Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Definitions, Gentlemen, please: What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. What is liberalism? Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure. Let us be precise or the story passed around the campfire becomes convoluted into unacceptable distortions. Warm Regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Liberalism is supporting government? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, liberalism is a typical conservative stance, for example, the more conservative the republican, the more liberal it is. Liberal as meaning interference of the government with the economy. The most liberal of the republican nowadays are Ron Paul supporters, after him comes neo cons and Reagan fans... We've been using the term liberal in a way that is specific to the US political context. The meaning of the word has changed over time. It used to mean free markets, minimal regulation, and in economics it still does. But now, in general American usage, it means something closer to social democracy without the socialism (or with it, some would argue!). Even in the US, there is no clear-cut definition for conservative or liberal. People who call themselves liberal and conservative have a wide range of beliefs, often overlapping. In the US these two camps fight one another tooth and nail for political supremacy. Things have gotten worse over the last several decades, and now effective decision making has largely ground to a halt in preference to political posturing and a perpetual election cycle. Eric
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Dear Reliable, Please take care with definitions. They are dangerous. SJ Lec has told this showing that finis (end, death) and definition have the same root. A definition in practice is an agressive simplifying logical manouvre that can mutilate a complex concept. For liberalism see please: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism Your define is good for libertarian, for libertarianism it is a bit different. Semantic has some strangeness in it. Peter On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Definitions, Gentlemen, please: What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. What is liberalism? Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure. Let us be precise or the story passed around the campfire becomes convoluted into unacceptable distortions. Warm Regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.commailto: danieldi...@gmail.com** wrote: Liberalism is supporting government? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, liberalism is a typical conservative stance, for example, the more conservative the republican, the more liberal it is. Liberal as meaning interference of the government with the economy. The most liberal of the republican nowadays are Ron Paul supporters, after him comes neo cons and Reagan fans... We've been using the term liberal in a way that is specific to the US political context. The meaning of the word has changed over time. It used to mean free markets, minimal regulation, and in economics it still does. But now, in general American usage, it means something closer to social democracy without the socialism (or with it, some would argue!). Even in the US, there is no clear-cut definition for conservative or liberal. People who call themselves liberal and conservative have a wide range of beliefs, often overlapping. In the US these two camps fight one another tooth and nail for political supremacy. Things have gotten worse over the last several decades, and now effective decision making has largely ground to a halt in preference to political posturing and a perpetual election cycle. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Von: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 12:53 Samstag, 2.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR Definitions, Gentlemen, please: What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. dear Reliable, be careful! to reflect on your belief what 'Libertarianism' is, I recommend a) Andrew Dittmer's multi-part series Journey into a Libertarian Future http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.html then b) mtraven's take, who split off this aspect on a parellel site https://libertardian.posterous.com/ His basic site. http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.de/ then c) Matt Bruening -- http://mattbruenig.com he occasionally touches the libertarian issue. Eg here: http://mattbruenig.com/2012/01/06/one-other-reason-libertarians-fear-environmentalists/ and here. http://mattbruenig.com/2012/01/08/two-different-kinds-of-libertarians/ Those should be arguments to fundamentally question the ideology of Libertarianism. Guenther
[Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
See images and a nifty NASA video at the bottom of the page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/get-ready-milky-way-to-collide-with-neighboring-galaxy-in-4-billion-years/257977/ - Jed
[Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Those should be arguments to fundamentally question the ideology of Libertarianism. I distrust all ideologies. I believe in pragmatism. We should do what works. As Deng Xiaoping said: I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat as long as it catches mice. I am also conservative. Absent a good reason to change, we should stick with established institutions. Just tweak them as necessary. Prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Ditto universities, units of measure, the shape of your house, and the food you eat. If it is not broken do not fix it. The thing is, you never know the full details as to why our ancestors set up institutions the way they did. If you go rearranging things from scratch, you are likely to make all the mistakes they made over again. A naive young reporter once asked FDR if he was a socialist or capitalist. FDR answered: I am a Christian and a Democrat, that's all. He was one of the greatest pragmatists in history. I am talking about institutions, culture, and our way of life. The food we eat. The way we bring up children. I do not mean technology, art or science! When it comes to technology such as energy generation or programming language we should be bold and try everything. A scientist should try any experiment her heart desires. Even if there is one chance in a million, it does no harm to try. In experiments or in art, no effort is futile. Even when it fails it was worthwhile. The people who struggled for months to replicate polywater later described it as some of the most exciting research in their careers, even though in the end they concluded it was an experimental error. It was a learning experience. - Jed
[Vo]:Toriyabe paper on d+d reaction in lithium with acoustic cavitation
Hybrid this that and the other cold fusion: Phys. Rev. C 85, 054620 (2012) [20 pages] Acceleration of the d+d reaction in metal lithium acoustic cavitation with deuteron bombardment from 30 to 70 keV http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v85/i5/e054620 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Time bombs and the need to decentralize energy
This is BS. If the #4 fuel pond caught fire, and all the radioactive material dispersed into the atmosphere, it could amount to about 10 times the amount of radioactive material dispersed from Chernobyl. Most of that would fall to the ground within a short distance of the plant. However, it is inconceivable that any accident could occur that would result in the stored nuclear fuel completely burning. If the structure collapses, the fuel rods would be physically separated amongst the wreckage, not concentrated into a simple pile, and most of them would not burn. The wreckage could easily be covered with enough sand and concrete in a short time to limit any exposure. For most of the northern hemisphere, there would be no effects beyond a slight increase in background radiation. Most people would be probably exposed to less extra radiation than someone living today in Denver. I haven't heard of any mass fatalities there. Anyone who engages in this kind of fear-mongering should be doubted on anything they have to say. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Mark Goldes mgol...@chavaenergy.com wrote: Vo, A pair of little reported Time Bombs threaten to end billions of human lives. The first is the Fuel Ponds at Fukushima. A highly probable, near-term, powerful earthquake can release enough radioactivity to endanger most of our lives in the Northern hemisphere. The second is a little recognized, but surprisingly very possible, solar storm emission that can bring down power grids for months. Nuclear plants would become meltdown candidates. That could end human life almost everywhere on the planet. Both might be stopped by a massive government initiative that can stimulate major involvement of private capital. This would be the economic equivalent of fighting a life threatening war. It can reboot the economy and generate large numbers of jobs. Solar roofs have become much more important than any grid dependent technology. LENR is one of the most promising Black Swans that might make a contribution. See www.aesopinstitute.org for a few details - and possible paths to prevent the worst from happening. Mark Mark Goldes Co-founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute 301A North Main Street Sebastopol, CA 95472 www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax
Re: [Vo]:Time bombs and the need to decentralize energy
Not Me energya...@gmail.com wrote: This is BS. I believe you are right. If the #4 fuel pond caught fire, and all the radioactive material dispersed into the atmosphere, it could amount to about 10 times the amount of radioactive material dispersed from Chernobyl. Most of that would fall to the ground within a short distance of the plant. However, it is inconceivable that any accident could occur that would result in the stored nuclear fuel completely burning. . . . That is what the experts on NHK and the other mainstream Japanese press say. However, if anything does go wrong with pools, it will be a *very*serious, dangerous and expensive accident. Some of the Zr rod cladding may burn. It might release very large amounts of radioactive solids (dust) and gas. To avoid this, they are making haste to transfer the rods to dry storage. What has happened, and what actually may happen if worst comes to worst is bad enough. There is no need to exaggerate it and make it out to be a calamity. The accident brought about the abrupt demise of nuclear power in Japan and perhaps the whole world in a few years. In the last week or so the government and the industry have been hinting they will restart some of the reactors in the Osaka area, to avoid 20% power shortages. I think they should. It is a delicate issue. They do not want be seen as running roughshod over public opinion. - Jed
