Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful?
Re: [Vo]:Two Wrongs, continued
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:04:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] While the organisms may live in sea water, sea water is rich with nutrients which will have to be supplied, and such is part of whole which needs consideration. [snip] The trick is to nourish them with real sea water, which any country with a coastline has in abundance. As an added bonus, no scarce fresh water is used. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more insane than sane. At least reason/evidence *seems* to dictate how a minority view reality. Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of normal not in his logic but in his hostility. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
You are right, John, and I severely simplified the definition to save time for me and the readers who might not be interested. Insanity takes many forms just as physical dysfunction takes many forms, some of which are not harmful and can be interesting under certain conditions. The challenge is to be able to identify the harmful versions and take appropriate action. And yes, a large fraction of the population is insane by even the conventional definition. These people are only kept in check by the actions of normal society. As we have seen in some countries, these people are set loose to do their damage when normal society breaks down or is led by the insane. This has nothing to do with politics of the left or right. Both versions can be used by the insane to do their damage. The essential skill is to recognize when the message is being delivered by a dysfunctional individual and avoid believing anything the person says no matter whether you agree or not. This is hard to do especially when the insane person expounds a religious or political belief you also believe. You need to separate the message from the messenger because sooner or later the message will take a path away from reality into insanity. You don't want to be on board when this happens. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:05 AM, John Berry wrote: Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more insane than sane. At least reason/evidence seems to dictate how a minority view reality. Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of normal not in his logic but in his hostility. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
Very true. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: You are right, John, and I severely simplified the definition to save time for me and the readers who might not be interested. Insanity takes many forms just as physical dysfunction takes many forms, some of which are not harmful and can be interesting under certain conditions. The challenge is to be able to identify the harmful versions and take appropriate action. And yes, a large fraction of the population is insane by even the conventional definition. These people are only kept in check by the actions of normal society. As we have seen in some countries, these people are set loose to do their damage when normal society breaks down or is led by the insane. This has nothing to do with politics of the left or right. Both versions can be used by the insane to do their damage. The essential skill is to recognize when the message is being delivered by a dysfunctional individual and avoid believing anything the person says no matter whether you agree or not. This is hard to do especially when the insane person expounds a religious or political belief you also believe. You need to separate the message from the messenger because sooner or later the message will take a path away from reality into insanity. You don't want to be on board when this happens. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:05 AM, John Berry wrote: Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more insane than sane. At least reason/evidence *seems* to dictate how a minority view reality. Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of normal not in his logic but in his hostility. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. Aren't trolls wonderful? Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same damage again. Ed
[Vo]:U.S. Revives Coal-Fired Power Plant (FutureGen)
The Department of Energy committed yesterday to spend $1 billion in economic stimulus funds to restart plans for a controversial coal- fired power plant that promises to capture 60 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions and trap them underground. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/ AR2009061202120.html?hpid=sec-nation http://tinyurl.com/m228mq What a waste of a billion dollars. Carbon dioxide gas left in that form will eventually reappear, and it will be even more difficult to clean up then. A more promising technology might be a vast solar plus oil burner power plant complex, where a cellulose containing algoil (algae minus water) slurry is produced and burned in a pure oxygen environment so as to produce pure CO2 for feeding the algae. The nitrogen byproduct can then, in part at least, be used to combine with hydrogen to produce ammonia products. I think research on ways to produce building materials (replacing wood for example) from coal might be more productive for the economy long term. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Two Wrongs, continued
I'm well aware of blacklight power and I unreservedly salute Mills and others for their brave fight against prejudiced academic opponents. It's the sort of technology that could save our civilization and change political dynamics for the better. That said, there are still hurdles. Can a blacklight unit be made small enough to power a car or are we still talking about needing a really good battery?! Cheap electricity is good but not enough by itself. There is also the fact that entrenched interests may stall or try to stop any technology that ends the profitable dependence of consumers. It may be a longer battle than any of us would like, even if a breakthrough emerges.. Cold Fusion? Maybe you're really a terrorist trying to make fissionable materials. Do you have chemicals in your house/lab? Maybe you're really setting up a drug lab. Maybe you'll have a heart attack just before a critical moment. Maybe you'll die in an 'unrelated' murder that authorities will never pin down. Maybe the SEC needs to investigate your finances. I would point out that when Ralph Nader exposed the Corvair, GM's reaction was not to fix the car but rather to hire investigators to get something on him. This is the same mindset that transported EV-1 cars out to the desert to have them crushed far away from protestors. It is not paranoia to anticipate subtle opposition from moneyed interests. Long live Randall Mills! ..
