date:20121225

My friend, just because your morality allows you to troll and lie in 
wikipedia does not mean that I am like you.


Stop the off-topic posts and I will go away never to post here again, but I 
will read.  I am sacrificing my participation, my chance to ask questions if 
the chronic off-topic violators would simply stop their abuses.  JUST DO IT.


Clearly you understood Bill's no off-topic rule cause you quoted parts of it 
here and still claim that I am lying about it.  You are such a blatant liar. 
I'm not surprised.





Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



Frequently. That is, this is how a troll justifies his behavior to 
himself, and attempts to so justify it to others. And I've seen this from 
trolls who very openly admitted being trolls. They believe that they are 
serving a greater good. And I've trolled, and actually accomplished what I 
set out to do, on Wikipedia. There was a certain abusive administrator. He 
banned me from cold fusion, unilaterally. I took him before the Arbitation 
Committee. During the case, he claied that his ban was still in effect. 
Now, generally, I respected administrative decisions, and did not violate 
them, instead following due process, which can take months, even for a 
minor matter, sometimes. I decided the time was right for direct action. I 
announced that I had no more intention to honor his ban. This was on a 
Talk page presumably seen by Arbitrators and many administrators, in 
direct response to his boast that I was still banned and he could prove 
it.


Essentially, I invited him to prove it, by deciding to ignore the ban and 
give him the opportunity. I waited until a simple question was asked on 
the Cold fusion talk page, and I knew a clear answer. It wasn't a 
controversial edit, and the only thing *wrong* with it was that he'd 
banned me. It took me a couple of minutes. I went to bed. When I woke up 
in the morning, all hell had broken loose. I'd been blocked by him, and my 
edit had been reverted. An arbitrator had unblocked, restored my edit, and 
the Arbitration Committee was considering an immediate revocation of his 
administrative privileges. They didn't -- he was very popular -- but, in 
the end, they did revoke the privileges when the decision was issued. He'd 
gone over the edge, blocking a participant in a case involving him. They 
could not ignore that, it would have been way too obvious.


They also wanted to get rid of me, that became obvious later, when their 
private mailing list was hacked. I made them *very* uncomfortable, I was 
*not one of them* -- they are all administrators, and, while I almost was 
made an admin on Wikipedia, I was quite new then. Later, it would have 
been completely impossible, by that time the "cabal" knew what I was up to 
and they can easily torpedo any candidacy that they don't like. It's part 
of the problem with Wikipedia process.


But I didn't consider my own right to edit to be important. I was far more 
concerned about a biased admin who would cheerfully block people because 
they disagreed with him. This is an irony here. That administrator was a 
climate scientist, and was famous as abusive. People had complained about 
him for years, but every attempt to sanction him was blocked by the cabal. 
A discussion would start, they would pour in with enough comments 
rejecting the complaint that the discussion would show "no consensus," and 
they would then claim vindication. Nope. Any sane judgment would have 
shown there was a serious problem.


Adminstrators had resiged in disgust over what this guy had done. I fixed 
it, with an edit trolling to be blocked, took a couple of minutes. It was 
probably the most efficient thing I ever did on Wikipedia. And eventually 
I handled a lot of situations, but, eventually, the Wikipedia problem was 
not ultimately addressed, and what had long been expected came to pass, I 
was "community banned." That's what they do when the Arbitration Committee 
won't do it. All it takes is a handful of editors showing up on an obscure 
page, mostly not watched by the general community, and it's done.


Theoretically, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee, but the 
politics are such that the Arbitration Committee will bail. It will reject 
the case, refusing to "second guess" the Community. Really, more than half 
of the Committee is sympathetic to the abusive administrators, but they 
can't let that be seen. It would look bad!


I am willing to sacrifice my participation here, which I find useful 
especially for my Carbon Nanotube research, for the greater good of more 
signal and less noise in this forum.  If you ask me, Lomax and the other 
chronic off-topic posters are the real trolls cause they insist on doing 
it their way or ban those who disagree or don't like their off-topic 
trolling like me.  Their solution is

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Lomax is lying again.  I'm not surprised.  It is OK for him to lie as long 
as his goal are "honorable" and good for islam and muhammed.


OK, let me ask anybody here.  Who has actually seen Obama's Birth 
Certificate in actuality?  Not the scanned and altered copy posted on the 
Internet.  Not snopes which is a political hack job.  If Obama supposedly 
was issued an official Birth Certificate by the State of Hawaii as Lomax 
claims, that originally issued BC should be in the possesion of Obama, 
right?  OK, if Obama wants to kill the Birther movement, just show it to 
one, only one, highly respected individual.  Let's say, Ron Paul, Mike 
Huckabee, Sarah Palin or the like.  Just one well respected Tea Party member 
or a well respected Republican congressman or senator.   Let him handle that 
original BC, feel the official seal, look at the folds, and make an official 
scan open to the public and call an open honest press conference.  Not a 
white house press conference which is questionable to begin with.  This is 
very simple and the Birther movement will die an untimely death and I will 
apologize and tuck my tail between my legs in shame and go away.  Lomax lies 
when he says we have seen the official BC.  We have not; no one has.   What 
we've seen which Lomax claims is the official BC is a scanned photoshop 
file.   No one except Obama and alledgedly snopes have seen it.  Why?  Is 
anybody buying Lomax's argument?   It's very simple my friends, if there is 
an officially issued BC, complete with seal, and signature of the official 
representative of the State of Hawaii, just show it.  No amount of spin or 
eloquence or tiresome lengthy essay will overcome this very strong argument. 
Just show it. Period.


Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii  Ambercrombie - a democrat, 
strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther movement once and 
for all.  So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault BC.  Guess what?   Even he 
can't penetrate the veil of corruption Obama has put up to block access to 
his vault records.  Why is there an executive order to block access to 
Obama's vault BC.  This is the first time it has ever happened to a sitting 
president.  What the heck is wrong with seeing the original vault copy BC? 
If he has alledgedly issued an official copy, what's wrong with verifying it 
with the vault copy?   Why does Obama feel the need to go out of his way to 
issue an executive order to block access?


You know, only corrupt and lying leaders find the need to hide their 
history.  Obama is a corrupt lying usurper.



And Lomax's is really naive to think that only Republicans are concerned 
with this issue.  Over 60% of Americans feel Obama should come clean on this 
issue.  But of course, the illiminati finds it convenient to forcibly 
reintall their puppet president.  And they have found willing sheeple in 
Lomax.  LOL..




Jojo







- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 11:15 AM 12/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very useful 
for several reasons.  It is apparent that you have a strong Christian 
faith and that others within this group favor the Muslim faith to an 
equally strong degree.


David is addressing this to Jojo. However, there is a difference here. I'm 
the only Muslim on this list, as far as I know. And I have not used the 
list to propagandize Islam. But Jojo has used the list to propagandize a 
whole series of issues that are not actually Christian, per se, but 
specifically Evangelical Christian tropes, intensely anti-Muslim, in ways 
that have offended other list members, apparently non-Muslim. These are 
not necessirly "favoring the Muslim faith," rather, they are, first, 
noting the inappropriateness of such highly sectarian and abusive 
expressions here, and, secondly, supporting a list member who is a 
relatively long-time participant here, who has never used the list to 
promote Islam.


The anti-Muslim material was completely off-topic, not necessary for any 
discussion here, on-topic or off-topic, except to establish Jojo Jaro's 
thesis, that I'm a liar, and to him, "Muslim" means "liar." The real thing 
that is happening is that he argued other topics, like the whole birther 
myth, kept up an anti-Obama drumbeat, and on the birther issue, 
specifically, I researched his claims and reported them as being utterly 
bogus. Not as a prejudgment, but as the result of research. And he could 
not tolerate that, and, I believe, that's where his attack came from.


Essentially, I disagreed with him and provided evidence. That's 
intolerable to him, so he then attacked with everything he could muster.


This in itself is a good thing and I say nothing against the religious 
beliefs of you or anyone else.  The world has enough conflict over 
religion already a

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Again, brilliant.

At 07:11 PM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

[...]
Lomax claims that my attempts to stop off-topic posts are 
"coercive".  I'm not sure which twilight zone Lomax live in, but of 
course they are coercive.


Like Jojo can't bring himself to agree with me. I.e., he acknowledges 
that what he's proposing and doing is "coercive," but wants to assert 
that I'm delusional.


 People must be coerced to follow the rules.  We have laws in this 
country where people must be coerced to follow.  This forum has 
rules that people must follow.  It's that simple.


Sure. It's that simple. However, what are the rules? I just re-read 
them. Some of them are routinely violated. I've violated some of 
them. I intend to stop that immediately.



Lomax claims that I am the troll here.


I've said that.

But have you ever found a troll willing to sacrifice himself for the 
greater good.


Frequently. That is, this is how a troll justifies his behavior to 
himself, and attempts to so justify it to others. And I've seen this 
from trolls who very openly admitted being trolls. They believe that 
they are serving a greater good. And I've trolled, and actually 
accomplished what I set out to do, on Wikipedia. There was a certain 
abusive administrator. He banned me from cold fusion, unilaterally. I 
took him before the Arbitation Committee. During the case, he claied 
that his ban was still in effect. Now, generally, I respected 
administrative decisions, and did not violate them, instead following 
due process, which can take months, even for a minor matter, 
sometimes. I decided the time was right for direct action. I 
announced that I had no more intention to honor his ban. This was on 
a Talk page presumably seen by Arbitrators and many administrators, 
in direct response to his boast that I was still banned and he could prove it.