[Vo]:test
test -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Dr. Gluck, Dare you to read or audio listen to Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage along with Common Sense http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm and then define What is liberalism? differently. From Reliable with Love Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Reliable, Please take care with definitions. They are dangerous. SJ Lec has told this showing that finis (end, death) and definition have the same root. A definition in practice is an agressive simplifying logical manouvre that can mutilate a complex concept. For liberalism see please: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism Your define is good for libertarian, for libertarianism it is a bit different. Semantic has some strangeness in it. Peter On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Definitions, Gentlemen, please: What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. What is liberalism? Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure. Let us be precise or the story passed around the campfire becomes convoluted into unacceptable distortions. Warm Regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Liberalism is supporting government? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I mean, liberalism is a typical conservative stance, for example, the more conservative the republican, the more liberal it is. Liberal as meaning interference of the government with the economy. The most liberal of the republican nowadays are Ron Paul supporters, after him comes neo cons and Reagan fans... We've been using the term liberal in a way that is specific to the US political context. The meaning of the word has changed over time. It used to mean free markets, minimal regulation, and in economics it still does. But now, in general American usage, it means something closer to social democracy without the socialism (or with it, some would argue!). Even in the US, there is no clear-cut definition for conservative or liberal. People who call themselves liberal and conservative have a wide range of beliefs, often overlapping. In the US these two camps fight one another tooth and nail for political supremacy. Things have gotten worse over the last several decades, and now effective decision making has largely ground to a halt in preference to political posturing and a perpetual election cycle. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
I wrote: Govt, because of the corruption which is inevitable with humans, and which is rampant in this country and the world, will never do the right thing when it comes to the sort of large subsidies and loan programs that we've seen of late. Jed wrote: History proves you are wrong. And then goes on to provide some supporting comments. Jed, I couldn't disagree more with your position on this. Many people make the same mistake as you in this kind of discussion. You CANNOT compare the stewardship and trust that TAXPAYERS put in their elected officials vs private investment/business. There is absolutely NO INCENTIVE for politicians to be frugal with SOMEONE ELSES MONEY! They have nothing to lose by taking chances with its spending. On the other hand, private equity has EVERY REASON to be frugal and cautious because the money is either theirs directly, or their clients' which if they make bad investment decisions, will simply take their money elsewhere, and the investment banker/broker will be out of business. Yes, there is corruption everywhere, but for politicians, there is little to no incentive to avoid the corruption. in fact, they use it REGULARLY to get re-elected. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 4:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: One can justify Govt's responsibility to use PUBLIC, TAXPAYER funds for pure RD, and I'd go as far as some applied RD, but that's about it. And the results of all that research should be FREELY available to any taxpayer . . . I agree. Several members of Congress have recently proposed legislation that will ensure this. Govt, because of the corruption which is inevitable with humans, and which is rampant in this country and the world, will never do the right thing when it comes to the sort of large subsidies and loan programs that we've seen of late. History proves you are wrong. Consider: There is no evidence that the government today is any more corrupt than it ever was. On the contrary, during and just after the Civil War it may have been even more corrupt. Yet this was one of the greatest era of Federal investment in infrastructure, universities and public improvements in our history. Most people agree that the railroads, land grant colleges, National Institute of Sciences and so on were splendid accomplishments. Despite the corruption, government did a good job. The same is true of the post-WWII era. Other institutions that do RD, such as universities and corporations, are