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Revives Coal-Fired Power Plant (FutureGen)
Unfortunately, here is were politics get into the act and this is why politics need to be discussed if any sense is to be made of the energy problem. The US will not and cannot give up the use of coal. Too many jobs are at risk and the material supplies too much energy that cannot be replaced rapidly. The other energy sources you suggest will gradually take the place of coal. Meanwhile, the government has to make political points by pandering to the coal industry. The country is locked into many political approaches, both energy as well as foreign policy (i.e. Israel), that cannot be changed without overwhelming objection, regardless of the advantages. Once a country starts down a path based on irrational beliefs, it is doomed. We started on this path about 10 years ago with respect to outsourcing of manufacturing, energy sources, banking policy, and Middle East policies. There is no turning back until the resulting pain gets so bad that changes must be made. We are not there yet, but these times are rapidly approaching. The only defense is to be located, both physically and financially, in a safe place. Science is not going to solve this problem because it takes too long to be implemented. We have run out of time. Anything we do now is simply like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic while debating how the ship should have been better designed. As the ship gets lower in the water, you will hear the debate getting louder and louder, but with the obvious consequence. The people who are not yelling at each other are spending their energy finding life boats. Sorry to be so depressing, but these are the times we are experiencing. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The Department of Energy committed yesterday to spend $1 billion in economic stimulus funds to restart plans for a controversial coal- fired power plant that promises to capture 60 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions and trap them underground. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202120.html?hpid=sec-nation http://tinyurl.com/m228mq What a waste of a billion dollars. Carbon dioxide gas left in that form will eventually reappear, and it will be even more difficult to clean up then. A more promising technology might be a vast solar plus oil burner power plant complex, where a cellulose containing algoil (algae minus water) slurry is produced and burned in a pure oxygen environment so as to produce pure CO2 for feeding the algae. The nitrogen byproduct can then, in part at least, be used to combine with hydrogen to produce ammonia products. I think research on ways to produce building materials (replacing wood for example) from coal might be more productive for the economy long term. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Jed's temporary ban...
--- On Sat, 6/13/09, OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Really? That's your impression of Jed? Yes. I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish for people to be free to choose their own paths. Read what he has written, and I have often fought against, as to what he would like to see done to people. I've no need to look in the mirror to know the great difference. I wish to see people's lives free and with some kind of hope for the future. Not trashed by those who know not, but think they do, what is best for everyone. Read what he has posted, and then you tell me. I notice no response to my suggestions of some experimentation. --Kyle
[Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
Hi Kyle, Regarding my previous response: Kyle sez: From: Mark Iverson Hey Jed, time to go take a vacation and get some RR... Go climb a mountain with your kids. By the time you get back, Bill will have ended the ban...you won't even know it was in effect! Better yet, he can contemplate the error of telling people how they should live their lives, and come down off his high horse. Hopefully none of this will happen again, since Bill has thankfully banned religious/ political topics. Really? That's your impression of Jed? I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of ...telling people how they should live their lives. While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. It's my understanding that Jed, as the result of making several prudent career choices in his life, is now in the rare position of having achieved a level of financial independents most of us can only dream of. Jed now has the luxury of being able to spend a great deal of his personal resources on causes he believes in passionately like supporting alternative energy, especially Cold Fusion. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive reactionaries as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what reactionaries have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. I think what ticked me off, and what caused me to post such an impulsive response to your statement was that in my view Jed was unfairly banned for quoting a statement that was actually made by a Washington Post reviewer. The WP reviewer expressed a personal opinion/view of what could happen to the Middle East if Cold Fusion were to become a practical economical reality. Jed went on to state his OWN counter-views on the subject (which he cc'd to vortex-l) as follows: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti- western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Apparently, Jed got banned because, technically speaking, he broke Mr. Beaty's temporary ban of posting political (and religious) statements. I don't dispute that fact. I also realize that technically speaking I am deliberately disobeying Mr. Beaty's temporary ban by deliberately posting additional political commentary on Vortex-l as well. Mr. Beaty is perfectly in his right to ban me. I have done so because I felt it was more important, in this particular case, to help clear up what I thought might exist certain misconceptions. I also don't think it was fair to Jed, and have more than once offered myself as a prisoner exchange if it would help get Jed reinstated back into Vortex-l more quickly. Call it an act of civil disobedience. ;-) Therefore, before I am personally banned as well, I ask you: Kyle: Where in these statements that apparently earned Jed a temporary time-out did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell is telling other people how to live their lives? Where in these statements that Jed made did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell needs to come off his high horse? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
Well stated Steven! Jed makes people think by making informed arguments, some of which I also do not share. Apparently his style is painful to some people, I'm sorry to discover. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Hi Kyle, Regarding my previous response: Kyle sez: From: Mark Iverson Hey Jed, time to go take a vacation and get some RR... Go climb a mountain with your kids. By the time you get back, Bill will have ended the ban...you won't even know it was in effect! Better yet, he can contemplate the error of telling people how they should live their lives, and come down off his high horse. Hopefully none of this will happen again, since Bill has thankfully banned religious/ political topics. Really? That's your impression of Jed? I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of ...telling people how they should live their lives. While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. It's my understanding that Jed, as the result of making several prudent career choices in his life, is now in the rare position of having achieved a level of financial independents most of us can only dream of. Jed now has the luxury of being able to spend a great deal of his personal resources on causes he believes in passionately like supporting alternative energy, especially Cold Fusion. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive reactionaries as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what reactionaries have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. I think what ticked me off, and what caused me to post such an impulsive response to your statement was that in my view Jed was unfairly banned for quoting a statement that was actually made by a Washington Post reviewer. The WP reviewer expressed a personal opinion/view of what could happen to the Middle East if Cold Fusion were to become a practical economical reality. Jed went on to state his OWN counter-views on the subject (which he cc'd to vortex-l) as follows: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti- western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Apparently, Jed got banned because, technically speaking, he broke Mr. Beaty's temporary ban of posting political (and religious) statements. I don't dispute that fact. I also realize that technically speaking I am deliberately disobeying Mr. Beaty's temporary ban by deliberately posting additional political commentary on Vortex-l as well. Mr. Beaty is perfectly in his right to ban me. I have done so because I felt it was more important, in this particular case, to help clear up what I thought might exist certain misconceptions. I also don't think it was fair to Jed, and have more than once offered myself as a prisoner exchange if it would help get Jed reinstated back into Vortex-l more quickly. Call it an act of civil disobedience. ;-) Therefore, before I am personally banned as well, I ask you: Kyle: Where in these statements that apparently earned Jed a temporary time-out did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell is telling other people how to live their lives? Where in these statements that Jed made did you come to the conclusion that Mr.