Essentially, I invited him to prove it, by deciding to ignore the ban 
and give him the opportunity. I waited until a simple question was 
asked on the Cold fusion talk page, and I knew a clear answer. It 
wasn't a controversial edit, and the only thing *wrong* with it was 
that he'd banned me. It took me a couple of minutes. I went to bed. 
When I woke up in the morning, all hell had broken loose. I'd been 
blocked by him, and my edit had been reverted. An arbitrator had 
unblocked, restored my edit, and the Arbitration Committee was 
considering an immediate revocation of his administrative privileges. 
They didn't -- he was very popular -- but, in the end, they did 
revoke the privileges when the decision was issued. He'd gone over 
the edge, blocking a participant in a case involving him. They could 
not ignore that, it would have been way too obvious.


They also wanted to get rid of me, that became obvious later, when 
their private mailing list was hacked. I made them *very* 
uncomfortable, I was *not one of them* -- they are all 
administrators, and, while I almost was made an admin on Wikipedia, I 
was quite new then. Later, it would have been completely impossible, 
by that time the "cabal" knew what I was up to and they can easily 
torpedo any candidacy that they don't like. It's part of the problem 
with Wikipedia process.


But I didn't consider my own right to edit to be important. I was far 
more concerned about a biased admin who would cheerfully block people 
because they disagreed with him. This is an irony here. That 
administrator was a climate scientist, and was famous as abusive. 
People had complained about him for years, but every attempt to 
sanction him was blocked by the cabal. A discussion would start, they 
would pour in with enough comments rejecting the complaint that the 
discussion would show "no consensus," and they would then claim 
vindication. Nope. Any sane judgment would have shown there was a 
serious problem.


Adminstrators had resiged in disgust over what this guy had done. I 
fixed it, with an edit trolling to be blocked, took a couple of 
minutes. It was probably the most efficient thing I ever did on 
Wikipedia. And eventually I handled a lot of situations, but, 
eventually, the Wikipedia problem was not ultimately addressed, and 
what had long been expected came to pass, I was "community banned." 
That's what they do when the Arbitration Committee won't do it. All 
it takes is a handful of editors showing up on an obscure page, 
mostly not watched by the general community, and it's done.


Theoretically, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee, but the 
politics are such that the Arbitration Committee will bail. It will 
reject the case, refusing to "second guess" the Community. Really, 
more than half of the Committee is sympathetic to the abusive 
administrators, but they can't let that be seen. It would look bad!


I am willing to sacrifice my participation here, which I find useful 
especially for my Carbon Nanotube research, for the greater good of 
more signal and less noise in this forum.  If you ask me, Lomax and 
the other c

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

This is brilliant. Jojo tells a self-justifing story about the 
history here, and it certainly doesn't match my memory, and I've gone 
over the history to write some of the posts in recent threads. But I 
can make mistakes and my memory can be faulty. I'm not going to 
reseach it again unless someone asks, because I've already spent too 
much time on this to do that *again.*


Notice, below, allegedely I commented on his behavior here. I did not 
attack his religion, but I alleged that certain *relevant* claims 
here -- about his behavior here, affecting the list -- were "lies" (I 
don't recall if I was yet calling him a liar, except in the sense 
that we use the word when someone promises something and then does 
the opposite). He acknowledges here bringing up the material about 
Islam, he says that insult "has to be answered with the same level of 
nastiness." But he went way beyond the "same level." He went into 
deliberate insult, designed and known to him to be such.


He claims it is the "truth," hut he's not limited himself to truth, 
he goes way beyond it, and repeats it here with "barely out of 
diapers," which is a gross untruth and he's actually admitted it. 
It's something said to create a desired impression, that's what he 
acknowledged. When we create desired impressions by saying something 
that we know is not true, that's "lying."


At 06:51 PM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Dave, I honestly respect the amount of thought and consideration you 
have given to your response.  But, let me clarify a few more things with you.


First, I did try what you are saying.  I did try to start an 
off-topic posts regarding a subject matter that seems to be of 
interest to a lot of people here.  After I started the "New 
Data  ." thread, a few of us were exchanging thoughts and I 
thoroughly found that enjoyable.  Although one individual started a 
single insult, I actually let that pass and did not 
retalitate.  After telling him to stop insulting me, he did stop and 
the discussion continued in a civilized manner with no one able to 
convince the other.  That was expected.  The point is, it was a 
civilized exchange of opinions.  Exactly what Vortex-L was meant to 
be, except that the topic was a little off-topic.


But then, Lomax started his new round of insults out of the 
blue.  What he posted has absolutely nothing about the "New Data 
" thread, but instead was a renewal of him calling me a troll 
and a liar and called for my banning.  That level of bullying has to 
be answered with the same level of nastiness.  Hence, I started 
calling his god a moon god, which of course is true, but is quite 
offensive to muslims; simply because they like to pretend that their 
god is the same as the universal God of Judaism and 
Christianity.  Of course, that insult involve identifying his great 
prophet as a sexual pervert with dozens of wives and a child 
molester molesting a 9 year old little girl barely out of 
diapers.  All of which is true.  No lies, just truth intended to 
insult.  Most muslims find these truths embarassing, so I used these 
to retaliate.  Everyone can see that and it did have the intended 
effect on Lomax.  He was insulted.  Of course he was, it was 
intended to be more an insult than an openning of the discussion 
about religion.  Mind you, this was intended to be a response to his 
blatant insult out of the blue.  And the rest is what you see here 
in this thread.


Of course, this all stated a long time ago when he and a couple of 
other bullies here started their round of insults, when I started 
the Darwinian Evolution series of posts, to try to highlight the 
problem of Off-topic trolling here.  These bullies feel that my 
Darwinian Evolution fallacies threads were inappropriate.  Of 
course, they were inappropriate, they were off-topic intended to 
highlight a problem here.  I believe you are seasoned enough to see 
the truth as I believe you have been following this saga from the 
beginning.  Me and Terry even had a friendly bet as to the outcome 
of this ( which I lost, so I'll be buying Terry, and he said Jed, 
lunch at the Officer's club, when I get back there.)  But to me, 
this was all about trying to fix a problem.  But instead of being 
more sensitive to how they are destroying this forum, these chronic 
off-topic posters and gang of bullies started insulting and calling 
for my banning.  This of course I found to be an insult and started 
retaliating.


That my friend is the problem.  And my friend, I am not the 
problem..  Just that a gang of bullies have started coming out of 
the woodwork and team up to gang up of me.


I have said it before, have said it for close to a year now, and 
will say it again.  My off-topic posts will stop as soon as the 
blatant off-topic posts destroying this forum stops.  And while I'm 
at it, I will respond to insults, with insults equally insulting.


I hope you are honest enough to acknowledge that what I am saying is 
true.  But

Re: [Vo]:"Electronics Project" on promotion this week

Nifty, I'm sure Frank. However, I have such a device. It's called an
iPhone 5, using Siri.

Siri, by the way, is named after SRI International, better known to
us for cold fusion research, but that's a tiny part of what they do.
They developed Siri, as an "intelligent assistant." Very
sophisticated voice recognition, basically. It interfaces beautifully
with the phone.

I was just at SRI after Thanksgiving, and Siri got me there with
ease. Perfect instructions. Driving around Marin County

"Siri, direction to [name]'s house."
"Proceed south 200 yards and turn left..."
and I don't have to touch or look at the phone. It will sleep until
I'm coming up to the next turn, then announce it.

Yeah, I had to pay $200 for the upgrade and extend my ATT service,
but ... sometimes you gotta do it. The camera is spectacular, and I
pretty much have to fight my kids, who are all over the phone

The headset included with the iPhone can handle incoming calls, like
your device, with a button push on the headset wire. To get Siri's
attention, you do need to touch the phone (one-button) or the headset
wire. With Siri's attention, you can then dial, etc., through voice
commands. It's fully integrated with the map application. Other
applications will be coming, I'm sure.

I can ask Siri to give me directions to the nearest gas station. Or a
restaurant by name. I can do internet searches with voice requests --
it often beats typing, especially with the cramped keyboard, but I
don't have an app that will read results to me, I think.

The voice recognition gets better with time, as Siri learns my
"accent." And then my kids screw it up, because they also like
talking with Siri.

At someone's suggestion, I said, "Siri, I love you."

Siri said, "I'm afraid that's not going to happen. What can I do for you?"

Damn! When I finally find a woman who *actually listens to me*, she's
not available.

(Siri apparently operates independently to some extent, but also
interfaces, if one permits it, with a web site that provides greatly
enhanced intelligence.)

Sorry!

At 12:43 PM 12/25/2012, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
If you want to build a device to talk, dial, and hang up hands free
while driving. My book on to build such a device is on promotion
free at the Amazon Kindle store this week.

http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Project-Znidarsic-Science-ebook/dp/B007OWFI3G/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356457228&sr=1-3&keywords=frank+znidarsic+science+books

If you don't have a Kindle you can download the software for it from
Amazon free on your computer. Merry Christmas and please drive
safely over the holidays.

Frank Znidarsic

RE: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

At 12:27 PM 12/25/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

Dave,

First you post an opinion that this particular conversation thread, 
a conversation which I would agree has been extensively researched, 
should be taken elsewhere.

But then, in your next post you begin to participate in the conversation!

Perhaps you have succumbed the dark side of The Force, my young Jedi Knight!

This is exactly what trolls do. That's why, in fact, "ignore them," 
sometimes, while it's a reasonble first response, may fail to suffice.

Trolls love it when they can get people fighting with each other. 
It's exactly what they want.

Season's Greetings!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

> From: David Roberson

> Of course you have the right to be offended by the off topic 
threads that seem to show up often.

...

[snip]

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 11:15 AM 12/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very 
useful for several reasons.  It is apparent that you have a strong 
Christian faith and that others within this group favor the Muslim 
faith to an equally strong degree.


