[Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy
I've totally failed to get everyone's attention. Politics/religion is the source of flamewars on forums. To stop them, I temporarily banned anything involving politics or religion, they should move to vortexB. Yet those discussions still continue, even after two annoncements and removing two users. Now two more. On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries. On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, thomas malloy wrote: Marxism is a religion and dialectal materialism is it's theology. It says that everything has an economic cause, and that men are only On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, thomas malloy wrote: We right wingers have this idea that the leftists are attempting to collapse the American economy. It's stupid behavior like which makes us believe this. earlier: It's time for a temporary ban on all off-topic discussions, most specifically a ban on anything involving politics or religion. Those who wish to discuss such things can do so: just use vortexB-L instead. I've susbscribed the vortex community to vortexB. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:politics and religion
What does politics mean, or religion? That's open to endless debate. Much less open is: no politics or religion on this forum. Anyone with experience online knows how to avoid these flame-bait topics. For those with none, here's a basic overview: messages containing terms like the mideast or left wing or US government are the ones that go to vortexB, and they will not appear here. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:video: electromagnetic coin shrinking
Some guys bought Gary Hawkins' old quarter-crushing capacitor bank. They recently borrowed a 100,000FPS high speed camera, and shot some closeup footage of coins being smashed inwards by a small coil (which explodes.) Very eerie: http://intellectualventureslab.com/ (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:video: electromagnetic coin shrinking
Interesting. to me, it appeared that the coin shrank away from the coil, which stayed put, and then when the coin hit minimum, THEN we get the earth shattering kaboom. Does that match what others are seeing? On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:55 PM, William Beatybi...@eskimo.com wrote: Some guys bought Gary Hawkins' old quarter-crushing capacitor bank. They recently borrowed a 100,000FPS high speed camera, and shot some closeup footage of coins being smashed inwards by a small coil (which explodes.) Very eerie: http://intellectualventureslab.com/ (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Is Cold Fusion a Secondary Phenomena?
On Jun 11, 2009, at 8:20 AM, Chris Zell wrote: There are a wide number of inventions or independent observations related to 'free energy' that appear to be derived from a single phenomena: charge clusters or other anomalous concentrations of charge. The fundamental work appears to be from Ken Shoulders (patent 5018180).. His patent suggests an enormous amount of personal effort. Basically, he created intense bundles of charge using a sort of traveling wave tube. Because the charge is so concentrated, nuclear effects arise easily. There is other similar work: Nelson - patent 6465965 using a space charge in a vacuum tube. There is a claim of replication ( Ken Rauen) JLN Labs VSG 4.1 which produces excess energy from a spark Stanislav Adamenko plasma diode with transmutation The Chernetski plasma arc device The (very old) French patent 651272 using an arcing relay to increase power The underwater transmutation of carbon into iron using arcs Possible Bedini-like devices that use a spark Overunity observations in multipaction tubes by Philo Farnsworth All the Correa patents that use a sudden discharge in a vacuum tube The Spence device (patent 4772816) which claims overunity from a space charge There are also a number of reported anomalous observations of sudden bursts of extreme energy in various plasma tube experiments by Russian and US academics Are Shoulders observations of abnormal transient concentrations of charge correct? If so, then Cold Fusion may be a secondary phenomena, a subset of something more fundamental and powerful. If atttention was shifted in the direction of charge clusters, could we encounter a revolutionary new power source of electricity - rather than excess heat? Is something very profound being overlooked here? It could be something profound is being overlooked, and I don't think it is only the feasibility of economic fusion that is being overlooked. Similar to some of the energetic anomalies listed above are those observed in the Zmachine.: http://zpinch.sandia.gov/ Created in part to examine fusion prospects, it was (as far as I can remember, which is not far) initially tested using helium and produced an anomalous excess energy, on the order of 30 percent. One