is a 1/r^3 effect. The attraction and thus acceleration close
 up to the sun is greater than further out. The angular motion of
 mercury is increased a little bit when up close to the sun, and thus
 the precession of the orbit results.
 
 Horace Heffner
 


Presumably then gravimagnetism is not required to explain _any_ of the
orbital precession since it can all be explained by classical and
relativistic physics.

Harry

Re: Electron Flywheels and Turbines

2006-02-02 Thread ThomasClark123



Tesla used two high energy electron counter acting flywheels or alternatorsto power his flying saucers. The counter force to the excessive high electrical energy literally propels the ship through space. 

"Tesla worked out the problem of how to counteract the tendency of the ship to rotate due to the torque of the alternator or turbine, by using two turbines or alternators, turned on parallel axis in the same direction or counter rotated, as stated in his patent 1655114, Apparatus for Arial Transportation... a single alternator and turbine turning on separate parallel axis linked by a gear box would accomplish the same thing. Quoted From Pg 64, The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla Harrp-- Chemtrails and the Secret of Alternative 4 Tim Swartz Global Communicatoins conspiracyjournal.com"

"Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent it follows that the curvature of space is entirely impossible-however even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. Quoted From Pg 75 to 76, The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla Harrp-- Chemtrails and the Secret of Alternative 4 Tim Swartz Global Communicatoins conspiracyjournal.com"

If one reads the description of Tesla's various space ship designs, given in The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla Harrp-- Chemtrails and the Secret of Alternative 4 Tim Swartz Global Communicatoins conspiracyjournal.com, it becomes extremely simple to understand how they work.

Message from D. Pimentel


I wrote to Prof. P.:

It must be terribly frustrating for you to hear Bush talk about 
ethanol in the State of the Union speech. You have my sympathy!


He responded: Thanks for your note.  It is frustrating and all this 
is undermining our nation.


Darn right.

- Jed

Re: Wind power stats for 2005


Jed,

Interesting, but doesn't an average nuke plant put out about 1,000 MW?  The 
ones in my part of the country put out 1,000 MW.


John C.

- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: Wind power stats for 2005



See:

http://www.awea.org/news/US_Wind_Industry_Ends_Most_Productive_Year_012406.html

New installations: 2,500 MW (nameplate)

Note by Jed: This is roughly as much actual capacity as one average US 
nuclear power plant


Cumulative existing installed wind power: 9,149 MW (nameplate)

(About 3.5 nukes)

QUOTE:

AWEA estimates that an installed capacity of 9,149 MW of wind power will 
save over half a billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/day) in 
2006, alleviating a portion of the supply pressure that is now facing the 
natural gas industry and is driving prices upward. The U.S. currently 
burns about 13 Bcf/day for electricity generation, which means during 
2006, wind power will be reducing natural gas use for power generation by 
approximately 5%.


That is significant.

- Jed

Re: Biofuels could replace 30% of fuel needs

It comes down to this.  We've got the tools to solve our energy problems, 
now we just need the resolve to do the same, which will mainly be driven by 
the price of oil.

- Original Message - 
From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: Biofuels could replace 30% of fuel needs

 www.physorg.com/news10434.html

   The idea that this could be accomplished in only 5 to 10 years is
wonderful.  There may be a lot more hope out there than we think.

Using Waste Heat




There are a number of companies working on ways to 
use waste heat from both power generation and industrial processes to generate 
power. Some of these schemes propose to increase gas and coal generating 
efficiencies above 50%, from current efficiencies around 35%. These 
technologies run waste heat through a secondary generation loop using lower 
boiling point liquids to drive trubines to generate electricity. Ramping 
up this technology and using it with new ethanol plants would reduce our need 
for new power plants of all kinds.

Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field

2006-02-02 Thread Horace Heffner



On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:



On Feb 1, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:



Could Gravimagnetism be involved in the precession of the perihelion
of planet mercury?

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

[snip]


Presumably then gravimagnetism is not required to explain _any_ of the
orbital precession since it can all be explained by classical and
relativistic physics.

Harry


This is true. Gravimagnetism is consistent with the above with regard  
to the retardation effects, and adds no changes to the retardation  
results calculated by conventional means.  It adds nothing to the  
final results.  Its primary value in this case is the fact it  
circumvents the incomprehensible math behind things like the Thirring- 
Lense effect and brings some important gravitational concepts down to  
a high school math level.  It makes some intuitive sense of the  
Thirring-Lense effect at a mundane level.


The Thirring-Lense effect is becoming more important to astronomy.   
For example, see:
http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/Research/CTA/news/sidebands/.  Simple  
mental models are vitally important to sorting out the nature of  
various gravitational effects, and to approaching a quantum theory of  
gravity.  They are also of important to basic engineering of gravity  
effects, and to distinguishing real from retardation relativistic  
effects.  The gravimagnetic model, with corrections for real effects,  
both in the EM and gK realms, may lead to alternate explanations for  
observed effects.