David is addressing this to Jojo. However, there is a difference 
here. I'm the only Muslim on this list, as far as I know. And I have 
not used the list to propagandize Islam. But Jojo has used the list 
to propagandize a whole series of issues that are not actually 
Christian, per se, but specifically Evangelical Christian tropes, 
intensely anti-Muslim, in ways that have offended other list members, 
apparently non-Muslim. These are not necessirly "favoring the Muslim 
faith," rather, they are, first, noting the inappropriateness of such 
highly sectarian and abusive expressions here, and, secondly, 
supporting a list member who is a relatively long-time participant 
here, who has never used the list to promote Islam.


The anti-Muslim material was completely off-topic, not necessary for 
any discussion here, on-topic or off-topic, except to establish Jojo 
Jaro's thesis, that I'm a liar, and to him, "Muslim" means "liar." 
The real thing that is happening is that he argued other topics, like 
the whole birther myth, kept up an anti-Obama drumbeat, and on the 
birther issue, specifically, I researched his claims and reported 
them as being utterly bogus. Not as a prejudgment, but as the result 
of research. And he could not tolerate that, and, I believe, that's 
where his attack came from.


Essentially, I disagreed with him and provided evidence. That's 
intolerable to him, so he then attacked with everything he could muster.


This in itself is a good thing and I say nothing against the 
religious beliefs of you or anyone else.  The world has enough 
conflict over religion already and it is of little practical use for 
us to continue that tradition here.


I"d agree, which is why I'd never have brought any of these issues 
here. There is nothing wrong with Christian faith, per se, and I 
certainly hope I've never attacked it. Evangelical Anti-Muslim 
diatribes are not "Christian faith," they are highly political and 
very modern interpretations, and often are highly offensive. (I do 
*not* want to impeach all "Evangelical Christians," only there are 
web sites that pander to the most ignorant of Christians, selling 
them books and materials that make these claims about Islam, claims 
that are highly ineffective in actual evangelical work, i.e., 
missionary work. Converts from Islam to Christianity are rare, but I 
knew one. He'd have laughed at the silliness of this stuff. He 
converted, more or less, as a reaction to a highly abusive father, 
and, when I had dinner with him at his house, and told him a bit of 
what I knew about Islam and the sources, he said, "If you'd have been 
my father, I'd never have converted."


I.e., it was very personal. And the views of his father aren't that 
uncommon among Muslims. Which goes to show?


It goes to show, in fact, what the Qur'an says, that people claim 
religion without having it. We, too often, too many of us, cling to 
our ignorance instead of to God.


As I said, neither side to this argument appears to be capable of 
giving an inch toward a common resolution.  For this reason, all I 
see within the arguments presented is a repetition of the same 
disgusting issues.  Why waste so much energy toward this type of 
discussion when it is known ahead of time that nothing will change?


Actually, I see more. Researching these issues has clarified certain 
issues for me. It's like the birther thing. It seemed unlikely from 
the outset, after all, don't the Republicans have, ah, attornies and 
the like? A birth certificate conspiracy would require a series of 
state officials to perjure themselves, etc. But, hey, I accept that 
cold fusion is real, which indicates that sometimes pigs fly. I.e., 
something we expect is impossible turns out to be possible. But my 
acceptance of cold fusion is based on evidence, not on wishful 
thinking, and not on mere assertion, nor on interpretation of 
isolated, selected evidence.


So I gave Jojo Jaro the benefit of the doubt, and looked up his 
claims. Quite simply, they were highly misleading. Jojo stil repeats 
the demand that Obama "show the archival certificate." He doesn't 
mention that Obama actually has done this. Hawaii does not issue the 
archival certificate routinely. What it issues is a birth 
certificate, created by computer, from files where the legal 
information is recorded. The signatures of the attending physician, 
and other legally inconsequential information, are not on it. Obama 
had previously requested a certificate from Hawaii, and had shown it, 
and that routine certificate is adequate for all legal purposes. It's 
the certification of the State of Hawaii that the birth took place as 
described, as shown by the archi

[Vo]:Best MFMP EU Data for New Model

I have developed an interesting model of the Celani replication cell being 
researched by the MFMP group.  It performs remarkably well in recent tests that 
I have conducted using USA data from the live data viewer and I was hoping that 
someone would help identify the best EU data for another thorough analysis.  
For some reason I have not located any recent measurements that I can be 
confident are supported by a trusted calibration run.


As I have mentioned before the model requires accurate coefficients that define 
the function of steady state power input versus outside glass temperature over 
a wide range of inputs.  The parameters need to be calculated at the same 
pressure as the desired data to be analyzed.  I also need to find at least one 
good associated input power increase transient of greater than 30 watts if 
possible to use to determine the time domain portion of my model.


With the requested information in hand I am confident that my model will reveal 
whether or not there is excess power being generated and at what temperature it 
begins to appear.  The model accurately generates a curve which follows the 
calibrated time domain response of the cell which can then be subtracted away 
from the actual measurements to yield a flat low noise line in the absence of 
excess power either being absorbed or generated.  When a test experiment is 
conducted where the input power begins at one level and proceeds to a second 
higher level we effectively obtain a sweep response.


If desired, I believe I could generate a linearization calculation on the 
difference data that would display the instantaneous power output versus power 
input.  For this case I would transform the normal X time axis into the 
equivalent Power Input axis.  In this type display, the equivalent power input 
would be shown as linear along the X axis.  The Power Output would follow the 
zero line closely unless excess power is involved.  I suspect that this view 
would make it easier to locate the power input levels associated with unusual 
power output behavior.



Please post the EU data location and the associated calibration run for my 
extraction.  The time and date of your selection from the live data feed of the 
MFMP would be the best choice.  Thanks.


Dave

[Vo]:Kapagen

2012-12-25 Thread a.ashfield

The electronics are beyond my range of expertise but possibly someone 
here can tell if this makes any sense.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&ved=0CEQQFjADOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F7679%2Fselfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze%2Fdlattach%2Fattach%2F111526%2F&ei=BE7aUJmDCvKN0QGVtoGgDg&usg=AFQjCNE6ar3Dv7Z3cKJar9XH6vwPq6oIMA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&cad=rja

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question


At 04:36 AM 12/25/2012, orgasm wikipedia wrote:

Jojo,

Lomax knows when he is humiliated by his Muslim beliefs. He will not 
answer Student question 2.


Merry Christmas.

Wikipedia


Rather poor prediction. I answered the question in another post, 
before I saw this. This was it:



Thanks for answer. Next, is amputation prevalent in Sharia Law nations? Ref:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12


The web page cited actually does not bear on the question. But I also 
did not exactly answer the question, rather I looked at *all nations* 
that have laws that allow amputation as a punishment for theft. It's 
very few. But the question actually asked something else.


There are sometimes attempts to pass legislation that "implements 
Shari'a law." That's a totally naive -- or cynical -- political ploy, 
and completely inappropriate by Muslim tradition. The Sunni 
tradition, in particular, is that the sovereign has the power to 
determine what aspects of Shari'a are to be active, what are no 
longer appropriate, etc. Punishments are *not* obligatory, they are 
*allowed* by Shari'a, and subject to the discretion of the sovereign, 
in general, and judges appointed by the sovereign, in particular. For 
a sovereign (which means the organized governing source of a nation, 
whether it be an individual or some process) to *legislate* 
"Shari'a", naively, would be an abdication of responsibility.


Rather, a "shari'a nation" would use shari'a principles, applied to 
modern conditions, which requires careful consideration, to develop 
legislation, the same as is done in every modern nation, simply 
making sure that shari'a is considered. (And lots of politicians in 
the U.S. will source U.S. law in the Mosaic code, a similar idea. But 
you won't see the 10 Commandments as legislation, or the requirements 
of the Torah, naively interpreted. The Torah was also tribal law.)


Now, I'm generally, if I have to choose, a Maliki. That's a largely 
North African school, one of the original schools. It very clearly 
places the consensus of the community in a high place as to the 
sources of law, more so than the other schools, as far as I know. 
This is *entirely* consistent with democratic practice, though it can 
also be applied more widely.


The general consensus among Muslims, as to the Hudud, the obligatory 
punishments, is that they are not to be applied under modern conditions.


Those are tribal law, to be applied under tribal conditions, where 
the possibilities and mechanisms of organized society are not present.


This would be quite the same as with the matter of slavery, for example.

Again, I'm not a fan of the Saudis, but they were one of the last 
sovereign governments on the planet (the actual last?) to outlaw 
slavery. It was not that long ago. What did they do? It was 
impressive, and contrast that with what happened in the U.S., which 
outlawed slavery as, effectively, an act of war against part of our 
own nation, and with massive economic damage and disruption, and 
still, little or no improvement in the common lot of African slaves, 
who simply traded chattel slavery for economic slavery, and it took a 
century to move far beyond that.


In the Kingdom, when they banned slavery, the Kingdom *bought all the 
slaves,* at market price, and freed them. In doing this, they 
respected prior property rights. And what they did actually was 
sunna, for that is what the Prophet did with slaves. He bought them 
and freed them. He did not change property rights. People who have 
fixed ideas of "right" and "wrong" think that the "bad" slave-owners 
should be *punished* by being deprived of their property, *lawfully 
acquired.* But, wait, other prophets had slaves. Hagar married her 
slave-girl to Abraham. There are plenty of references to slaves in 
the Bible (and that did not escape apologists for chattel slavery in 
the U.S. South.)


Slavery is allowed in the Shari'a, but only under certain conditions 
(and with certain responsibilities). But nobody sees "Shari'a law" as 
re-establishing the institution of slavery. Or, rather, nobody sane.


The Kingdom decided, apparently, that slavery was now contrary to 
"public policy." It's a bit remarkable, because they are Hanbali, 
which doesn't so much recognize, as I've understood the matter, 'urf 
(public policy) as a source of law. But maybe I'm wrong about that. 
Whatever, the Saudis did well on this one.