interesting common thread I've noticed in many such experiments is the importance of a threshold of electron current density below which excess energy does not occur, all other variables held constant, and above which it does occur. For example, Kamada et al determined something on the order of 1.6 A/cm^2 (at 174 keV electron energy) is the threshold for fusion of D implanted in aluminum (see my notes on Kamada below). Of course, like many others, I have ideas which have been posted here about how electron flux can cause fusion, but also how zero point energy might be tapped from nuclei provided current density is high enough to force frequent encounters: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Here are some summaries of related Kamada experiments: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1992 Article: Kamada states the H-H fusion reaction was observed based on beta disintegration of proton upon high energy electron capture, which does not need tunneling 1 event per 2x10^14 electrons 200 KeV and 400 keV beam energies were used. implantation fluence 1x10^17 H+ or D+/cm^2 using Cockcroft Walton type acceleration (voltage not mentioned) 1.3 MeV alphas (80%) and 0.4 MeV protons (20%) emitted from *both* H2 and D2 implanted targets Beam density must be greater than 3x10^16 electrons/cm/s to get high energy particles emitted. From this I calculate the minimum flux to be 4.8 mA/cm^2. Beam used was 300 to 400 nA with beam size 4x10-5 cm^2. Flux actually used was 4-6x10^16 electrons/cm^2/s. Area through which beam was passed was 2x10^-3 cm^2. Time beam on target was 40 minutes. Tunnel like structures (between the bubble structures) *must be formed* to get the high energy particle emissions. They occupy roughly 60 percent of the sub-surface layer with about 50 nm depth. Molar volume of hydrogen = 10 cm^3/mol. Density of hydrogen molecues exposed to beam = 6x10^22/cm^2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1996 Article: experiment repeated 30 times Positive results with D, negative results with H. No effort was made to count particles. 175 keV electron beam energy was used to avoid radiation damage to the Al 25 keV implantation at fluence of less than 5x10^17 H+/cm^2 was used. This is 12.5 keV per H atom implanted. The maximum retained hydrogen fluence (determined by ERD) after implantation was 1x10^17 atoms/cm^2, and density 2x10^17 H/cm^3. The density in the D2 collections was estimated at 1x10^22 D2/cm^3. Loading fluence 5x10^17 D+/cm^2 was chosen to *avoid forming bubble structures* and to form as
Re: [Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy
It is good to see that the ban is being enforced. I guess it is obvious that someone who has an irresistible impulse to reply to a topic in vortex with a political rant, could just change the To: field to vortexb. The topic, converted to a political rant, would continue in vortexb with a life of its own, while the original topic would stay in vortex. And anyone who is a political junkie would be subscribed to vortexb anyway, so nothing would be lost to him. Maybe people don't do that simple thing because they can't separate politics from science and are unaware when they go from one to the other. The recent rustications may concentrate their minds, however.
[Vo]:the end of analog television is today
The switch is on to digital television today. I like the digital technology. I do, however, see a lot of problems with the switch to UHF frequencies. Analog VHF television broadcast is in the VHF spectrum. The spectrum experiences little interference from ionicsphereic skip. The wavelengths are still long enough that they refract downward due to differences in atmospheric density. The wavelengths are also long enough that they pass around or through some obstacles. Over the horizon reception is possible. UHF wavelengths are short. They don’t diffract downward. They are easily blocked. The reception is line of sight only. UHF analog stations tried to get around this problem by increasing transmitter power. Some stations put out megawatts. It spite of this attempt the UHF spectrum fell to the use of various specialty broadcasts. Digital TV will make this problem worse. Digital transmutation does not degrade gracefully. I predict that over the air transmission in hilly or congested areas is finished. The real action will be on cable. Of course, digital is easy to encrypt, there will be many creative ways to bill you for the signal. No one wants to pay more. If they don’t watch sports, why must they contribute to the high salaries of the players? I have already began to see the end of broadcast television coming. I know people who have dropped cable TV because of its excessive and rising costs. Now they can’t pick up the over the air TV any more. We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very low definition, over the internet. Sobb, I miss my friend JED.