If I had the concepts roughly right and did the calculations  
correctly in

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf
then the ambient gravimagnetic field overwhelms the Earth's local  
gravimagnetic field.  The ambient gravimagnetic field has little  
effect on orbital precession however, only on average orbital  
height.  The GRACE mission:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html
did actually see the effects of the Earth's gravimagnetic field on  
orbital precession, because it is an *incremental* effect due to  
incremental changes in distance from the Earth.  The Gravity Probe B  
satellite, however, is measuring the effect of the *absolute*  
gravimagnetic field by looking at precession of a small silicon ball,  
so gravimagnetism predicts a 50-100 fold difference in results.


If I did things right (still much in doubt!) then NASA is in for some  
surprising results!  We should hear in early 2007.  If that actually  
happens then the value of the concept will be permanently cast in  
cement.


There is a far more significant value to the concept, however, at  
least when it is developed and applied under the isomorphism proposed  
in:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf.
This isomorphism, in addition to immediately bringing to bear every  
EM equation on gravitational problems, points to underlying  
symmetries and opens up a large number of difficult questions and  
implications, some of which are discussed in the referenced document.  
It demonstrates the power of the imaginary number i in gravitational  
computations.


Then again, this could all be bunk!  8^)

Horace Heffner

Re: Message for Thomas Clark Regarding Hitler

2006-02-02 Thread ThomasClark123

In a message dated 1/28/2006 5:49:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example:The "beam weapons targeting [you]",Being "contacted by many powerful persons in emails and by phone like the Generals of all Time (such as Chronos Hitler)",...and many other expressed thoughts... These are the internal dragons I am speaking of. These are the dragons generated from within you
I will take your advice, very seriously, about being more careful when around dragons. There are real dragons out there living in caves, and some of them are nice and some not so nice. Perhaps I have been to friendly to some very real dragons who may not be so nice. The dragons are not from within but from without. The very realdragons offered a very real peace pipe to me, which I took seriously and thanked them. The peace pipe was offered to me in a very real store in the Lansing Mall, called theThe Mountain which I associated with Venus. I did not buythe peace pipe but Iunderstood its message andaccepted it. If I bought the peace pipe I could have sent it to you. I have been communicating with real beings by means of a higher dimensional 4th dimensional language which many E.T.'s use. Some of the signs and symbols are my own, and some are not. That's the problem with such 4th dimensional telepathic gravitonic languages-its often hard to tell which symbols are theirs and which are yours. Odin treated his dragons very well, and they also treated him very will in return. Why shouldn't I do as Odin did. There are allot of different life forms in outer space, and if I cannot get along with an ordinary dragon, it would not make me look very good, since I would have to get along with many other far stranger and perhaps far more dangerous life forms, if I ever want to travel to another planet.

I felt it was wrong and ungodlyto keep dragons or any other life form locked in caves on Earth, and so I truly believe that some hope should be given to dragons or any other life form locked in caves on Earth to allow them to leave Earth for a more friendlier home planet. I myself am not a reptilian dragon, but a mammal as far as I can tell related to the cat, bird, horse, and bear clans, but I feel that I should be sympathetic with other life forms as should all. I did see a Japanese anime moviewhich showed dragons as being mammals with furlooking like cats. There may be some dragons which are reptiles and some which are mammals.That Japanese anime movie showed such dragons living on an Island near Japan, where they are kept hidden from the rest of the world.

You are one of the few who seems to want to limit my story to some chemical imbalance.
A Theology Doctorate from Scotlandsent me an email associating himselfwith Jesus Christ, who asked for copyrights to my story which has pictures of myself posted as evidence, so that he could place it in a play based on a real storymuch like movies that Walt Disney makes based on real stories.

Iactually saw a doctor withburns on my body andgenitals (balls)claiming that energy beam weapons caused the burns while I was living in a tent on Mount Ashland in Ashland Oregon,miles away from anyone,and they were identified as burns that I could not have created myself, and these are not chemical imbalances. Just like China has got Bush by the balls, so has someone got me by the balls using energy beams. I have a great deal more evidence than this but I wont go into it.

I may have been misinformed by the contents of the emails thatI received but I have copies of them and they are real emails. The Hitler idea started since I made a comment on an email list that posted an email about when Hitlermay have beensymbolically castrated by a secret society - the Skull and Bones Nutcracker initiation,and to make Hitler look good for going through some secret society ordeal, Icompared him symbolically to aGod likeChronos being castrated symbolically, which was contained in a quote whichmentioned that Zeus had to work with Poseidon to keep his empire. Then another person sent an email which said - I can see you on that planet now, which I assumed was associated with a reincarnation of Hitlerassociating himself with Poseidon or Chronos making the commentbut it may not have been. In this case, one would have to assume that another person who sent the email, was forced to send the email due to subliminal messages sent to his mind which were associated with me, in which case one could the argue that maybe a reincarnation of Hitler did not approve of that statement. But the email is real, andif the email was coerced by subliminal messages itwas generated not be me, but by an artificial intelligentcomputer system pretending to be me, and attempting to predict my thoughts before I think them and then forcing others including myself at times, to realize the computer's prediction of my thoughts in email posts by sending subliminal messages to them, which looks likes its me but it is not me, at least not all of

Re: Using Waste Heat