RE: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 01:44 AM 12/25/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Dave:
Couldnt agree more, that there will never be 
agreement and thats ok, but take the debate elsewhere, guys

-Mark


This forum is being abused to host material that 
is (1) not relevant and (2) highly offensive. 
This isn't just the anti-Islamic stuff, it's 
whatever topic the troll brings. The birther 
stuff had no place here at all. The global 
warming stuff, some justification, but again 
taking discussion completely out of the realm of 
our collective interest, and blaming regular list 
paticipants for making relatively 
non-controversial comments, and the anti-Islamic 
comments had zero justification, they were pure 
trolling and deliberate offense.


All this goes into the archive, which is internet 
searchable, and these posts come up in searches, 
even prominently. So I've answered here, because 
there is no other place more appropriate to 
answer. If this forum were being abused to 
promote Islam, for example, then there would be 
at least some level of excuse for Jojo Jaro's 
claims. But it hasn't been. Those anti-Muslim 
claims were *entirely* gratuitous, and highly 
offensive to about a billion people. Who increasingly are internet-savvy.


If this list permits those posts, and if they are 
left in the archive without answer, they will 
impugn the list. The whole list will be judged by the lack of response.


Jojo many times has promised to stop if others 
stopped. He lied. He's brought these materials 
back in the total absence of response to his 
earlier posts. He was allowed to have the last 
word, and that was not enough, because he's 
really looking for something other than what he says.


And that's obvious, to anyone who has actually 
followed his posting here. Just looking at the 
latest thread, say, you can easily come up with 
"a pox on both your houses." I get that.


However, until the list owner makes some 
decision, or delegates it to someone or some 
process, it might continue. Hence my 
recommendation: ignore whatever does not interest 
you. I will continue to make sure that any posts 
that are clearly off-topic have [OT] in the 
subject header. I will continue to have subject 
headers indicate that the debate or discussion is 
the kind of material that some object to.


But I don't intend to stop unless the drumbeat 
from the troll stops. I've done this before, by 
the way, on Wikimedia Foundation web sites. I've 
been effective. Some people didn't like it, but 
it did get the attention of those with superuser 
powers, and they handled the situation, whereas 
other administrators had been asleep. I was, in 
fact, enforcing policy, with the tools available to me.


And I did not care about personal consequences. 
I'm not that important. Should I be banned here 
-- I don't think that's likely, but it's also not 
impossible -- there are plenty of people who 
would forward a post from me to this list, if I 
ever need to post here in the future. To an 
extent, this list is a distraction from my work 
elsewhere, particularly the CMNS list, and my actual research.


I could write more about being banned, because I 
was ultimately banned on Wikipedia, but actually 
I'd rather not. It's not something I'd encourage 
everyone to do. Yet I accomplished exactly what I 
set out to do, and discovered exactly what I needed to know. Story of my life.




From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 9:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Guys, I would very much prefer it if this thread 
were to be terminated.  It is apparent that 
there will never be agreement between the 
parties involved in the dispute and highly 
unlikely that one or the other will modify his 
beliefs.  Why not just shake hands 
(electronically of course) and change the 
subject to LENR or something else more interesting.


I suspect that I am not the only one with this opinion.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

It's obvious that the goal here is not agreement. It's also obvious 
that there will be no handshake (though I'd not refuse to agree, no 
matter what I say now; the Qur'an actually says, "Do not let your 
oaths keep you from doing what's right.")


Okay, the Qur'an does not actually say that. I lied. The Qur'an says 
something in Arabic. That's merely a translation, my own. I made it 
up. But anyone who knows the Qur'an will recognize it.


At 12:45 AM 12/25/2012, David Roberson wrote:
Guys, I would very much prefer it if this thread were to be 
terminated.  It is apparent that there will never be agreement 
between the parties involved in the dispute and highly unlikely that 
one or the other will modify his beliefs.  Why not just shake hands 
(electronically of course) and change the subject to LENR or 
something else more interesting.


I suspect that I am not the only one with this opinion.


I'm sure. Thanks for sharing.

I've acted to make sure that these seriously off-topic threads have 
the [OT] tag. Others keep expanding this, with new threads, but I'm 
continuing to make sure that the [OT] designation is maintained. I 
would also respect *whatever* the list owner requests. That's a 
promise. If somehow that made my participation here untenable (I 
doubt that), I simply would go away.


Perhaps people here are familiar with the cartoon of the fellow who 
is being called to dinner by his wife. "I can't come now, Someone is 
Wrong on the Internet." I get it. Been there, done that. I have the 
T-shirt. That way lies madness.


I'm close enough to madness, routinely, as it is.

RE: [Vo]:there is something funny go one out there


At 08:30 PM 12/24/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
I was formally taught that energy & matter are interchangeable. I 
was also taught that neither of these states of existence can be 
created out of thin air or destroyed. Since our bodies are made of 
the exact same "stuff" that makes up the Universe I began to ask 
myself why isn't my sense of awareness, my state of consciousness 
just as much an immutable part of the Universe as matter and energy 
seems to be. Granted, considering such a possibility might lead one 
to speculate that there must be a "God", but I don't think that's 
necessarily the case, certainly not in the institutional sense as 
practiced by most organized religions. What I'm trying to suggest is 
that not only does the Universe exist in the form of matter and 
energy, perhaps it also exists as a state of Awareness. Perhaps 
Awareness can be transmuted, such as when we die, but not destroyed. 
Perhaps a state of Awareness can only be transformed into a 
different "state of Awareness"


There are two approaches to this. The first would be to inquire as to 
what "awareness" is. We assume that we are aware. How do we know 
this? We can program a machine to spit out the words "I am aware" 
when certain conditions arise.


Yet it does *seem* that there is something other than those words. 
Descartes wrote "I think, therefore I am," but what is this "I"? A 
more sober statement would be "Thinking, therefore existence."


My own training is that the "I" is illusory, it's how the brain 
refers to its own activity, but that activity is automatic, patterns 
of neurons firing. There isn't any self there, just a sense of 
identity that is only a pattern of patterns. That actually can't be 
specifically identified or found.


Yet that same training does point to something else. We can 
experience something else, yet that "something else" is still 
experienced, we might think, through the brain. Or is it? And there 
is no answer to this question, not really. From my experience, there 
is a different quality to this "something else," it is not personal, 
it is not individual, even though it's a well-spring of inspiration 
and self-expression.


Again, the training: all these questions are invented, made up, by 
the brain, as part of our survival mechanism. Yet there is something 
other than the world of survival, and, in fact, it can be plainly 
experienced. It's "palpable." In this work, it's called the Self. 
Experience of the Self seems to be universally possible, indeed it 
appears to be *instinctive.* The Self has obviously been around for a 
long time, for once one recognizes the Self, there is plenty of 
reference to it, back to the oldest writings we have.


The story of Ahmadinejad, here, in the Jojo dialogues, was a 
demonstration of the Self, my suspicion. Ahmadinejad probably didn't 
realize this, his comments don't show an awareness of the human Self, 
he ascribes his experience to the divine. Maybe. But what he 
describes is simply what I might call the Presence. He seems to have 
taken it personally. Or not. I'm not his Judge.


Experience of the Self makes those ancient references intelligible. 
From some level of contact with this, I was, in my twenties, able to 
translate the Heart Sutra from the Sanskrit, and I sent my 
translation to Edward Conze, probably the world's foremost Buddhist 
scholar of his time. I later found out that Conze had a reputation of 
biting the head off of students. He didn't bite mine off. Maybe I'd 
have been better off if he had! No, he acknowledged my translation, 
sent it on to the Buddhist Society of London for use -- it was 
designed to be chanted -- and he acknowledged that part of his own 
translation, which I'd questioned him about, was not based on the 
Sanskrit text, but on Chinese interpretation. I was actually 
translating from experience with the subject, which is why I noticed 
the discrepancy.


The brain wants, out of its long-established (and necessary) habits, 
to "own" this "other." So we "explain it," perhaps. But the 
explanations are not the Self. The explanations are just another part 
of "IT," which is what we call the brain activity. A newcomer to this 
work said it well, "Other than IT, there is nothing." Yup. But, ah, 
that nothing! And he knew that, after one weekend. He hadn't been 
told. It's a standing joke.


In that three-day seminar, it's commonly asked, the last day, "And 
what did you get for your $500?" And the room shouts, unprompted, 
"Nothing!" And they are overjoyed. No wonder they call this a cult!


People have *no right* to be so happy over getting "nothing" for 
their money. Right?


The leader will also explain that "Nothing we have told you is the 
truth." Basically, "we made it up." Again, obvious cult, eh? Nothing 
is the truth? What a scam! So they feed people a load of crap, and 
the people walk away smiling!


Except it isn't *exactly* a load of crap. What is conveyed are called 
"distinct

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question


At 04:36 PM 12/25/2012, mole4l...@gmail.com wrote:

Lomax,

Thanks for answer. Next, is amputation prevalent in Sharia Law nations? Ref:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12

Student


Noting the trolling name, and here in OT land, and noting that I'm 
not an expert on All Things Islamic, and that the question asks me 
about present legal realities, when my interest has generally been in 
Islam as a system of practice, and what are called Hudud, the 
"punishments" are not a practical question unless one has sovereign 
power, obviously the question of "cut off the hand of the thief" has 
come up before for me, it almost always does when there are 
"students" like our mole4lenr.


First of all, the page in question is not about the prevalence of 
amputation. It's about Shari'a. Some countries naively implement 
Shari'a law as if it were legislation, which is a misunderstanding, 
though sometimes politically popular. Shari'a is a *path* (or "road," 
that's what the word means) to judgment.