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
Thanks, Bill: I was just about to unsubscribe. Keep up the good work. cheers- George Hathaway ghatha...@ieee.org Professional Lurker William Beaty wrote: What does politics mean, or religion? That's open to endless debate. Much less open is: no politics or religion on this forum. Anyone with experience online knows how to avoid these flame-bait topics. For those with none, here's a basic overview: messages containing terms like the mideast or left wing or US government are the ones that go to vortexB, and they will not appear here. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries. Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review concerning what the reviewer believes might happen if COLD FUSION becomes a reality in our geo-political world. From what I can tell Jed disagrees with the book reviewer's opinion and says so: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Now, compare Jed's comments to Thomas Malloy's follow-up response on the above matter, which I presume subsequently earned Mr. Malloy's place in becoming temporarily banned in Vortex-l as well: From Malloy: Baloney, they support terrorism because of Islam's desire to impose Sahriah Law on the entire world, and what the Qu'ran says about dying in jihad,. When I personally compare Jed's comments to the responses Thomas made it seems obvious to me that Jed was attempting to set the record straight as he personally saw the potential future political situation in the Middle East. Of course, so did Mr. Malloy attempt to set the record straight as he personally sees the situation in the Middle East. Are both comments political. Yes, I guess you could say so. However, In Jed's situation I perceive his Washington Post comments (which he cc'd to Vortex-l) as constructive suggestions and perceptions that might help us all get out of the ideological messes the world is currently mired in. Thomas's responses, to Jed's comments, on the other hand, IMO, only fan the flames of political/religious conflict even more. There were no constructive suggestions in Mr. Malloy's responses concerning how we might go about making the geo-political situation better other than to imply that we must ultimately prepare for an inevitable holy war that has been so-prophesized within the Holy Book, the ultimate Jihad against the enemy. Am I being arbitrary. Yes. Guilty as charged. I don't care. REASON TWO: Jed in my view has scrupulously avoided engaging in any of the recent fan-flaming of political ideology instigated by the grok persona. It is my understanding that Jed wisely and quickly realized that the grok persona was nothing more than another annoying troll. Jed dealt with the matter efficiently by filtering out the grok persona's email address from his personal mail box. As such, I do not recall reading a single comment/post made
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not one of them. Ed On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries. Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review concerning what the reviewer believes might happen if COLD FUSION becomes a reality in our geo-political world. From what I can tell Jed disagrees with the book reviewer's opinion and says so: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Now, compare Jed's comments to Thomas Malloy's follow-up response on the above matter, which I presume subsequently earned Mr. Malloy's place in becoming temporarily banned in Vortex-l as well: From Malloy: Baloney, they support terrorism because of Islam's desire to impose Sahriah Law on the entire world, and what the Qu'ran says about dying in jihad,. When I personally compare Jed's comments to the responses Thomas made it seems obvious to me that Jed was attempting to set the record straight as he personally saw the potential future political situation in the Middle East. Of course, so did Mr. Malloy attempt to set the record straight as he personally sees the situation in the Middle East. Are both comments political. Yes, I guess you could say so. However, In Jed's situation I perceive his Washington Post comments (which he cc'd to Vortex-l) as constructive suggestions and perceptions that might help us all get out of the ideological messes the world is currently mired in. Thomas's responses, to Jed's comments, on the other hand, IMO, only fan the flames of political/religious conflict even more. There were no constructive suggestions in Mr. Malloy's responses
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Edmund Stormsstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not one of them. Ed On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries. Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review concerning what the reviewer believes might happen if COLD FUSION becomes a reality in our geo-political world. From what I can tell Jed disagrees with the book reviewer's opinion and says so: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Now, compare Jed's comments to Thomas Malloy's follow-up response on the above matter, which I presume