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
At this point, why isn't Jed back? I wasn't gone this long... Anyone contacted him, told him the level of support/commiserations and ensured he isn't taking it all personally? On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well stated Steven! Jed makes people think by making informed arguments, some of which I also do not share. Apparently his style is painful to some people, I'm sorry to discover. Ed On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Hi Kyle, Regarding my previous response: Kyle sez: From: Mark Iverson Hey Jed, time to go take a vacation and get some RR... Go climb a mountain with your kids. By the time you get back, Bill will have ended the ban...you won't even know it was in effect! Better yet, he can contemplate the error of telling people how they should live their lives, and come down off his high horse. Hopefully none of this will happen again, since Bill has thankfully banned religious/ political topics. Really? That's your impression of Jed? I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of ...telling people how they should live their lives. While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. It's my understanding that Jed, as the result of making several prudent career choices in his life, is now in the rare position of having achieved a level of financial independents most of us can only dream of. Jed now has the luxury of being able to spend a great deal of his personal resources on causes he believes in passionately like supporting alternative energy, especially Cold Fusion. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive reactionaries as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what reactionaries have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. I think what ticked me off, and what caused me to post such an impulsive response to your statement was that in my view Jed was unfairly banned for quoting a statement that was actually made by a Washington Post reviewer. The WP reviewer expressed a personal opinion/view of what could happen to the Middle East if Cold Fusion were to become a practical economical reality. Jed went on to state his OWN counter-views on the subject (which he cc'd to vortex-l) as follows: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti- western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Apparently, Jed got banned because, technically speaking, he broke Mr. Beaty's temporary ban of posting political (and religious) statements. I don't dispute that fact. I also realize that technically speaking I am deliberately disobeying Mr. Beaty's temporary ban by deliberately posting additional political commentary on Vortex-l as well. Mr. Beaty is perfectly in his right to ban me. I have done so because I felt it was more important, in this particular case, to help clear up what I thought might exist certain misconceptions. I also don't think it was fair to Jed, and have more than once offered myself as a prisoner exchange if it would help get Jed reinstated back into Vortex-l more quickly. Call it an act of civil
RE: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. No? Lawrence -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear In reply to Lawrence de Bivort's message of Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] 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. [snip] I doubt it. A good organic chemist can make just about any carbon compound from just about any other carbon compound, given enough energy. Even CO2 can serve as the source if really necessary. So the only real limitation is adequate cheap clean energy. Fusion in one form or another would provide this. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. I appreciate it. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of ...telling people how they should live their lives. While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. To clarify what I said: I don't think anything that he said in the post that got him tossed had much to do with what I take issue with him about. I was simply stating that maybe he will use the time to think about those other, past, but very frequent caustic things he likes to post. I don't know him personally, I wouldn't mind it as perhaps it would explain some of the reasoning behind what he says. But (and again, electronic mail is a terrible conveyor of intent), it seems as though he absolutely loves the idea, in some odd way, of making people do without, making them suffer. Why else would someone love to see fuel prices soar, knowing that the little old lady down the street may freeze in the cold? It doesn't affect him, he has enough money to afford a Prius off the lot. How about those who build and maintain the blasted things? Yes build me a nonpolluting car, thou peasant, and watch as I mock your financial inability to pay for your /own/ such vehicle. And I shall then laugh as I take yours from you, while cheerfully noting that I did /good/ for mankind and the planet. I don't know if (I hope it is not) this is his real feeling and intent. But he comes across that way to more than just I. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the last to speak against this. John Schnurer is dead, John Steck has gone away, and others email privately but do not post rebuttals to these things. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. My point made, he has that luxury that those he seeks to harm do not have. Perhaps he does not even realize what he wishes to do. There are other alternatives, but they require something more than money and luxury. They require work. Ruffling feathers is fine. Killing the bird that sustains you is not. Read how much hatred he spewed towards farmers. You'll have to dig up old posts to find it. I believe I fought him on this. He did not understand, it seems, that someone has to grow the food he eats, that someone has to repair the car he drives. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive reactionaries as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what reactionaries have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. Unfortunately, this perception is all to often reality. I deal with these people often. I specialize in working on Mercedez-Benz, BMW, Porsche, and the other imported, overpriced garbage. I deal day to day with those who have far more than subsistence amounts. I know how they think. It changes people. They have disdain for people who perform labor, actual work. They think we aren't doing enough. I work 40hrs/wk at this job, while I am medically considered disabled. I do this because I do not need handouts. I try to justify my existence, and do what I can to help. I give what I can, try to live a simple life, beyond what I indulge in with my experiments (which I want to use to help people). It is physically demanding to get out of bed in the morning. A usual day's regimen involves two to six extra-strength aspirin to keep the pain away, two or three meclizine HCl to keep the vertigo to a minimum that I can control, massive amounts of B-12 and B complex to keep myself moving, sometimes caffeine pills to keep from collapsing at work. But I am still going because I have to. I am supposed to go back for many blood tests, MRI, etc. But I had to wait, because I cannot afford it. It must be nice to have the luxury of being able to not work a physically demanding job, to be able to pay for whatever medical treatment you need, to not have to go home and lie on your back in a stone driveway, pounding off brake rotors to keep a junker car running, just so I can do the same thing again the next day. All the while checking my pulse and wondering, am I going to
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
From: Lawrence de Bivort Hi, Robin, Agreed that carbons can be used to make carbon compounds. But, as you point out, there is non-trivial the matter of energy consumed in the process and, I would add, the non-trivial matter of economics. There is a reason we aren't making carbon-based materials out of CO2. And this same reason is the reason why we should be conserving oil for feedstock purposes, rather than fuel. Speaking of feedstock, A. C. Clarke made another interesting suggestion in a forward for a book titled, A Century of Innovation: See Clarke's comments: http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=4796 For more details see Amazon books - A Century of Innovation: http://www.amazon.com/Century-Innovation-Engineering-Achievements-Transformed/dp/0309089085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1245016216sr=1-1 http://tinyurl.com/kvpujl Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
I wrote: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. It just occurred to me this is confusing wording. It should say: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing power plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid solar-algoil power plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
Kyle, Thanks for taking the time to explain your situation more clearly. It helps me understand where you are coming from. It is not my place to explain Jed's actions. That's Jed's responsibility, should he feel compelled to do so – perhaps when his sentence is up. I'll simply say that I think many of your perceptions are not without merit. I was particularly struck by one of your comments: [those who have sufficient income to afford ECO-friendly cars, BMWs, Porches and other imported overpriced garbage] have disdain for people who perform labor, actual work. They think we [meaning you] aren't doing enough. A personal thought: I suspect that a lot of the disdain you might feel is not because they truly feel you are not doing enough. Of course, that is what they would LIKE to believe themselves is the truth, and what they would most certainly like you to believe is true as well. I suspect many of them unconsciously fear that their good fortune is just that: their good fortune. Survivor's guilt can occasionally kick in, in weird destructive ways. Survivor's guilt can make some feel uncomfortable, particularly when they must interact with those who for whatever reason do not appear to be as blessed with as much good fortune as themselves. In order to reconcile this disquieting realization many might feel compelled to conjure up rationales, like vilifying those they perceive as unfortunate. Once vilified, it is easy to take the next step and rationalize why others are not as fortunate as themselves, because: It's their own damned fault. They deserve what they get because they aren't working hard enough. I'm sure you already know this. But of course, knowing this does not necessarily make your circumstances any better for you in the physical sense. However, knowing this on an emotional level, that you are not going to buy into their own fears essentially forces them to eventually face their own fears, and no doubt, most will resist doing so for as long as they can possibly get away with it. BTW, I unsubscribed from [VoB] because I was tired of dodging the grok persona's posts. Filtering out grok's messages ultimately turned out to be impractical for me because invariably other [VoB] participants will feel compelled to respond – and, well, dang it, there I go suddenly feeling all riled up as well, feeling compelled to respond. I know that's what I would likely do. I also know that such interactions are fruitless. I do not wish to become another one of Don Quixote's endless windmills to slay. As Dirty Harry once said: A man's gotta know his limitations. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 6:15 PM Kyle, Thanks for taking the time to explain your situation more clearly. It helps me understand where you are coming from. No problem. It is not my place to explain Jed's actions. That's Jed's responsibility, should he feel compelled to do so – perhaps when his sentence is up. Oh, given what he wrote back to me in private, I suspect he will. I'll simply say that I think many of your perceptions are not without merit. I was particularly struck by one of your comments: [those who have sufficient income to afford ECO-friendly cars, BMWs, Porches and other imported overpriced garbage] have disdain for people who perform labor, actual work. They think we [meaning you] aren't doing enough. WHOA! Hold up a sec, putting (ECO) in front of my writing BMW and Porsche is bad bad! These, especially when engines are malfunctioning, and this is something that happens so often in these 'high-end' cars, are some of the worst smog dumpers out there. Porsches will produce exhaust that will knock a buzzard off a gut wagon. BMWs tend to have so many emission control problems that they are laughable. When these control devices fail, they boost emissions by an amount which probably cancels any effect they had in the first place. Working in a garage here where it is very cold in the winter, the