The page in question first cites the verse on qisaas, which is a bit 
frustrating, because they don't complete the verse. Qisaas, they 
translate as "retaliation," is a balancing, and the verse describes 
compensation, and forbids going beyond limits. Compensation -- or 
qisaas itself -- is described as a "mercy," and the verse forbids 
"going beyond limits." I.e., qisaas is a *limit*, not a command.


This is, again, a Shafi'i page, apparently associated with Nuh Keller.

The page then describes the *conditions* for the prescribed 
punishment for theft. It weirdly mentions the amputation of the 
"arm," which is an interpretation I've never seen.


It does *not* describe very important conditions that would be 
essential in a real situation. Basically, we have, here, someone 
issuing what could be seen as a legal opinion that is not like a 
legal opinion, it's in the abstract, and it doesn't deal with all the 
necessary conditions. Really, how I read this is an attempt to 
establish that cutting off of the hand of the thief is "reasonable." 
And Muslim apologists do that.


Including me. That was *not* the question, but I'll do it, briefly. 
To my knowledge, one of the few significant places where literal 
amputation is practiced is Saudi Arabia. I have little admiration for 
the Saudis, and there are some stories of astonishing cruelty around 
this very issue (where a judge ordered amputation under conditions 
that fell far short of what the web page describes. Nothing had been 
stolen. But *maybe* the person had attempted to find out if there was 
something worth stealing. Not finding it, he reported the bag of 
stuff. And had his hand cut off.) But they do, very publicly, cut off 
the hands of thieves. And they have very little theft, apparently. 
I've never been there, but I've heard many stories, you can 
apparently leave valuables out in the open, unprotected, and they 
stay put. An American Muslim was walking by a table with maybe 
$40,000 in U.S. dollars on it, and plenty of other currency, and the 
man, who did not know him, asked him if he'd stay there while he went 
to pray, to tell people he'd be back soon, like maybe ten minutes. 
Apparently there was no fear that he'd walk off with the money.


I also have been a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison, and see how 
*we* treat thieves. I'm not 100% convinced, shall we say, that our 
way is better. In any case, prison was not an option under tribal 
law. What was the punishment for theft in England, not so long ago?


Death. Any felony carried the death penalty.

Prison was reserved for the elite, for high-social-value prisoners. 
Prison is *expensive.*


One more comment: the Qur'anic verse can be satisfied with preventing 
theft. That is one meaning of "cut off the hand." 
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm But 
this is not the majority view. (And there are plenty of Muslim sites 
where isolated opinion is presented as "the real Islam." Hey, aren't 
there Christians who do that too?


One more point: the Qur'an implies that the punishment is not to be 
applied if the person "turns" from crime. That is apparently 
implemented in Iranian consideration of this punishment. But I don't 
know, and the *actual practice* of what are often vicious repressive 
regimes can be very different from what is normative.


Now, to the question. I know of Saudi Arabia, and there are 
periodically moves to implement "Shari'a law" in places around the 
world, usually as part of some "popular Islam" movement -- which 
usually means pandering to the most ignorant elements of the society. 
It's quite like certain phenomena in the U.S., which can appeal to 
the *worst* of Christianity.


There are stories of thieves having their hands cut off by various 
groups that do *not* have sovereignty. That's assault, under any law. 
The Qur'anic verse does not grant rebels and bandits the authority to 
implement justice through punishment.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age--for the education of Jojo


Once again, Lomax diverts the issue and attempts to spin it away.

The issue is not A'isha actual age, it is irrelevant what her actual age 
was.  She could have been 5 years older and what muhammed did would still be 
an abhorrent sex perverted act.


The issue is not A'isha mentrual cycle, it is irrelevant that she has had a 
menstrual cycle.  A girl of 9 is clearly an immature child not prepared for 
the rigors of being subjected to sex, being a wife and starting a family.


The issue is not whether muhammed's tribe considered this as wrong or not. 
People can clearly see that it is wrong.


The issue is not that pre-islam tribes do it.  The issue is that islam does 
it.  The great prophet should have corrected this practice.  He should have 
disavowed this retrograde practice, not assimilate it and embrace it with 
gusto.


Just compare the behavior of the real true God Jesus Christ compared with a 
sex perverted HOLEY prophet like muhammed.  When Jesus came on the scene, 
the practice of multiple wives to one man was still prevalent and Jews 
practiced it contrary to the original intent of God.  But it was a 
retrograde and abhorrent practice and what did Jesus do?  He put a stop to 
it.  Hence, Christians now do not have multiple wives, even when their 
"predecessors" the Jews had.  This is what the real God Jesus Christ or real 
progressive prophets do.  They correct abhorrent practices.  No, but not 
muhammed, he enjoyed it too much.  Having dozens of wives and concubines and 
a 9 year old little girl BARELY OUT OF DIAPERS.


My friends, God created Adam and one wife - Eve.  Not Adam and Eve, Ethel, 
Ally, Mary, Courtney, Elizabeth, Martha etc.  and certainly not Adam and 
Steve and most certainly not Adam and little A'isha.


Progressive religions correct retrograde acts; and islam is certainly not a 
progressive religion.  In fact, it is the retrograde religion itself.



Jojo






- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age--for 
the education of Jojo




At 01:48 PM 12/24/2012, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:

A discussion of the issue of Ayesha and her age and condition at the time 
of marriage, and some related descriptions. Thanks.


I had not discussed this issue for probably almost a decade. I've been 
rummaging around and found three web sites that address the age of Ayesha 
at marriage.


http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/muhammad-married-young-girl.htm 
links to the other two sites for a discussion of the issue of Ayesha's 
age. For itself, it's concerned with what the Qur'an says about marriage. 
The points to take away:


There is mention of "marriageable age." It is not given in years, and the 
context makes it clear why: different people mature at different times. It 
appears, as we would sanely expect, that sexual maturity -- 
which might be the meaning of "marriageable age" in some contexts"-- 
might also not be the only criterion, i.e., "sound judgment" is also 
mentioned.


"Marriageable age" is also the "age of consent." The traditional material 
I cited yesterday made it clear that if a marriage is contracted before 
"marriageable age," it is not final until the parties, having reached the 
"age of consent," have confirmed it personally. "Consent" before that is 
considered moot, except that traditions mentioned considered it offensive 
to even contract a marriage, as for a very young girl, *absent her 
request,* and, of course, this could only be done with parental 
permission.


The web site above also points to two pages, each taking a very different 
position.


The first page is 
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm


It takes the position that, yes, marriage at nine would be offensive, but 
it didn't happen. It addresses and purports to debunk the traditions that 
establish the age of consummation of Ayesha's marriage as nine. It makes 
many points that might seem to be solid. However, it's sociologically 
naive, assuming that marriage at sexual maturity -- which can happen 
before nine -- would be "offensive" to anyone. One thing is clear about 
the widespread story that Ayesha was nine: this only arouses rage or 
disgust among people from different cultures, often unaware of the history 
of their own culture, certainly what the culture of their ancestors might 
have been fourteen hundred years ago.


In the other direction is 
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1


I may know the author of this page fairly well; the position is highly 
conservative. The author uses polemic, and dismisses the concerns of the 
questioner -- which match those of the first page above -- as ignorant. On 
the other hand, it's also fairly clear that the depth of knowedge of the 
writer of this page is greater. Unfortunately, the page quotes material 
(from the first site above?) without dist

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Interesting how Lomax believes that off-topic posts are not harmful. 
Essentially the same position as one of the other chronic off-topic posters 
have said.  This of course is wrong and selfish.


Of course, off-topic posts are harmful.  It started way before I joined here 
and I am not the first or the only member to complain about it.  Though I am 
the most vocal about it.  Other members simply choose to leave instead of 
highlighting the problem, leaving Vortex-l a lot less "intelligent" because 
the membership left are simply not as smart as those who left due to 
excessive noise.I am currently in communication with several members 
(very old members) of this list who expressed agreement with what I am 
saying though they may not agree with what I am doing to solve the problem. 
They simply choose to not participate anymore, which is such a lost to this 
community.  Lomax and other chronic posters here simply do not think of the 
greater good; it's all about them and gabbing with friends instead of 
fostering a greater community trying to solve the Cold Fusion problem.


Lomax claims that my attempts to stop off-topic posts are "coercive".  I'm 
not sure which twilight zone Lomax live in, but of course they are coercive. 
People must be coerced to follow the rules.  We have laws in this country 
where people must be coerced to follow.  This forum has rules that people 
must follow.  It's that simple.


Lomax claims that I am the troll here.  But have you ever found a troll 
willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good.  I am willing to 
sacrifice my participation here, which I find useful especially for my 
Carbon Nanotube research, for the greater good of more signal and less noise 
in this forum.  If you ask me, Lomax and the other chronic off-topic posters 
are the real trolls cause they insist on doing it their way or ban those who 
disagree or don't like their off-topic trolling like me.  Their solution is 
a "gang" solution.  Do it our way or we will insult you or better still,  we 
will ban you.  It's fortunate that Bill appears to be more reasonable and 
more objective than these gang of bullies.



If Bill changes the rules, I will follow.  But in the meantime, people 
should follow his rules and not "make it up as we go" - as famously said by 
one chronic off-topic poster here.



Jojo




- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age



At 04:03 AM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am doing this is highlight a problem.  If you call for the termination 
of this thread, you need to call for the termination of all off-topic 
threads.  I believe that is only fair.


There is no general "off-topic" problem. Judging posts as "off-topic" is, 
itself, hazardous, and is impractical. Most mature mailing lists create a 
community, that chats a bit, including off topic chatting.


That's not the problem here. The problem is trolling for outrage. There 
has been some level of teasing of Jojo Jaro, but trolls *always* attract 
some level of that.