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? You raise an interesting point, Alexander. What exactly is political discussion and why is it considered something to be avoided? At the risk of engaging in the banned subject, please let me offer some opinions. These days, any discussion involving ideas about the relationship between groups of people having different ideas seems to be considered politics, which generates an emotional reaction in some people. This emotional reaction is encouraged by the different groups each using words that are designed to vilify other groups. Many people seem to have lost the ability to discuss our differences without using these concepts and the resulting negative emotion. I suggest the flaw is not in the discussion of politics but in the way it is commonly done by some people. Personally, I find the political insights occasionally offered by people in this group very informative, while immediately deleting the less interesting comments. My wish is that the discussion, no matter the subject, be kept on a high plane so that we can lean from each other rather than being pissed off. I think that Jed's comments met this standard. Ed On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Edmund Stormsstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for banishment. As for politics, I suggest it is almost impossible to separate political comment from science because the two are interrelated in the modern world. Besides, a thoughtful discussion of political issues is important to understanding our present situation, which can be as valuable as understanding science. On the other hand, I agree that some of the contributers to this site seem to be unable to be thoughtful about anything and should be banned. Jed is definitely not one of them. Ed On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:15 AM, OrionWorks wrote: I wish to post a formal complaint in regards to the recent temporary banning of Jed Rothwell from Vortex-l. To be honest, I have had little to complain about in regards to Mr. Beaty's handling (and temporary banning) of recent non-scientific topics, until now. I fully realize that it is somewhat hypocritical of me to even lodge a complaint since I myself have often been a major contributor of political and especially religious subjects within vortex-l. Hypocritical of me or not, I must speak my conscience. I wish to express TWO REASONS why I don't think Jed should have been temporarily removed - and a POSSIBLE SOLUTION to these recent actions. If, however, my big fat mouth gets me temporary banned, I can live with that. God knows, I've got plenty of other things to do with my free time. I do not feel it was fair to temporarily ban Jed Rothwell for two reasons: REASON ONE: From what I could tell Jed copied to Vortex-l some comments he posted out to the Washington Post book review: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/ ...concerning the topic: BOOK REVIEW: Recognizing the struggle for what it is where Cold Fusion (if the technology can be developed cheaply) would likely result in potential demise of the Middle East. Mr. Beaty quotes from Jed Rothwell, presumably a quote that earned him temporary banishment from vortex-l: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no better argument for alternative energy than the beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries. Technically speaking, and in all fairness, this is NOT Mr. Rothwell's opinion. Jed is actually quoting a paragraph directly from what the Washington Post book review
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
From Alexander: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? I realize your comments were directed to Ed Storms. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to add my two cents: Indeed, Jed's comment -IS- political in nature. So what? IMHO, I personally do not feel that Jed should have been singled out for a temporary time-out for infractions many of us (myself included) were responsible for instigating. Jed scrupulously avoided participating in any of the ideological mud-slinging that ultimately caused Mr. Beaty to instigate a temporary ban. Jed's recent political Middle East commentary has, IMO, nothing to do with the spate of ideological mud slinging within this discussion group. Therefore, Jed's commentary shouldn't be linked, nor should his recent post be singled out as punishment for something he was not responsible for causing. Jed shouldn't be punished for our sins. Jed has also been a Vortex-l member far longer than I. In my own view there is a certain level of seniority that should give one additional privileges of getting away with a certain degree of infractions, especially if such infractions are performed wisely. Some, especially newcomers, might think it is unfair of me to suggest or encourage such an unleveled playing field be allowed to play out within Vortex-l. If so, I don't care. Life is full of arbitrary rules. Live with it. I suspect most of us realize that it was the grok persona that was the source of the recent problems that ultimately caused Mr. Beaty to enforce the recent ban. Jed had nothing to do with this. If the grok persona had not decided make Vortex-l another pigsty for him to wallow in does anyone seriously believe that any of the recent time-outs would have been necessary? Jed understands posting etiquette. Jed should not be penalized for following net etiquette. The grok persona, however, was clueless. He clearly got what he deserved. Make no mistake about it. I fully realize that in the end, Mr. Beaty is god. It's up to Mr. Beaty to decide what goes and what stays within Vortex-l. He can make any decision he wants when it comes to enforcing the rules, evenly or arbitrarily. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