doors must be kept closed. If even a small exhaust leak develops in the exhaust (with road salt, this always happens), it is suicide to run the engine indoors, even with a hose venting the exhaust to the outside. They tend to burn oil very badly, have head gasket issues if overheated (you only get one chance, then the engine is el-toastarino), etc. NOT eco friendly. I would guess some older Toyota or Nissan is not bad if you're going eco route. They are hard to work on in some ways, but not so bad as many newer American cars. They are also harder, however, to do tricks on to get better mileage and lower emissions. Car computers don't like it when you mess with the C/O mixture. They will try to compensate, and that makes things worse. In order to reconcile this disquieting realization many might feel compelled to conjure up rationales, like vilifying those they perceive as unfortunate. Once vilified, it is easy to take the next step and rationalize why others are not as fortunate as themselves, because: It's their own damned fault. They deserve what they get because they aren't working hard enough. This may be true, and for many, I suspect it is. It doesn't make it any less wrong to vilify these people. On the contrary, it makes the person doing the vilifying, and justifying it, seem psychotic. I'm sure you already know this. But of course, knowing this does not necessarily make your circumstances any better for you in the physical sense. However, knowing this on an emotional level, that you are not going to buy into their own fears essentially forces them to eventually face their own fears, and no doubt, most will resist doing so for as long as they can possibly get away with it. The problem begins when these people have the power to do something to those that they hate without reason. If they have no power, they are a barking dog that one can ignore. Once unleashed, they can do great damage without thinking of the results of their actions, and by proceeding from a false premise. respond. I know that's what I would likely do. I also know that such interactions are fruitless. I do not wish to become another one of Don Quixote's endless windmills to slay. I don't blame you for leaving there. When thinking of VoB, I am reminded of the words of Yoda: A domain of evil it is. In you must go. What's in there? Only what you take with you. As Dirty Harry once said: A man's gotta know his limitations. My wife tells me the same thing, only she doesn't carry a .44 magnum. Thankfully. Nevertheless, I continue to push those limits, and suspect it will one day kill me. Such is life, I guess. --Kyle
[Vo]:A good bye from Jed for now-this will change, I hope
?Jed, we want you to come back.? I enjoy your posts.? I saw somthing you would like when I visited the Oak Ridge science mueseum.? I positive exhibit on cold fusion.?I will post the text once I such a picture.? ?I took of it into my computer.? ?I asked the exhibition manager about it.? He said several people had asked him to take it down.? I told him to resist them and keep it up.? You worked to make these things happen Jed.? Your efforts willl prove to be of historic proportion.?? I've been kicked down many times.? I gave up at periods.? I am still in the game,? you need to take a break from?suck it up?and then come back. Frank Snip...message from Jed I miss Jed.? I hope he comes back.? ? That would be up to Bill Beaty. He does not seem anxious to let me back in, and honestly, I am not inclined to go where I am not wanted. I did not realize that people there are uninterested in the politics of cold fusion. Since that is my main area of expertise, I do not have much else to contribute, so I don't see much point to rejoining, even if he lets me. I upload announcement of new papers, but there are not many of them anymore. Most of the literature is out of reach, because of copyright restrictions.? ? It is not important. There is hardly any news about cold fusion in any case; the field is moribund, as it has been for years. You can read about political events at Krivit's site: http://www.newenergytimes.com/? ? The only problem with that site is that many people do not want to read it, because Krivit has stepped on people's toes -- many of them deservedly. I am less inclined to do that because, frankly, I don't care what people think or what they are up to (other than experiments). I wouldn't bother stepping on most of the toes Steve stomped. I just want those people to give me papers.? ? You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back.? ? That is completely incorrect. Gene Mallove got upset with me there because I said unkind things about the Correas. Gene was working closely with them. See:? ? http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Serpents_Tooth/serpent_index.html? ? Also, at that point I had nothing more to write for the magazine (and I still don't) and I was busy working on LENR-CANR, mainly OCR work. A few weeks before he was killed, however, Gene helped fund LENR-CANR, and we were talking about collaborating on other work. He did not hold a grudge for long and neither do I.? ? After Gene died they asked me to contribute to the magazine, but I told them I am not interested in writing for journals published on paper. The audience is too small. The only way to communicate with the public in the 21st century is on the Internet, in sites with unrestricted access by anyone. When the subject is cold fusion, the only way is to give away the information for free. Unfortunately for authors, people will not pay for it. That's why, for example, the books about cold fusion by Mizuno, Beaudette and me available at Amazon.com sell a few copies per month, whereas people download hundreds of copies a week of those same book from LENR-CANR.org.? ? I do not want to participate in the closed group at CMNS because it is closed to the public. (Also because I do not want to hear any technical secrets.) My goal is to bring people into the field and educate the public, not to contribute to the closed echo chamber of cold fusion. The skeptics are right when they say the field is ingrown and cut off from the mainstream. They are mainly to blame, but people who establish closed discussion groups are also at fault.? ? Since I went to the trouble to write all of this, I would appreciate it if you would post it to Vortex. Unless that would get you in trouble with Beaty. He is someone I thought I knew, but I have sadly misjudged him.? ? - Jed?