As I've reported in posts covering the history of these conversations, and 
to respond to David, Jojo originally attracted my respose to his 
"information" about the location of Obama's birth. I have a habit of 
taking fringe positions seriously, of giving them some benefit of the 
doubt, so I actually researched this, and reported what I found which was 
essentially that what Jojo was telling us was very old hat, claims that 
had been made, and thoroughly debunked, with Obama having provided --  
without any legal necessity -- what was called the "archival" certificate. 
He had to go through a special process to get that, the Hawaii department 
of public records does not ordinarily provide it.


Jojo then began attacking me, on many fronts. At one point, he loudly 
"resigned" from the list, as a "last comment." I responded, and left it at 
that. (If you want to make a "last comment," that doesn't prohibit the 
other person from responding! Making a "last comment" as a way to shut 
people up is obviousy abusive."


Jojo came back and continued. So then I said that I was going to stop 
responding, and I did, for quite a long period of time. When he kept it 
up, kept mentioning the Moon God thing, kept referring to me as a 
"self-declared expert" and whatever he could think of as something that 
might be irritating, and when he turned to others and similarly attacked 
them, I started to comment again, simply to document the history.


He's promising to stop responding if others respond. That did not work, 
because he doesn't stop. He makes very few posts here which are on-topic. 
The people he tangles with are regular posters, who occasionally comment 
off-topic. He obviously watches the list for anything he disagrees with, 
and dives in with extreme commentary, most of the time.


It was pointed out by others: he's trying

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Dave, I honestly respect the amount of thought and consideration you have given 
to your response.  But, let me clarify a few more things with you.

First, I did try what you are saying.  I did try to start an off-topic posts 
regarding a subject matter that seems to be of interest to a lot of people 
here.  After I started the "New Data  ." thread, a few of us were 
exchanging thoughts and I thoroughly found that enjoyable.  Although one 
individual started a single insult, I actually let that pass and did not 
retalitate.  After telling him to stop insulting me, he did stop and the 
discussion continued in a civilized manner with no one able to convince the 
other.  That was expected.  The point is, it was a civilized exchange of 
opinions.  Exactly what Vortex-L was meant to be, except that the topic was a 
little off-topic.

But then, Lomax started his new round of insults out of the blue.  What he 
posted has absolutely nothing about the "New Data " thread, but instead was 
a renewal of him calling me a troll and a liar and called for my banning.  That 
level of bullying has to be answered with the same level of nastiness.  Hence, 
I started calling his god a moon god, which of course is true, but is quite 
offensive to muslims; simply because they like to pretend that their god is the 
same as the universal God of Judaism and Christianity.  Of course, that insult 
involve identifying his great prophet as a sexual pervert with dozens of wives 
and a child molester molesting a 9 year old little girl barely out of diapers.  
All of which is true.  No lies, just truth intended to insult.  Most muslims 
find these truths embarassing, so I used these to retaliate.  Everyone can see 
that and it did have the intended effect on Lomax.  He was insulted.  Of course 
he was, it was intended to be more an insult than an openning of the discussion 
about religion.  Mind you, this was intended to be a response to his blatant 
insult out of the blue.  And the rest is what you see here in this thread.

Of course, this all stated a long time ago when he and a couple of other 
bullies here started their round of insults, when I started the Darwinian 
Evolution series of posts, to try to highlight the problem of Off-topic 
trolling here.  These bullies feel that my Darwinian Evolution fallacies 
threads were inappropriate.  Of course, they were inappropriate, they were 
off-topic intended to highlight a problem here.  I believe you are seasoned 
enough to see the truth as I believe you have been following this saga from the 
beginning.  Me and Terry even had a friendly bet as to the outcome of this ( 
which I lost, so I'll be buying Terry, and he said Jed, lunch at the Officer's 
club, when I get back there.)  But to me, this was all about trying to fix a 
problem.  But instead of being more sensitive to how they are destroying this 
forum, these chronic off-topic posters and gang of bullies started insulting 
and calling for my banning.  This of course I found to be an insult and started 
retaliating.

That my friend is the problem.  And my friend, I am not the problem..  Just 
that a gang of bullies have started coming out of the woodwork and team up to 
gang up of me.

I have said it before, have said it for close to a year now, and will say it 
again.  My off-topic posts will stop as soon as the blatant off-topic posts 
destroying this forum stops.  And while I'm at it, I will respond to insults, 
with insults equally insulting.  

I hope you are honest enough to acknowledge that what I am saying is true.  But 
as for Lomax, I did not really expect him to be honest.  What I am about to say 
is also true.  Muslims will lie, can lie according to their religion, if their 
lie will serve the good of muhammed or islam.  This my friend is the truth.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  Of course you have the right to be offended by the off topic threads that 
seem to show up often.  I tend to be more concentrated on the LENR subject than 
many, but it is refreshing to have my attention averted on occasions.  Do not 
consider my opinion as any more valid than that of yours or others when seeking 
off topic offense levels.  I find vortex-l a location where a number of 
intelligent and science minded individuals hang out that I can utilize as a 
sanity check for many unusual concepts. 


  The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very useful for 
several reasons.  It is apparent that you have a strong Christian faith and 
that others within this group favor the Muslim faith to an equally strong 
degree.  This in itself is a good thing and I say nothing against the religious 
beliefs of you or anyone else.  The world has enough conflict over religion 
already and it is of little practical use for us to continue that tra

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


At 04:03 AM 12/25/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am doing this is highlight a problem.  If you call for the 
termination of this thread, you need to call for the termination of 
all off-topic threads.  I believe that is only fair.


There is no general "off-topic" problem. Judging posts as "off-topic" 
is, itself, hazardous, and is impractical. Most mature mailing lists 
create a community, that chats a bit, including off topic chatting.


That's not the problem here. The problem is trolling for outrage. 
There has been some level of teasing of Jojo Jaro, but trolls 
*always* attract some level of that.


As I've reported in posts covering the history of these 
conversations, and to respond to David, Jojo originally attracted my 
respose to his "information" about the location of Obama's birth. I 
have a habit of taking fringe positions seriously, of giving them 
some benefit of the doubt, so I actually researched this, and 
reported what I found which was essentially that what Jojo was 
telling us was very old hat, claims that had been made, and 
thoroughly debunked, with Obama having provided -- without any legal 
necessity -- what was called the "archival" certificate. He had to go 
through a special process to get that, the Hawaii department of 
public records does not ordinarily provide it.


Jojo then began attacking me, on many fronts. At one point, he loudly 
"resigned" from the list, as a "last comment." I responded, and left 
it at that. (If you want to make a "last comment," that doesn't 
prohibit the other person from responding! Making a "last comment" as 
a way to shut people up is obviousy abusive."


Jojo came back and continued. So then I said that I was going to stop 
responding, and I did, for quite a long period of time. When he kept 
it up, kept mentioning the Moon God thing, kept referring to me as a 
"self-declared expert" and whatever he could think of as something 
that might be irritating, and when he turned to others and similarly 
attacked them, I started to comment again, simply to document the history.


He's promising to stop responding if others respond. That did not 
work, because he doesn't stop. He makes very few posts here which are 
on-topic. The people he tangles with are regular posters, who 
occasionally comment off-topic. He obviously watches the list for 
anything he disagrees with, and dives in with extreme commentary, 
most of the time.


It was pointed out by others: he's trying to "win" here, by forcing 
those he dislikes to "shut up."


There is little problem here with merely "off-topic" posts. Yes, this 
thread has gone on and on. I continue to participate in it for two 
reasons: I find the research interesting, and, in fact, sometimes I 
come across ideas and material that do relate to our list purpose. 
For example, how do we know what is true? How do people become 
attached to ideas and stuck on them? That's very relevant to fringe 
science, in both directions.


 For why should the Vortex-L membership only be subjected to 
off-topic threads you consider "interesting".  In other words, why 
are you the arbiter of what off-topic posts should be discuss or 
not?  They are all off-topic and should be banished from Vortex-L 
forever.  Isn't that what I've always asked for only to be 
insulted, ridiculed and ignored?  No offense intended, just asking 
your thinking process on this.


I consider this discussion with Lomax interesting.  So, on that 
aspect, this thread has as much right to be discussed in Vortex as 
any other off-topic thread you consider "interesting".  Or are you 
saying that because you are an longer time member of Vortex-L, that 
you opinion carries more weight than mine?  Isn't that what the 
chronic off-topic posters are essentially saying?


It's all or nothing my friend.  No off-topic threads or ALL 
off-topic threads allowed.  Am I not being fair?  Is what I'm saying unfair?


To me, "fair" is not the question, but, yes, Jojo, what you are 
saying is not fair, because it's radically imbalanced. You have 
*promised* to be disruptive here until off-topic posting stops. 
That's *coercive*. And it may well be met with a coercive response, I 
don't know, it's up to the list owner. I am *not* the list owner.


One recommendation I'd make to him though: appoint some additional 
moderators. I would never maintain a list like this, myself, without 
having co-moderators, people to watch the list in addition to me, who 
can make ad-hoc decisions. As list owner, I can overrule these, 
though my own penchant is to consult the community before taking any 
permanent administrative action (actually, the only decisions that 
are permanent are post deletion from archive, and I don't know that 
the owner here can do that.) I might put someone on moderation, as an 
alternative to banning, and at the same time, inform the list I'm 
doing that, and channel discussion to a place where it won't be 
disruptive. There are lots of options.


Generally, I maintain the

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

OK Mark,


Yes, the model does depend upon having accurate parameters obtained by 
calibration.  The model will need to be modified if the cell is changed, but 
that is to be expected since it attempts to match the performance of the cell.