Its not ABOUT the recent mudslinging issues. that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but once it was broken, it was broken. How is, There is a ban on ALL politics and religious dicussions, difficult to understand? Not, no flamewars, not, be grown ups or else, a complete and total, This is why we can't have nice things, BAN. 100% The only room for complaint, in my mind, is if Bill missed someone, bringing who he MISSED to his attention. Its a temporary ban. a time out, Bill's way of telling you to slow down. They will be added back on in a few days. Its a wrist slapping, nothing more. so lets not blow it out of proportion, please. And i for one was getting sick of all the political discusion, including messages such as the one that got him his ban, long before grok. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Alexander: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? I realize your comments were directed to Ed Storms. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to add my two cents: Indeed, Jed's comment -IS- political in nature. So what? IMHO, I personally do not feel that Jed should have been singled out for a temporary time-out for infractions many of us (myself included) were responsible for instigating. Jed scrupulously avoided participating in any of the ideological mud-slinging that ultimately caused Mr. Beaty to instigate a temporary ban. Jed's recent political Middle East commentary has, IMO, nothing to do with the spate of ideological mud slinging within this discussion group. Therefore, Jed's commentary shouldn't be linked, nor should his recent post be singled out as punishment for something he was not responsible for causing. Jed shouldn't be punished for our sins. Jed has also been a Vortex-l member far longer than I. In my own view there is a certain level of seniority that should give one additional privileges of getting away with a certain degree of infractions, especially if such infractions are performed wisely. Some, especially newcomers, might think it is unfair of me to suggest or encourage such an unleveled playing field be allowed to play out within Vortex-l. If so, I don't care. Life is full of arbitrary rules. Live with it. I suspect most of us realize that it was the grok persona that was the source of the recent problems that ultimately caused Mr. Beaty to enforce the recent ban. Jed had nothing to do with this. If the grok persona had not decided make Vortex-l another pigsty for him to wallow in does anyone seriously believe that any of the recent time-outs would have been necessary? Jed understands posting etiquette. Jed should not be penalized for following net etiquette. The grok persona, however, was clueless. He clearly got what he deserved. Make no mistake about it. I fully realize that in the end, Mr. Beaty is god. It's up to Mr. Beaty to decide what goes and what stays within Vortex-l. He can make any decision he wants when it comes to enforcing the rules, evenly or arbitrarily. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
From Alexander Hollins: Its not ABOUT the recent mudslinging issues. that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but once it was broken, it was broken. Personally, I disagree with this conjecture. Granted, while some may agree with your conclusion I suspect many don't. How is, There is a ban on ALL politics and religious dicussions, difficult to understand? Not, no flamewars, not, be grown ups or else, a complete and total, This is why we can't have nice things, BAN. 100% The only room for complaint, in my mind, is if Bill missed someone, bringing who he MISSED to his attention. Its a temporary ban. a time out, Bill's way of telling you to slow down. They will be added back on in a few days. Its a wrist slapping, nothing more. so lets not blow it out of proportion, please. And i for one was getting sick of all the political discusion, including messages such as the one that got him his ban, long before grok. I guess this might mean you have not altogether enjoyed some of my OT contributions. ;-) I realize I don't please everyone. To fantasize that I do would have been exceedingly egotistical of me. Actually, on a more serious note, we do not know how long this temporary ban could be in effect. Or at least it's not clear to me. It's possible valuable contributors, like Jed, could be carrying out their time-out sentence for weeks. It's up to the god of Vortex-l to decide the length of punishment... a punishment for which, IMHO, Jed is nothing more than a victim of collateral damage. Personally, I don't think it is wise to have Jed temporarily banned, even for a day. The vast majority of Jed's comments are precisely on-topic. They tend to be timely and news worthy. Again, I offer myself as an exchange prisoner if it would hasten Jed's speedy return to Vortex-l. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
It's kinda hard to separate p o l i t iscsc i e n c e especially where energy is involved. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy
It's time for a temporary ban on all off-topic discussions, most specifically a ban on anything involving politics or religion. Those who wish to discuss such things can do so: just use vortexB-L instead. I've susbscribed the vortex community to vortexB. Bill, This will require some vigilance on all our parts. Please define temporary as this will be helpful. Steve
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