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
From Kyle: I was particularly struck by one of your comments: [those who have sufficient income to afford ECO-friendly cars, BMWs, Porches and other imported overpriced garbage] have disdain for people who perform labor, actual work. They think we [meaning you] aren't doing enough. WHOA! Hold up a sec, putting (ECO) in front of my writing BMW and Porsche is bad bad! These, especially when engines are malfunctioning, and this is something that happens so often in these 'high-end' cars, are some of the worst smog dumpers out there. Porsches will produce exhaust that will knock a buzzard off a gut wagon. ... I'm not sure how I managed to conjure up up an ECO link-up with the foreign cars like Mercedes Benz, BMW and Porsche. Indeed, it was inaccurate of me to have even suggested that such cars are ECO friendly. I don't think that was my original intention. Nevertheless, I flubbed it. (bad writing!) On the ECO car front it would appear that foreign manufactures like Toyota and Honda are trying, but as you well know right now there is a stiff premium price attached to hybrids and plug-ins. In order to claim bragging rights, that one is driving an ECO friendly car, one must possess an adequate bank account containing sufficient discretionary funds available to spend on such luxuries. That ain't me. I'm approaching the retirement age by some standards, but I still have 6 - 7 years of a mortgage to pay off. And then we discovered that the house needs to be painted, the roof needs well over $6,000 in repairs due to extensive rot, and then both cars gave out. We had no choice but to go to a single economical compact car, a nice KIA Rio. There were other financial emergencies as well which I won't go into. All these incidentals have resulted in a home equity loan that is almost as large as the mortgage itself. Nevertheless, I consider myself lucky because at least I have a job with decent health insurance. ...and I can literally walk to work in fifteen minutes. Concerning my ECO comment, in an indirect round-about way what I think I was trying to say was that those individuals with fat bank accounts (including those who are primarily motivated in securing bragging rights) DO help pave the way towards a better future for the rest of us by spending their discretionary cash on these expensive ECO friendly cars. We had better be thankful that they do so! The allocation of such discretionary funds (including for vain reasons) helps companies continue their RD work that produces innovations that ultimately produce economical ECO friendly cars that the rest of us surfs can actually afford. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Magnetic Salt Water?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6493481.ece Oceans charge up new theory of magnetism Earth's magnetic field, long thought to be generated by molten metals swirling around its core, may instead be produced by ocean currents, according to controversial new research published this week. more Climate change could lead to magnetic field reversal. Such Synergy! Terry
[Vo]:Th e politics of Jed.
This thread should be fascinating to a student of sociology, political science, and/or psychology. Already there are 'pro' and 'anti' Jed posts by those who dot not really know him. The two present who know him, face to face and for many years are Ed Storms and myself. Steve has a reasoned assessment of 'Jed'. To Frank Zidnarsic: Jed is independant and comes and goes as he pleases. The founders of the company that initially published Infinite Energy were Gene Mallove, Jed Rothwell, and Chris Tinsley in England. Chris died some years ago. Gene ran IE after his own opinion, and to my knowledge, never had a board meeting. Jed cooperated with Gene for years, but did his own 'thing'. Gene asked me to be a member of his board, but I had no influence on his operational decisions, and we parted company before Gene was murdered. Jed is independantly wealthy as a software entrepreneur, with a Japanese wife. Jed is fluent in Japanese. He is also a hisotrian of technology and an advocate of the power of entrepreneurship to accelerate the applications of technology. This is validated by his own success as a programmer, in an artificial world whare the rules are known and precisely stated. That does not apply where the rules are not known, which is the lot of CF/LENR/CMNS. Jed once sketched an Inventors Disease in an attempt to goad investigators to make faster progress, and in the process irritated a lot of people [he has mellowed somewhat]. Kyle sees snapshots of Jed as a cruel and arrogant person -- in fact he drives a cheap car. What Kyle does not see is Jed's acute and passionate awareness of the millions in developing nations whose lot would be vastly improved if only CF propagated throughout mankind. This drives him to nag the investigators, attend the international conferences, travel to important lectures and demonstrations, wite a book, support a website that has reached 1,400,000 people worlwide -- all at his expense. ***Jed does what he *can* to advnace the cause of CF*** Kyle, I think you need to apologize to Jed, or at least to try to understand were he is coming from. How have you advanced the cause of CF? Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Two Wrongs, continued
Chris wrote: - Original Message - From: Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Two Wrongs, continued I'm well aware of blacklight power and I unreservedly salute Mills and others for their brave fight against prejudiced academic opponents. It's the sort of technology that could save our civilization and change political dynamics for the better. MC: Good, I was not aware of that That said, there are still hurdles. Can a blacklight unit be made small enough to power a car or are we still talking about needing a really good battery?! Cheap electricity is good but not enough by itself. MC: Yes, there are many hurdles. Someday, a BLP car may run on water. The engineering task is monumental, and I doubt it will be done for a decade or two. BLP has proposed a BLP hydrogen generator module for service stations to serve present IC engines converted for hydrogen use. This coserves the invesement in the present fleet while another technology is phased