I just began working on the EU cell and the results are pretty good so far.  My 
first attempt was to use the calibration run on 12/7/2012 to define the 
quadratic values.  They again were accurate to R^2=.9998 or so which is pretty 
good.  With these a, b, c terms I used my model to predict the time domain 
response.  The first run with with the power changing from .036 watts to 28.9 
watts during the calibration run matched with an error of .5 degrees or so.   I 
think the 0 power level gives the program a tough point to work with.  Next I 
went from 28.8 watts to 38.6 watts for the second step of their run.  Here the 
curve was beautiful as with the USA cell.  The noise level was less than .25 
volts with a sinusoidal addition again that dominated the noise.  The period of 
the sine wave was roughly 1000 seconds.  I would estimate that the sine wave 
was about equal to the average noise alone.


I am very encouraged by these results.  It will be most interesting when my 
simulation is applied to the systems with expected excess power.  It should 
stand out very well against the calibration data.


Dave 



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 4:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



Thanks Dave!
So one sigma is ~0.25 degsC, and that’s for several thousand points, so 
confidence level is high… 
No need for any other calcs at this time; just wanted to get an idea of the 
level of uncertainty.
 
Your model and the noise level are tied to the experimental setup and process; 
if any changes are made to the setup, your model may no longer apply… but I’m 
sure you know all that!  Hope the ones doing the tests understand all this…
 
-Mark
 
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 
Mark, I just let Excel run a standard deviation for all the points of the data 
series throughout the range of the experiment and obtained .24916 degrees C.  
This includes a time frame that begins at 0 seconds and continues to 9541 
seconds.  Each point is typically 2 to 3 seconds away from it's neighbors.  The 
total number is 5508 data points for the standard deviation calculation. 

 

Do you wish for me to perform additional tests upon the output?

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data 
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is more 
or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associated with the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that continues 
throughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden within the noise 
and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in period.   Maybe this 
corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.

 

I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my list.  
The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I will report 
the results of the test when completed.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


Dave:

Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std 
deviation?

-Mark

 


From: David Rober

RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-25 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Thanks Dave!

So one sigma is ~0.25 degsC, and that's for several thousand points, so
confidence level is high. 

No need for any other calcs at this time; just wanted to get an idea of the
level of uncertainty.

 

Your model and the noise level are tied to the experimental setup and
process; if any changes are made to the setup, your model may no longer
apply. but I'm sure you know all that!  Hope the ones doing the tests
understand all this.

 

-Mark

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

Mark, I just let Excel run a standard deviation for all the points of the
data series throughout the range of the experiment and obtained .24916
degrees C.  This includes a time frame that begins at 0 seconds and
continues to 9541 seconds.  Each point is typically 2 to 3 seconds away from
it's neighbors.  The total number is 5508 data points for the standard
deviation calculation. 

 

Do you wish for me to perform additional tests upon the output?

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is
more or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power
input to temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed
beginning at 48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of
any curvature associated with the error between my simulation and the real
data.  There is a small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the
noise that continues throughout the entire time frame which in this case is
9541 seconds long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I
should make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is
pretty impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain
transition signal is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include
an additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect
match.  It is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve
to fit so perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download
from the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve
fitting and analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels
shown above.  I just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden
within the noise and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in
period.   Maybe this corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.

 

I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my
list.  The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I
will report the results of the test when completed.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Dave:

Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std
deviation?

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com 
] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that
there is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant
exponential waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best
curve fit to the exact solution of the differential equation I have been
forced to modify the constant of integration slightly away from the ideal
value as determined by steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but
now I realize that it is required to compensate for the displacement of the
rising edge due to the above delay. 

 

It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the
best overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual
temperature of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.
The addition of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!

 

So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This
delay is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution
time domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision
the effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition
of heat  applied to the cell is registered at that test poin

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

I just began working with the EU data.  The best calibration I see so far is 
from 12/7/2012.  Do you know of a better time period to use?


I will give the model to the MFMP when I have played with it a bit longer.


It will be interesting to see how the 8 watt test results behave, and that will 
be soon I hope.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Kodeck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 3:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



I’m very curious tosee your model with data of EU cell when 8W apparent excess 
was shown. Youshould give your model to the FMFP.
 
Concerning the a, b and ccoefficients, the borosilicate glass will have in this 
regard a better behaviour.The radiation loss at the 4th power of temperature 
will play lessimportance than with the quartz tube.
 
Arnaud



From:David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre 2012 20:45
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Modelof Celani Device

 
Thanks for the compliment.  I useddata from the US cell since I wanted to 
improve the model with information thatwas likely to be quiet.  Now that I have 
this tool working well, it istime to use it to our advantage.  The beauty of 
this analysis is that itoperates throughout the entire transition period as the 
temperature isincreasing within the cell.  It will work very well to 
demonstrate whetheror not there are any special temperatures of interest that 
may arise as thetemperature is effectively swept. 

 

I have not applied it to the EU case yetsince I am not sure that a good 
calibration has been obtained thus far withoutany excess heating and due to the 
fact that I just perfected the model.  Iguess I am getting a bit slow these 
days.

 

The data I used is shown in the lastposting for reference.  Now may be the time 
to begin to analyze the EUdata and that will be my next endeavor.

 

The model requires accurately calibratedvalues for the a, b, and c coefficients 
of the second order fit for power inputversus temperature of the cell.  This 
has been a near perfect second orderfunction for all of the data thus far and I 
have my fingers crossed that itwill continue to be true.  If the cells are 
modified in some manner thatchanges this behavior drastically then a more 
difficult differential equationmight result.  I also need to have at least one 
curve generated by achange in input power drive such as from 10 watts steady 
state to 48 wattssteady state.  This transition information is used to 
calculate theeffective thermal capacity of the cell.  With accurate 
measurements ofthese parameters I can plot the temperature versus time behavior 
to a highdegree of accuracy.

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: Arnaud Kodeck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


Dave,

 

You have made a veryinteresting analysis. What your model say when a +8W 
apparent excess heat wasreported with EU cell? Can your model able to calculate 
the apparent excesspower anytime? Not when equilibrium has been reached.

 

For the data, did youtake the UScell or EU cell? UScell is currently less 
interesting has the celani’s wire seems to befried.

 

Merry Christmas,

Arnaud




From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre 2012 20:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Modelof Celani Device


 

Mark, I can give you a hint as to howwell the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curveof the difference between the actual data and 
my model prediction.  Thedifference looks like random noise that is more or 
less evenly distributedabout 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature outputtransition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts andending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associatedwith the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small,almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that 
continuesthroughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds 
long. 


 


The total noise peaks tend to be in thevicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in linewith .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send itfor you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise whenthe large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.


 


My mention of the possible excess poweris based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for mymodel to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extrapower is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.


 


The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  Iused the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted thetransition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a lookat the small noisy sinusoidal signa

RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-25 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Im very curious to see your model with data of EU cell when 8W apparent
excess was shown. You should give your model to the FMFP.

 

Concerning the a, b and c coefficients, the borosilicate glass will have in
this regard a better behaviour. The radiation loss at the 4th power of
temperature will play less importance than with the quartz tube.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre 2012 20:45
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

Thanks for the compliment.  I used data from the US cell since I wanted to
improve the model with information that was likely to be quiet.  Now that I
have this tool working well, it is time to use it to our advantage.  The
beauty of this analysis is that it operates throughout the entire transition
period as the temperature is increasing within the cell.  It will work very
well to demonstrate whether or not there are any special temperatures of
interest that may arise as the temperature is effectively swept. 

 

I have not applied it to the EU case yet since I am not sure that a good
calibration has been obtained thus far without any excess heating and due to
the fact that I just perfected the model.  I guess I am getting a bit slow
these days.

 

The data I used is shown in the last posting for reference.  Now may be the
time to begin to analyze the EU data and that will be my next endeavor.

 

The model requires accurately calibrated values for the a, b, and c
coefficients of the second order fit for power input versus temperature of
the cell.  This has been a near perfect second order function for all of the
data thus far and I have my fingers crossed that it will continue to be
true.  If the cells are modified in some manner that changes this behavior
drastically then a more difficult differential equation might result.  I
also need to have at least one curve generated by a change in input power
drive such as from 10 watts steady state to 48 watts steady state.  This
transition information is used to calculate the effective thermal capacity
of the cell.  With accurate measurements of these parameters I can plot the
temperature versus time behavior to a high degree of accuracy.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Kodeck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Dave,

 

You have made a very interesting analysis. What your model say when a +8W
apparent excess heat was reported with EU cell? Can your model able to
calculate the apparent excess power anytime? Not when equilibrium has been
reached.

 

For the data, did you take the US cell or EU cell? US cell is currently less
interesting has the celanis wire seems to be fried.

 

Merry Christmas,

Arnaud

  _  

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com 
] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre 2012 20:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is
more or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power
input to temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed
beginning at 48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of
any curvature associated with the error between my simulation and the real
data.  There is a small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the
noise that continues throughout the entire time frame which in this case is
9541 seconds long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I
should make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is
pretty impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain
transition signal is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include
an additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect
match.  It is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve
to fit so perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download
from the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve
fitting and analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels
shown above.  I just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden
within the noise and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in
period.   Maybe this corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.

 

I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my
list.  The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I
will report the results of the test when completed.

 

Dave

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoin

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Thanks for the compliment.  I used data from the US cell since I wanted to 
improve the model with information that was likely to be quiet.  Now that I 
have this tool working well, it is time to use it to our advantage.  The beauty 
of this analysis is that it operates throughout the entire transition period as 
the temperature is increasing within the cell.  It will work very well to 
demonstrate whether or not there are any special temperatures of interest that 
may arise as the temperature is effectively swept.


I have not applied it to the EU case yet since I am not sure that a good 
calibration has been obtained thus far without any excess heating and due to 
the fact that I just perfected the model.  I guess I am getting a bit slow 
these days.