also deeply corrupt. Other institutions that fund research, such as Wall Street and the Chinese government, have reputations even worse than the U.S. government's. It is not as if some pure, disinterested set of institutions is waiting in the wings, prepared to take over the functions that the government has performed for 300 years. Naturally, there is competition among corporations, which puts a damper on corruption, whereas there is only one Federal government. But no one has suggested that the government should do all RD from start to finish. It should only do that which is so long-term or so large that only the government can do it, such as launching the GPS system. It is reasonable to argue that the government should not be picking winners in a technology such as solar PV. On the other hand, China and all other countries are subsidizing PV manufacturers. I do not think it is a good idea for the U.S. to become an economic colony of China, incapable of manufacturing any core technology for ourselves. It is difficult to know how we can avoid that without the government playing an active role to counteract the Chinese government. One thing we can sure of is that they will not play our rules. It is not an easy question. Arguments on both sides have merit. I go not think there are clear answers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:test
Peter, Received Thanks! On Saturday, June 2, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: test -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 16:41 Samstag, 2.Juni 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR I distrust all ideologies. I believe in pragmatism. We should do what works. Jed, I basically agree. Our once chancellor Helmut Schmidt famously said: 'Those with visions should go to the doctor.' I basically disagree, if it is termed like that. In my frame of thought, that 'what works' is basically a tautology. What next? Sticking one's head out. I would be very surprised if You disagree. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
Just dozed off. While in that state I heard a wee voice utter Off with their heads! in French and a louder shout in english with a Shakesperian accent Kill all the lawyers!. What a nightmare! Popped out to the frig and finished a residue of cole slaw I made yesterday. Feeling better. Warm Regards, Reliable MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I wrote: Govt, because of the corruption which is inevitable with humans, and which is rampant in this country and the world, will never do the right thing when it comes to the sort of large subsidies and loan programs that we’ve seen of late… Jed wrote: “History proves you are wrong.” And then goes on to provide some supporting comments… Jed, I couldn’t disagree more with your position on this… Many people make the same mistake as you in this kind of discussion. You CANNOT compare the stewardship and trust that TAXPAYERS put in their elected officials vs private investment/business. There is absolutely NO INCENTIVE for politicians to be frugal with SOMEONE ELSES MONEY! They have nothing to lose by taking chances with its spending. On the other hand, private equity has EVERY REASON to be frugal and cautious because the money is either theirs directly, or their clients’ which if they make bad investment decisions, will simply take their money elsewhere, and the investment banker/broker will be out of business. Yes, there is corruption everywhere, but for politicians, there is little to no incentive to avoid the corruption… in fact, they use it REGULARLY to get re-elected. -Mark *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 01, 2012 4:53 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net mailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote: One can justify Govt’s responsibility to use PUBLIC, TAXPAYER funds for _pure_ RD, and I’d go as far as some _applied_ RD, but that’s about it. And the results of all that research should be FREELY available to any taxpayer . . . I agree. Several members of Congress have recently proposed legislation that will ensure this. Govt, because of the corruption which is inevitable with humans, and which is rampant in this country and the world, will never do the right thing when it comes to the sort of large subsidies and loan programs that we’ve seen of late… History proves you are wrong. Consider: There is no evidence that the government today is any more corrupt than it ever was. On the contrary, during and just after the Civil War it may have been even more corrupt. Yet this was one of the greatest era of Federal investment in infrastructure, universities and public improvements in our history. Most people agree that the railroads, land grant colleges, National Institute of Sciences and so on were splendid accomplishments. Despite the corruption, government did a good job. The same is true of the post-WWII era. Other institutions that do RD, such as universities and corporations, are also deeply corrupt. Other institutions that fund research, such as Wall Street and the Chinese government, have reputations even worse than the U.S. government's. It is not as if some pure, disinterested set of institutions is waiting in the wings, prepared to take over the functions that the government has performed for 300 