I understand one of the basic principles of Vo is that we are all believers in the existnce of free/alternative energy technology, as opposed to entrenched, destructive critics, who need not apply. In that respect, Jed has been one of the most durable advocates of CF, who has spent decades and considerable personal wealth, and developing scholarship, in the whole LENR field. With Ed Storms, Jed created and maintains the www.lenr-canr.org webiste which has made a library of CF papers av ailable worldwide: cumulative downloads from this site stand at 1,400,000, an act of dissenination exceeding that of any member of Vo. He has earned a *durable seat at the table* and respect even from those he has castigated for perceived lack of progress in the past. Dsicussion of technical issues in the CF/LENR field has moved to the invited list CMNS [Condensed Matter Nuclear Science]. Regarding the public issues of energy, this is no lomger an issue only for garage projects and pipe dreams. We are engaged, whether we will or not, in ***systems of belief***, which include *science* and *religion* -- how the world is perceived. As studied by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the systems of belief have a lot to do with it. [Diamond is a MacArthur Fellow, and Pulitzer Prinze winner and winner of the Phi Beta Kappa award in science for his Guns Germes and Steel - The Fate of Human Societies] Diamond does not discuss science and religion per se -- he is an evolutionary biologist. His analysis over-arches these subjects. Posturing about US and THEM, ..isms, are not useful in face of the problem humanity faces, and do not belong in Vo. The BlackLight Power 'egg' may soon hatch; it could rapidly change the whole discussion. The LENR 'egg' is incubating nicely also. Older members of Vo may remember the ferment of articles and stories about atomic energy in the late 30's to early '50s. Under the leadership of Campbell, Astounding Science Fiction published a flow of stories exploring the social implications of the technical world which is still emerging. Jed's book about the world of CF belongs in that honorable tradition. I think Bills' ban on politics and religion should be more carefully parsed. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:politics and religion On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote: From Jed: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. how is this not politics, no matter how well intentioned? You raise an interesting point, Alexander. What exactly is political discussion and why is it considered something to be avoided? At the risk of engaging in the banned subject, please let me offer some opinions. These days, any discussion involving ideas about the relationship between groups of people having different ideas seems to be considered politics, which generates an emotional reaction in some people. This emotional reaction is encouraged by the different groups each using words that are designed to vilify other groups. Many people seem to have lost the ability to discuss our differences without using these concepts and the resulting negative emotion. I suggest the flaw is not in the discussion of politics but in the way it is commonly done by some people. Personally, I find the political insights occasionally offered by people in this group very informative, while immediately deleting the less interesting comments. My wish is that the discussion, no matter the subject, be kept on a high plane so that we can lean from each other rather than being pissed off. I think that Jed's comments met this standard. Ed On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Edmund Stormsstor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bill, I agree with Steven. Jed, unlike some recent contributions, was not engaging in emotional and loaded statements about religion in his recent comments, which should be the reason for
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
Taking the lead on anything is not easy. I think we should be working with Bill to help find ways to mutually support his leadership. (and contribute too, by the way) Bill, you have Paypal or do we write checks?
Re: [Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy
Just an opinion and I could be wrong here, but wasn't grok's attitude the problem more than politics or religion? Now grok is gone then maybe it would be enough to just warn that any political or religious topic should be moved as soon as the participants recognize such? Because I suspect that Jed for instance would not have realized the political quality to his post as it was somewhat on topic and slight. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.comwrote: It's time for a temporary ban on all off-topic discussions, most specifically a ban on anything involving politics or religion. Those who wish to discuss such things can do so: just use vortexB-L instead. I've susbscribed the vortex community to vortexB. Bill, This will require some vigilance on all our parts. Please define temporary as this will be helpful. Steve
Re: [Vo]:politics and religion
From Steven Krivit: Taking the lead on anything is not easy. I think we should be working with Bill to help find ways to mutually support his leadership. (and contribute too, by the way) Bill, you have Paypal or do we write checks? I agree. Even if I recently filed a formal complaint concerning the recent dispensation of posting infractions I still think Mr. Beaty is doing a damn good job and deserves all the support he can get. I believe Bill's Vortex-l eMail address is linked to his PayPal account. Worked the last time I sent my rant money. Don't be shy! Pony up! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:politics and religion
Just go to PayPal and send to Bill's email address: bi...@eskimo.com and he'll get it. - Rick -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit [mailto:stev...@newenergytimes.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:politics and religion Taking the lead on anything is not easy. I think we should be working with Bill to help find ways to mutually support his leadership. (and contribute too, by the way) Bill, you have Paypal or do we write checks?