in. BLP's present business objective is electric utilities. Retrofitting with BLP boilers will eliminate carbon emission [including secondary emission from plug-in hybrids and first generation electric cars]. With many BLP power plants, there will be hydrino byproduct for new chemistry, including a hyper-battery. Depending on the population of hydrinos harvested from utilities, the *cell* potential my be in the tens of volts and the energy capacity in kilowatt-hours, enough for distance driving. All this is a gigatic enerprise and BLP has to have everything right for it to work. There is also the fact that entrenched interests may stall or try to stop any technology that ends the profitable dependence of consumers. It may be a longer battle than any of us would like, even if a breakthrough emerges. Cold Fusion? Maybe you're really a terrorist trying to make fissionable materials. Do you have chemicals in your house/lab? Maybe you're really setting up a drug lab. Maybe you'll have a heart attack just before a critical moment. Maybe you'll die in an 'unrelated' murder that authorities will never pin down. Maybe the SEC needs to investigate your finances. MC: I anticipate a firestorm of criticism to erupt at some point. Chris has just touched on the possibilities. I would point out that when Ralph Nader exposed the Corvair, GM's reaction was not to fix the car but rather to hire investigators to get something on him. This is the same mindset that transported EV-1 cars out to the desert to have them crushed far away from protestors. It is not paranoia to anticipate subtle opposition from moneyed interests. Long live Randall Mills! [it's Randell Mills] - Notes on algae farming. OK coastlines are fine and a few hundred square miles are a 'drop in the ocean' [sorry, I couldn't help myself]. You still have to tend your crop and shield it from predation and disease and storms. One application for BLP power plants will be desaliation of the oceans for potable and irrigation water. Mike Carrell . This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:A good bye from Jed for now-this will change, I hope
If its actual politics that has to do with the technology and development of the science, thats one thing. The moment it extrapolates to world politics, ect, thats taking it a bit far. And Jed's response is pretty much, well, I'm taking my ball and going home. Sorry if i have no respect for that reaction. On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Jed, we want you to come back. I enjoy your posts. I saw somthing you would like when I visited the Oak Ridge science mueseum. I positive exhibit on cold fusion. I will post the text once I such a picture. I took of it into my computer. I asked the exhibition manager about it. He said several people had asked him to take it down. I told him to resist them and keep it up. You worked to make these things happen Jed. Your efforts willl prove to be of historic proportion. I've been kicked down many times. I gave up at periods. I am still in the game, you need to take a break from suck it up and then come back. Frank Snip...message from Jed I miss Jed.? I hope he comes back. That would be up to Bill Beaty. He does not seem anxious to let me back in, and honestly, I am not inclined to go where I am not wanted. I did not realize that people there are uninterested in the politics of cold fusion. Since that is my main area of expertise, I do not have much else to contribute, so I don't see much point to rejoining, even if he lets me. I upload announcement of new papers, but there are not many of them anymore. Most of the literature is out of reach, because of copyright restrictions. It is not important. There is hardly any news about cold fusion in any case; the field is moribund, as it has been for years. You can read about political events at Krivit's site: http://www.newenergytimes.com/ The only problem with that site is that many people do not want to read it, because Krivit has stepped on people's toes -- many of them deservedly. I am less inclined to do that because, frankly, I don't care what people think or what they are up to (other than experiments). I wouldn't bother stepping on most of the toes Steve stomped. I just want those people to give me papers. You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never came back. That is completely incorrect. Gene Mallove got upset with me there because I said unkind things about the Correas. Gene was working closely with them. See: http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Serpents_Tooth/serpent_index.html Also, at that point I had nothing more to write for the magazine (and I still don't) and I was busy working on LENR-CANR, mainly OCR work. A few weeks before he was killed, however, Gene helped fund LENR-CANR, and we were talking about collaborating on other work. He did not hold a grudge for long and neither do I. After Gene died they asked me to contribute to the magazine, but I told them I am not interested in writing for journals published on paper. The audience is too small. The only way to communicate with the public in the 21st century is on the Internet, in sites with unrestricted access by anyone. When the subject is cold fusion, the only way is to give away the information for free. Unfortunately for authors, people will not pay for it. That's why, for example, the books about cold fusion by Mizuno, Beaudette and me available at Amazon.com sell a few copies per month, whereas people download hundreds of copies a week of those same book from LENR-CANR.org. I do not want to participate in the closed group at CMNS because it is closed to the public. (Also because I do not want to hear any technical secrets.) My goal is to bring people into the field and educate the public, not to contribute to the closed echo chamber of cold fusion. The skeptics are right when they say the field is ingrown and cut off from the mainstream. They are mainly to blame, but people who establish closed discussion groups are also at fault. Since I went to the trouble to write all of this, I would appreciate it if you would post it to Vortex. Unless that would get you in trouble with Beaty. He is someone I thought I knew, but I have sadly misjudged him. - Jed Refinance and lower payments online with Ditech. Visit www.ditech.com Today!