years. Naturally, there is competition among corporations, which puts a damper on corruption, whereas there is only one Federal government. But no one has suggested that the government should do _all_ RD from start to finish. It should only do that which is so long-term or so large that only the government can do it, such as launching the GPS system. It is reasonable to argue that the government should not be picking winners in a technology such as solar PV. On the other hand, China and all other countries are subsidizing PV manufacturers. I do not think it is a good idea for the U.S. to become an economic colony of China, incapable of manufacturing any core technology for ourselves. It is difficult to know how we can avoid that without the government playing an active role to counteract the Chinese government. One thing we can sure of is that they will not play our rules. It is not an easy question. Arguments on both sides have merit. I go not think there are clear answers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Toriyabe paper on d+d reaction in lithium with acoustic cavitation
Some of the authors have a similar paper in ICCF-15 and also at http://jcfrs.org/file/jcf10-proceedings.pdf Looks like localized hot fusion, and also appears to be sensitive to experimental parameters. Jed Rothwell wrote: Hybrid this that and the other cold fusion: Phys. Rev. C 85, 054620 (2012) [20 pages] Acceleration of the d+d reaction in metal lithium acoustic cavitation with deuteron bombardment from 30 to 70 keV http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v85/i5/e054620 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Just dozed off. While in that state I heard a wee voice utter Off with their heads! in French and a louder shout in english with a Shakesperian accent Kill all the lawyers!. What a nightmare! I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html T
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You CANNOT compare the stewardship and trust that TAXPAYERS put in their elected officials vs private investment/business. There is absolutely NO INCENTIVE for politicians to be frugal with SOMEONE ELSES MONEY! They have exactly the same incentive that an employee does working at company, using company money. If the employees screw up, they are fired. The politicians lose the election. Needless to say, employees, managers and hired company presidents often do waste money. Or steal it. It is not clear to me whether they do this more often or less often than politicians do. You are arguing that the system does not work. Obviously, it does fail sometimes. Everyone knows there is waste in government spending. But when you argue that there is absolutely NO INCENTIVE you go too far. There is incentive and it has often worked. On balance, government spending on technology has brought far more benefit than waste. The GPS alone is worth more than the whole space program cost. Perhaps if the government had not launched the GPS, private industry might have instead. I doubt that, but it is possible. It is difficult to imagine how they would have charged for the use of GPS to recover their costs. However, that did not happen. You cannot run history over again to establish whether it could have. Here in the real world, where history actually played out the way it did, the government played a vital role in that technology, *and in just about every other expensive, large scale technology* over the last 300 years. That is a fact. It is not debatable. Counter-factual history is mere speculation and can never be proved. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:17:48 AM Subject: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision See images and a nifty NASA video at the bottom of the page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/get-ready-milky-way-to-collide-with-neighboring-galaxy-in-4-billion-years/257977/ That's long before Sol goes Red Giant, so we'll have a clear view.
[Vo]:More on tritium in Ni-H, the halo route
The appearance of tritium in Ni-H reactions may (or may not) depend on a prior population of deuterium. Most likely it does, but we would be remiss if we did not mention alternatives. There are other known and novel routes to tritium which do not depend on a threshold level of D ... and 'conservation of miracles' might favor one of these novel hypotheses :-) In any event, the following speculative hypothesis is falsifiable; and that is all that anyone can ask for, at this stage. This route would involve so-called halo nuclei, specifically a known species of the halo phenomenon: 6He. But in this case, the neutrons are virtual and derive from Rydberg hydrogen (or in Mills' vocabulary, from dihydrinos). Here is a page describing the Helium 6 halo: http://www.rogerarm.freeuk.com/Pages/HaloNuclei.htm On decay from the halo state, a small percentage of these atoms would be expected to be tritium, which is easily detectable. With two-neutrons, the probability of forming 6He as a halo nucleus is hindered by both separation energy and angular momentum, which would be more favorable with two neutral hydrinos, due to significantly lower mass. IOW - as to appraising the QM probability of this nucleus ever forming to being with - the configuration of the two extra neutrons creates a large centrifugal barrier, favoring the much less massive but equally neutral hydrino species. The falsifiable part involves any of the prior experimental Ni-H setups where tritium is expected. There are more than a dozen papers on the LENR site where this is seen. The usual reactants would be nickel and potassium carbonate. The strategy (for falsifiability) to test the 4H or hydrino helium halo hypothesis is to compare a mix of hydrogen and helium as the gas fill, instead of hydrogen only, in a two experiment which are otherwise identical. If significantly more tritium is seen with the mix of hydrogen and helium, compared with hydrogen alone - all else being equal, then we have made a prima facie case for the validity of the hypothesis. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:my answer to Abds analysis and plan
My Dear Friends, I see that Vortex does not allow messages with attachments. I have placed my answer to an important message of our colleague Abd on my Blog at; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/my-answer-to-abds-analysis-and-plan.html It is actually a sketch, I hope the dialogue will contimue and Abd will convince me re his more positive and constructive position/approach. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Time bombs and the need to decentralize energy
May 28, 2012 Growing Fear Over Fukushima Fuel Pool 4 as Wall Bulge Detected TEPCO admits a bulge detected in the walls of Unit 4, stoking fears over the building’s stability A new bulge in the walls of the Fukushima Unit 4 nuclear plant has driven growing new fears over in Japan. New concerns have risen after its operator reported a bulging of the building's wall. Attention has focused on Unit 4’s spent fuel pool because of the large number of assemblies filled with rods that are stored high above the ground at that severly damaged reactor building. Three other reactor buildings at the site are also badly damaged, but their pools hold fewer used assemblies. On Saturday Japan’s government sent Environment and Nuclear Minister Goshi Hosonoto to inspect Unit 4. Mr Hosono said the government accepted the Tokyo Electric Power Company's assurances that reinforcement work had shored up the building. But many Japanese have scoffed at such assurances and point out that the pool's cooling system has malfunctioned several times. ''The No. 4 reactor is visibly damaged and in a fragile state, down to the floor that holds the spent fuel pool,'' said Hiroaki Koide, an assistant professor at Kyoto University's Research Reactor Institute. ''Any radioactive release could be huge and go directly into the environment.'' The New York Times What passes for normal at the Fukushima Daiichi plant today would have caused shudders among even the most sanguine of experts before an earthquake and tsunami set off the world’s second most serious nuclear crisis after Chernobyl. Fourteen months after the accident, a pool brimming with used fuel rods and filled with vast quantities of radioactive cesium still sits on the top floor of a heavily damaged reactor building, covered only with plastic. The public’s fears about the pool have grown in recent months as some scientists have warned that it has the most potential for setting off a new catastrophe, now that the three nuclear reactors that suffered meltdowns are in a more stable state, and as frequent quakes continue to rattle the region. Senator Wyden, whose state could lie in the path of any new radioactive plumes, is among those pushing for faster action. After his recent visit to the ravaged plant, he said the pool at No. 4 poses “an extraordinary and continuing risk” and the retrieval of spent fuel “should be a priority, given the possibility of further earthquakes.”The worries picked up new traction in recent days after the operator of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, said it had found a slight bulge in one of the walls of the reactor building, stoking fears over the building’s safety. To try to quell such worries, the government sent the environment and nuclear minister to the plant on Saturday, where he climbed a makeshift staircase in protective garb to look at the structure supporting the pool, which he said appeared sound. The minister, Goshi Hosono, added that although the government accepted Tepco’s assurances that reinforcement work had shored up the building, it ordered the company to conduct further studies because of the bulge. [...] “The No. 4 reactor is visibly damaged and in a fragile state, down to the floor that holds the spent fuel pool,” said Hiroaki Koide, an assistant professor at Kyoto University’s Research Reactor Institute and one of the experts raising concerns. “Any radioactive release could be huge and go directly into the environment.” The fears over the pool at Reactor No. 4 are helping to undermine assurances by Tepco and the Japanese government that the Fukushima plant has been stabilized, and are highlighting how complicated the cleanup of the site, expected to take decades, will be. The concerns are also raising questions about whether Japan’s all-out effort to convince its citizens that nuclear power is safe kept the authorities from exploring other — and some say safer — options for storing used fuel rods. “It was taboo to raise questions about the spent fuel