Re: [Vo]:Temporarily removed: Jed Rothwell, Thomas Malloy
From John Berry: Just an opinion and I could be wrong here, but wasn't grok's attitude the problem more than politics or religion? Now grok is gone then maybe it would be enough to just warn that any political or religious topic should be moved as soon as the participants recognize such? Because I suspect that Jed for instance would not have realized the political quality to his post as it was somewhat on topic and slight. John brings up interesting points. I would certainly agree with the conjecture that the recent posting problems were mostly due to grok persona baiting rather than the fact that politics and religion were being discussed. For heaven's sake! Religion and politics have been discussed on [Vo] for a very long time, certainly eons before the grok persona caught wind of that fact. Granted, it's obvious that certain Vort members don't like the fact that politics and religion are discussed within [Vo], but such complaints, as far as I could tell, have never risen to the point that it became a chronic issue - not until the grok persona arrived on the scene. The problem I have with participating in [VoB] is that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the grok persona is still allowed to wallow there. I unsubscribed from [VoB] precisely because I knew he was still allowed to exist there doing his best to turn the environment into his personal pigsty. If the grok persona was removed from [VoB] I know I would be more inclined re-subscribe to [VoB] and post non-scientific subjects there. Unfortunately, [VoB] participants are forced to manually filter out grok persona postings, which is impractical and ultimately fails. Inevitably [VoB] participants will respond to grok persona bait and there's no practical way to filter out text written in response to grok persona bait from other participants. I suspect that is why I have continued to voice a more lenient response to subjects concerning religion and politics within Vortex-l - AS LONG AS SUCH SUBJECTS TO NOT ATTEMPT TO HIJACK the primary purpose for which this list group was created, which is the discussion of science and related free/alternative energy topics technology. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Question for the Vort collective...
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:29:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] So, to summarize, although some physical/atomic phenomenon exists that kind of, sort of, acts like a photonic battery, there really isn't any commercial or practical product with reasonable functionality... Thx! -Mark Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light . I have a vague recollection of someone having stopped it altogether, which essentially resulted in the creation of what you are looking for. This is another example of real life following SF. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Question for the Vort collective...
In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:29:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] So, to summarize, although some physical/atomic phenomenon exists that kind of, sort of, acts like a photonic battery, there really isn't any commercial or practical product with reasonable functionality... Thx! -Mark BTW - all phosphorescent materials are essentially photonic batteries. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Question for the Vort collective...
How about a black hole? Simply shoot a laser so the light gets captured in a stable orbit around it, with the time dilation as an added bonus the light should last a good long time, simply maneuver a mirror in place to extract the light. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mark Iverson's message of Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:29:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] So, to summarize, although some physical/atomic phenomenon exists that kind of, sort of, acts like a photonic battery, there really isn't any commercial or practical product with reasonable functionality... Thx! -Mark BTW - all phosphorescent materials are essentially photonic batteries. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right
Couldn't a broad build-out of nuke plants make electricity cheap enough, at least in dedicated operations, to use the resulting electric power in the cost-effective manufacture of synthetic transportation fuels? At the extreme end of the scale where your source energy cost goes very low, all sorts of manufacturing pathways to various fuels and storage schemes might become practical. Such schemes wouldn't otherwise be considered now where the energy efficiency ratio for production is poor. Cars don't have to actually run on electricity if power is cheap enough. - Rick _ From: Chris Zell [mailto:chrisrz...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right I don't understand the emphasis on energy sources that make electricity, especially nuclear. Growth in demand is slowing particularly since the economy has slowed and may only recover weakly. Nuclear and solar can replace coal but not oil. Why worry about charging electric cars? Who will be able to afford them when Prius sales have dropped 40+%? Can we charge them with surplus generation at 3 am? Will people buy a 32K Japanese electric car or a 40K GM Volt? We need transportation fuels, not nuclear and not even much solar.