Re: [Vo]:Public apology to Kyle Mcallister, and a rephrasing of my original comment
Has no one learned? This entire conversation should be in B. On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kyle, Regarding my previous response: Kyle sez: From: Mark Iverson Hey Jed, time to go take a vacation and get some RR... Go climb a mountain with your kids. By the time you get back, Bill will have ended the ban...you won't even know it was in effect! Better yet, he can contemplate the error of telling people how they should live their lives, and come down off his high horse. Hopefully none of this will happen again, since Bill has thankfully banned religious/ political topics. Really? That's your impression of Jed? I would suggest you might want to consider looking in the mirror when you say that. I wish to express a public apology to Kyle MCallister. My previous comment was impulsive, and it shows so. Let me rephrase my prior thoughts into something less impulsive, and hopefully more thoughtful. Kyle, I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Rothwell's agenda of ...telling people how they should live their lives. While I can sympathize with those whom might feel that that might be Jed's agenda, I don't think that applies in this specific situation, the situation that earned Jed his temporary time-out. It's my understanding that Jed, as the result of making several prudent career choices in his life, is now in the rare position of having achieved a level of financial independents most of us can only dream of. Jed now has the luxury of being able to spend a great deal of his personal resources on causes he believes in passionately like supporting alternative energy, especially Cold Fusion. IOW, Jed has the luxury of being able to assume the role of a reactionary. It is often the job of reactionaries to ruffle a few feathers every now and then. Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive reactionaries as having become a tad too removed from the realities and practicalities of life. It can occasionally become problematical to take what reactionaries have to say seriously. It's easy to perceive reactionaries as having climbed on top of a high horse as well. Reactionaries can also be perceived as eccentric, arrogant, possessing a holier-than-thou attitude, and perhaps even a little naïve since many will assume such individuals no longer have to suffer the slings and arrows of being forced to work forty to sixty hours a week to pay the rent and put food on the table. I think what ticked me off, and what caused me to post such an impulsive response to your statement was that in my view Jed was unfairly banned for quoting a statement that was actually made by a Washington Post reviewer. The WP reviewer expressed a personal opinion/view of what could happen to the Middle East if Cold Fusion were to become a practical economical reality. Jed went on to state his OWN counter-views on the subject (which he cc'd to vortex-l) as follows: I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti- western groups in Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison. In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science. Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our fault, not theirs. Apparently, Jed got banned because, technically speaking, he broke Mr. Beaty's temporary ban of posting political (and religious) statements. I don't dispute that fact. I also realize that technically speaking I am deliberately disobeying Mr. Beaty's temporary ban by deliberately posting additional political commentary on Vortex-l as well. Mr. Beaty is perfectly in his right to ban me. I have done so because I felt it was more important, in this particular case, to help clear up what I thought might exist certain misconceptions. I also don't think it was fair to Jed, and have more than once offered myself as a prisoner exchange if it would help get Jed reinstated back into Vortex-l more quickly. Call it an act of civil disobedience. ;-) Therefore, before I am personally banned as well, I ask you: Kyle: Where in these statements that apparently earned Jed a temporary time-out did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell is telling other people how to live their lives? Where in these statements that Jed made did you come to the conclusion that Mr. Rothwell needs to come
[Vo]:What We Need More Of...
To quote physicist and Gangsta rapper MC Hawkings, What we need more of is SCIENCE. The vortex list was joined by myself and many for SCIENCE into alt energy research. Not JUST cold fusion, not to be advocates of or afainst this piece or that piece, not to discuss politics., and most certainly NOT to whine like little high school punks when the teacher (in this case, The good Bill Beaty, the man who, if you forgot, put this list together and helped collect people here, to discuss SCIENCE) lays a little smackdown and reminds people this is class, and not socializing. Can we get back to discussing actual science, pretty pretty please, with deuterium on top?
[Vo]:Ban religion/politics permanently?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Steven Krivit wrote: 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. This will require some vigilance on all our parts. Please define temporary as this will be helpful. Temporary as in not permanent. How long will it take to make clear that Vortex-L is not the place for left-wing politics, right-wing politics, and anything similar? First to clear up a misconception. Last week's fight has *not* ended, and it gives every sign of re-starting. Postings on experiments and odd science don't attract conversation, since everyone is busy with threads on other topics, particularly politics. Make no mistake, most people WANT to defend their political or religious positions. Therefore many forums ban religion/politics entirely, since otherwise it quickly takes over everything. Vortex has been unusual in keeping this issue on a back burner for so many years. But our luck is running out. Politics postings become a habit, and part of the subscribership insists on always countering the wrong opinions posted by The Other Side. Second, subscribers have now started posting politics messages, then privately insisting that the ban doesn't apply to them. This is a common ploy, and sends me a message in foot-high flaming letters: I REFUSE TO STOP. I've learned elsewhere that this sort of thing requires major and prompt response. If this had been just one person, and the problem appeared to be fading away, I'd let it pass. But it wasn't. I see that Vortex has acquired the religion/politics illness that affects most forums. Or call it poor health, where natural defenses begin to fail, and opportunistic infections start appearing. We could ban politics permanently. Or temporarily limit the topics to CF and nothing else. Or as a last resort, shut down the forum for awhile. But first I'm using the trick which has worked in the past: kill it off artificially. Stamp out every last vestige, then wait awhile to make certain it's gone. If it slowly grows back much later, the forum's own immune system might keep it at a very low level. (( ( ( ( ((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]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear
LOL. Thanks, Horace. I was trying to figure it out. I like the idea: treat CO2 as an asset from which to produce a useful material, rather than as a pollutant to be released into the environment. That would present a double advantage. I'll go check the website. I hope it has some preliminary engineering and cost analyses. Language is an odd and limited tool, isn't it, when trying to describe reality. Lawrence -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear I wrote: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. It just occurred to me this is confusing wording. It should say: It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing power plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid solar-algoil power plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:The politics of Mike.
Mike Carrell wrote: How have you advanced the cause of CF? Ban Harry (with tongue in cheek to make a point)