that was piling up,” said Hideo Kimura, who worked as a nuclear fuel engineer at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in the 1990s. “But it was clear that there was nowhere for the spent fuel to go.” The worst-case situations for Reactor No. 4 would be for the pool to run dry if there is another problem with the cooling system and the rods catch fire, releasing enormous amounts of radioactive material, or for fission to restart if the metal panels that separate the rods are knocked over in a quake. That would be especially bad because the pool, unlike reactors, lacks containment vessels to hold in radioactive materials. (Even the roof that used to exist would be no match if the rods caught fire, for instance.) Senator Wyden, whose state could lie in the path of any new radioactive plumes and who has studied nuclear waste issues, is among those pushing for faster action. After his recent visit to the ravaged plant, he said the
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: That's long before Sol goes Red Giant, so we'll have a clear view. That's pretty exciting. Forget zombie-producing contagion or nuclear annihilation. The second video presents an apocalyptic vision of two galaxies tearing stars away from one another and flinging them off into the outer reaches of space. The accompanying text says the sun could end up in a completely different region of the galaxy, one much farther from the galactic center, but that the Earth and solar system would survive. But what if the solar system ends up in one of the star producing regions, or really far out there, effectively orphaned? Also, what are the chances of another star coming close enough to disrupt the solar system and form a binary system, sucking the earth into it as it does? What happens to a star when a planet with a bunch of heavy elements gets collides with it? Does the planet just pass through it or is it pulled apart or vaporized? The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The sun will go red giant in about 5 billion years. Will humans survive another 100 or 200 years? So all of this is academic, but still fun to think about. Eric
[Vo]:Kipplinger Letter, June 1, 2012: Can alternative energy continue to thrive...
I've noticed that the K Newsletter continues to ignore discussing any kind of exotic new AE that could possibly make a significant impact. i.e. Rossie, DGT, BLP. But that is to be expected. The publication has always been quite conservative when it comes to their take on the global energy market. Still, the publication this week had some interesting things to say about conventional AE technologies such as solar and wind power. Just how economical are they, particularly since a lot of government subsidies are about to expire? Apparently a tad more economical than one might initially expect. And it's getting better. See below: *** Can alternative energy continue to thrive... As government subsidies for it evaporate? Federal grants to buy wind and solar gear are gone, replaced with a much less generous income tax credit, and that will cease in 2016. A similar tax credit for wind-generated power bites the dust this year. Some states are pulling back, too. And Calif., for one, has used up its solar credits. Despite all this. Yes, wind and solar are here to stay. They won't overtake fossil fuel use soon, but they are becoming mainstream, giving households and business consumers affordable energy options while offering solid growth for many green energy firms. What will feed demand in the years ahead? Declining equipment costs.in part the result of subsidized imports from China and elsewhere. The cost of rooftop solar panels is about half of what it was a year ago and is headed still lower. Wind turbine prices are also sliding. The import flood isn't likely to be stemmed, despite proposed tariffs. good for purchasers, bad for rival U.S. manufacturers. Innovative financing arrangements. Increasingly, businesses and households are leasing rather than buying equipment, reducing the initial investment needed. Companies such as Sunrun and SolarCity wire customers' rooftops for little or no payment, then charge for the power generated, undercutting utilities' rates... a win-win for power users and installation companies. State targets for more green power. Three-quarters of states already call for a share of power generation to come from renewable sources. The targets increase over time, lifting demand for equipment for renewables, but also nudging up prices for utilities and customers. Rising costs for competing fossil fuel. Natural gas is cheap now but won't always be. Slowly climbing prices in coming years will make renewables more competitive. And new technologies.an area where the U.S. shines. Public and private American labs are at the forefront of efforts to raise the efficiency of solar panels and other generating gear, reduce costs of manufacturing key components and develop ways to store wind and solar energy. And American firms will lead in the engineering and sales of the resulting products. By 2020, wind and solar will have taken their place as two other industries. surviving largely on their economic merits and the pace of technological innovation. *** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 1:53:04 PM That's pretty