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right
From: Chris Zell I don't understand the emphasis on energy sources that make electricity, especially nuclear. Growth in demand is slowing particularly since the economy has slowed and may only recover weakly. Nuclear and solar can replace coal but not oil. The way that nuclear replaces oil - and it is possible in principle to make a gigantic cut in oil consumption - is with the hybrid automobile... which is recharged at night, preferably with underutilized power. Solar is not good for this, since the period of peak solar electricity output generally coincides with the peak in demand - not a good time to recharge the auto.
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
Someday, I imagine, humankind will rue having burned oil for fuel, realizing that it was far more valuable as material feedstock for plastics than it is as fuel. It may be our children who come to realize this, and they may wonder why their parents and grandparents didn't realize it and why they didn't insist that oil be used only as a feedstock. This is as true for countries with large reserves of oil as it is with those with few reserves. Meanwhile, electricity can serve the needs of transportation and heat - but only if it comes from long-lasting, non-polluting sources. At this point it seems to me that this means nuclear power, augmented as possible by wind, hydro- and solar power. These are all technologies that we understand well. But our population retains a taboo concern with nuclear power - perhaps confounding it with nuclear weaponry - a concern that is encouraged by the questions of waste disposal, the safeguard of weapons-grade materials, and the safety of nuclear plant operations. Until these questions are met, it will be difficult for a nuclear power program to be fully embraced in the US. Are there credible answers to these three questions? Lawrence
Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very low definition, over the internet. That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent quality mostly better than standard definition TV and can look quite ok on a 60 tv. The 720P x264 mkv's are generally close to the origonal HDTV transmission (depending on what has to be compressed), these run at 1.1GB (for each 42 mins).
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right
Meant to add the obligatory recent News stories on battery advances. Yawn. This one from IBM is more encouraging than most: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090611/ibm-invests-in-battery-tech-for-transportation-seeking-breakthrough.htm
Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very low definition, over the internet. That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent quality mostly better than standard definition TV and can look quite Ok on a 60 HDTV. The 720P x264 mkv's are generally close to the original HDTV transmission (depending on what has to be compressed), these run at 1.1GB (for each 42 mins). These sizes are such that by downloading from usenet you can start downloading and watch right away, it will download faster than you can watch even on a 5MBit/s connection. Without ads or fees and needing to remember to record anything, those with TiVo's reportedly run into 2 issues, there are more things on at the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. All up the stations need to smarten up their act IMO.
Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today
Without ads or fees and needing to remember to record anything, those with TiVo's reportedly run into 2 issues, there are more things on at the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. actually, stations specifically changed up times to screw with dvrs, because, you knowskipping commercials bad On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Berryaethe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very low definition, over the internet. That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent quality mostly better than standard definition TV and can look quite Ok on a 60 HDTV. The 720P x264 mkv's are generally close to the original HDTV transmission (depending on what has to be compressed), these run at 1.1GB (for each 42 mins). These sizes are such that by downloading from usenet you can start downloading and watch right away, it will download faster than you can watch even on a 5MBit/s connection. Without ads or fees and needing to remember to record anything, those with TiVo's reportedly run into 2 issues, there are more things on at the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. All up the stations need to smarten up their act IMO.
Re: [Vo]:the end of analog television is today
Well that is a very short sighted tactic! On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: Without ads or fees and needing to remember to record anything, those with TiVo's reportedly run into 2 issues, there are more things on at the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. actually, stations specifically changed up times to screw with dvrs, because, you knowskipping commercials bad On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Berryaethe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: We are going to find many people watching what they want, for free, in very low definition, over the internet. That tells me you know nothing about watching TV online. The HDTV 350MB (per 42 mins=1H minus ads) xvid avi's are of a generally decent quality mostly better than standard definition TV and can look quite Ok on a 60 HDTV. The 720P x264 mkv's are generally close to the original HDTV transmission (depending on what has to be compressed), these run at 1.1GB (for each 42 mins). These sizes are such that by downloading from usenet you can start downloading and watch right away, it will download faster than you can watch even on a 5MBit/s connection. Without ads or fees and needing to remember to record anything, those with TiVo's reportedly run into 2 issues, there are more things on at the same time than they can record or the stations go over time and the TiVo cuts off the end of the show. All up the stations need to smarten up their act IMO.