exciting. Forget zombie-producing contagion or nuclear annihilation. The second video presents an apocalyptic vision of two galaxies tearing stars away from one another and flinging them off into the outer reaches of space. The accompanying text says the sun could end up in a completely different region of the galaxy, one much farther from the galactic center, but that the Earth and solar system would survive. But what if the solar system ends up in one of the star producing regions, or really far out there, effectively orphaned? Also, what are the chances of another star coming close enough to disrupt the solar system and form a binary system, sucking the earth into it as it does? What happens to a star when a planet with a bunch of heavy elements gets collides with it? Does the planet just pass through it or is it pulled apart or vaporized? The video is an external view --- showing that the centers of the two galaxies have several encounters before settling into an ellipse. Roughly Best to Worst : 1. Sol+Planets stay in a similar position. (pretty much as illustrated in the NASA slides) 2. Sol+Planets get expelled far out -- safe, an excellent view, but lonely -- for a while, though when one comes back things might get too interesting (eg #5). 3. Sol+Planets pass through a dust cloud -- they're actually pretty thin, so at most there would be more meteorites. Nothing like the bombardments in early history. Also a bit dull -- one would only see the local stars, and then either darkness or a nebula from the inside. I don't think that a new planetary disk would form. 4. Sol+Planets get disrupted, and Earth leaves the Goldilocks zone. eg binary system mentioned by Eric. 5. Sol+Planets get displaced towards the galactic center(s). Black holes merge, with associated radiation.
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Most of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of normal matter and have no prior history together. NASA has no way of knowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of matter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to the disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 When we have discussed this topic previously, Horace believes that mirror matter - MM - has negative gravitational charge, as does Foot - so this outcome of 'recombination' would be prohibited and in fact NASA's evidence for gravitational linkage is wrong. But at this point it is all conjecture, even at the highest levels - so to speak. IOW - NASA's data for all of this is weak. Some other possibilities: 1) The milky way and Andromeda are incredibly similar in size, shape, mass, apparent age, number of stars, spectroscopy, and many other physical properties... which point to something being mirrored... but could also be coincidental. It could point to a common origin (little bang) to which they are both returning, over time, due to gravitational linkage at a common nexus. 2) Another implication is that paired bodies begin as matter/mirror-matter pairs, and that the return results in something akin to annihilation of both, or at least a common starting point. This assumes only one kind of gravity. Matter/antimatter pairing may not be ruled out as the alternative explanation to mirror matter, but there are reasons to suspect that Andromeda is not an antimatter galaxy. 3) Mirror matter is pure conjecture but it is probably preferable to antimatter - since it suggests a different outcome than annihilation. 4) If the visible mass of Andromeda and the MW are supplemented by 90% more mass in the form of dark matter, then any relative peaceful coexistence in the far future is out of the question. 4) No one has a clue, really. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
In Dewey Larson's Reciprocal system of physics there is an effective ~15 femtoG repulsive acceleration throughout the universe ( it's a fundamental property of the universe ). Gravity acts against this, so when the gravitational pull of star at some distance away reaches 15 fG, the stars repel instead of attract ( The gravitational limit ). That's on the order of 4 light years away for out sun, so stars generally won't get closer than that ( to simplify ). http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/gravlim.htm http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/cluster.htm ( Also, below unit distance, 45.6 nm, gravity repels and the expansion of the universe attracts! That accounts for chemical bonding and may also account for the Casimir force. ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision Most of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of normal matter and have no prior history together. NASA has no way of knowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of matter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to the disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 ...
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Just dozed off. While in that state I heard a wee voice utter Off with their heads! in French and a louder shout in english with a Shakesperian accent Kill all the lawyers!. What a nightmare! I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html T In that regard the crime of treason should be eliminated. It only serves to aggrandize the state. harry