The data I used is shown in the last posting for reference.  Now may be the 
time to begin to analyze the EU data and that will be my next endeavor.


The model requires accurately calibrated values for the a, b, and c 
coefficients of the second order fit for power input versus temperature of the 
cell.  This has been a near perfect second order function for all of the data 
thus far and I have my fingers crossed that it will continue to be true.  If 
the cells are modified in some manner that changes this behavior drastically 
then a more difficult differential equation might result.  I also need to have 
at least one curve generated by a change in input power drive such as from 10 
watts steady state to 48 watts steady state.  This transition information is 
used to calculate the effective thermal capacity of the cell.  With accurate 
measurements of these parameters I can plot the temperature versus time 
behavior to a high degree of accuracy.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Kodeck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



Dave,
 
You have made a very interestinganalysis. What your model say when a +8W 
apparent excess heat was reported withEU cell? Can your model able to calculate 
the apparent excess power anytime? Notwhen equilibrium has been reached.
 
For the data, did youtake the UScell or EU cell? US cell is currently less 
interesting has the celani’s wireseems to be fried.
 
Merry Christmas,
Arnaud



From:David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre2012 20:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Modelof Celani Device

 
Mark, I can give you a hint as to howwell the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curveof the difference between the actual data and 
my model prediction.  Thedifference looks like random noise that is more or 
less evenly distributedabout 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature outputtransition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts andending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associatedwith the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small,almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that 
continuesthroughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds 
long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in thevicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in linewith .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send itfor you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise whenthe large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess poweris based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for mymodel to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extrapower is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  Iused the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted thetransition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a lookat the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden within the noise 
and it appears tobe in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in period.   Maybe this 
corresponds tothe cycle time for the heating system.

 

I guess I can attempt an RMS noisemeasurement which will be next on my list.  
The small sinusoidalinterference will color that result a bit.  I will report 
the results ofthe test when completed.

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


Dave:

Can you perform some stats on the modelvs reality and give us the std deviation?

-Mark

 


From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 20129:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Modelof Celani Device


 

During the night Santa brought me a gift! A thought occurred to me that there 
is a very good explanation for the 30to 40 second time constant exponential 
waveform that I have been seeking. In order to

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty concerning recent trolling activity

2012-12-25 Thread Jouni Valkonen

I agree, I have not read any post from anonymous Jojo for a while, but as I 
know, she has not contributed with much relevant information. As she is 
anonymous, I would recommend banning her, becuse she does not want to 
contribute with the high quality content. She does not even seem to know what 
here is off-topic and why it is off-topic. High quality content is always 
on-topic here.

As she is continuos problem that is degrading the list quality, I would 
strongly recommend banning her. There should not be much tolerance for 
anonymous users, who are flooding the list with irrelevant content.

Although Jojo is a girls name, I am not perfectly sure with her gender identity.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Mark, I just let Excel run a standard deviation for all the points of the data 
series throughout the range of the experiment and obtained .24916 degrees C.  
This includes a time frame that begins at 0 seconds and continues to 9541 
seconds.  Each point is typically 2 to 3 seconds away from it's neighbors.  The 
total number is 5508 data points for the standard deviation calculation.


Do you wish for me to perform additional tests upon the output?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data 
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is more 
or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associated with the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that continues 
throughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds long.


The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.


My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.


The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden within the noise 
and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in period.   Maybe this 
corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.


I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my list.  
The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I will report 
the results of the test when completed.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



Dave:
Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std 
deviation?
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 
During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that there 
is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant exponential 
waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best curve fit to the 
exact solution of the differential equation I have been forced to modify the 
constant of integration slightly away from the ideal value as determined by 
steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but now I realize that it is 
required to compensate for the displacement of the rising edge due to the above 
delay. 

 

It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best 
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the best 
overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual temperature 
of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.  The addition 
of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!

 

So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which 
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This delay 
is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution time 
domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision the 
effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition of heat 
 applied to the cell is registered at that test point.  An exponential 
smoothing (filtering) factor is applied.

 

My suspicion is that the extra pulse of heat must be distributed within the gas 
and then result in a temperature reading at the outer glass monitor after 
heating the envelop.  The heating of the other structure elements may also be 
involved in the overall action.

 

A careful review of the waveform hints that the test might be demonstrating an 
excess power of about 1 watt during the experiment that supplied the data.  
This is a small amount of excess power and only additional, careful analysis 
would enable me to be sure.  At least it is in the right direction!  M

RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-25 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Dave,

 

You have made a very interesting analysis. What your model say when a +8W
apparent excess heat was reported with EU cell? Can your model able to
calculate the apparent excess power anytime? Not when equilibrium has been
reached.

 

For the data, did you take the US cell or EU cell? US cell is currently less
interesting has the celanis wire seems to be fried.

 

Merry Christmas,

Arnaud

  _  

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: mardi 25 décembre 2012 20:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is
more or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power
input to temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed
beginning at 48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of
any curvature associated with the error between my simulation and the real
data.  There is a small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the
noise that continues throughout the entire time frame which in this case is
9541 seconds long. 

 

The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I
should make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is
pretty impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain
transition signal is balanced out.

 

My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include
an additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect
match.  It is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve
to fit so perfectly.

 

The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download
from the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve
fitting and analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels
shown above.  I just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden
within the noise and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in
period.   Maybe this corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.

 

I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my
list.  The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I
will report the results of the test when completed.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Dave:

Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std
deviation?

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com 
] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that
there is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant
exponential waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best
curve fit to the exact solution of the differential equation I have been
forced to modify the constant of integration slightly away from the ideal
value as determined by steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but
now I realize that it is required to compensate for the displacement of the
rising edge due to the above delay. 

 

It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the
best overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual
temperature of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.
The addition of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!

 

So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This
delay is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution
time domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision
the effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition
of heat  applied to the cell is registered at that test point.  An
exponential smoothing (filtering) factor is applied.

 

My suspicion is that the extra pulse of heat must be distributed within the
gas and then result in a temperature reading at the outer glass monitor
after heating the envelop.  The heating of the other structure elements may
also be involved in the overall action.

 

A careful review of the waveform hints that the test might be demonstrating
an excess power of about 1 watt during the experiment that supplied the
data.  This is a small amount of excess power and only additional, careful
analysis would enable me to be sure.  At least it is in the right direction!
My virtually perfect curve fit to the da

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

Mark, I can give you a hint as to how well the model matches the actual real 
life data.  I have plotted a curve of the difference between the actual data 
and my model prediction.  The difference looks like random noise that is more 
or less evenly distributed about 0 volts throughout the entire power input to 
temperature output transition.  This includes the case I analyzed beginning at 
48.2 watts and ending with 82.7 watts.  I see no evidence of any curvature 
associated with the error between my simulation and the real data.  There is a 
small, almost sinusoidal, signal hidden deeply within the noise that continues 
throughout the entire time frame which in this case is 9541 seconds long.


The total noise peaks tend to be in the vicinity of .5 degrees C while the 
average of the flat noise is more in line with .2 degrees C.  Perhaps I should 
make a plot of the output and send it for you to review.   It is pretty 
impressive to see consistent noise when the large time domain transition signal 
is balanced out.


My mention of the possible excess power is based upon my having to include an 
additional 1 watt of input power for my model to achieve the perfect match.  It 
is quite obvious that the extra power is required for the curve to fit so 
perfectly.


The data I used was from 11/30/2012 at 2200 hours according to my download from 
the MFMP replication site.  I used the history points for my curve fitting and 
analysis.  I fitted the transition between the two power levels shown above.  I 
just took a look at the small noisy sinusoidal signal hidden within the noise 
and it appears to be in the ballpark of 2000 seconds in period.   Maybe this 
corresponds to the cycle time for the heating system.


I guess I can attempt an RMS noise measurement which will be next on my list.  
The small sinusoidal interference will color that result a bit.  I will report 
the results of the test when completed.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device



Dave:
Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std 
deviation?
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 
During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that there 
is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant exponential 
waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best curve fit to the 
exact solution of the differential equation I have been forced to modify the 
constant of integration slightly away from the ideal value as determined by 
steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but now I realize that it is 
required to compensate for the displacement of the rising edge due to the above 
delay. 

 

It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best 
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the best 
overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual temperature 
of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.  The addition 
of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!

 

So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which 
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This delay 
is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution time 
domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision the 
effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition of heat 
 applied to the cell is registered at that test point.  An exponential 
smoothing (filtering) factor is applied.

 

My suspicion is that the extra pulse of heat must be distributed within the gas 
and then result in a temperature reading at the outer glass monitor after 
heating the envelop.  The heating of the other structure elements may also be 
involved in the overall action.

 

A careful review of the waveform hints that the test might be demonstrating an 
excess power of about 1 watt during the experiment that supplied the data.  
This is a small amount of excess power and only additional, careful analysis 
would enable me to be sure.  At least it is in the right direction!  My 
virtually perfect curve fit to the data tends to support this conclusion.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:13 am
Subject: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

The data has been flooding in from the MFMP and I have been seeking a time 
domain model of the system behavior when power to the Celani replication device 
is modified.   Most of my effort has been exerted by analyzing the rising edge 
of the time domain waveform when the drive power is stepped up by a significant 
amount.  The temperature follows a certai

[Vo]:Kapagen

2012-12-25 Thread Terry Blanton

Stefan Hartmann, administrator of the Overunity.com list, says this
will be one of the big hits of 2013:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kapanadze_Free_Energy_Generator

with the requisite Naudin replicant:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/

[Vo]:"Electronics Project" on promotion this week

2012-12-25 Thread fznidarsic

If you want to build a device to talk, dial, and hang up hands free while 
driving.  My book on to build such a device is on promotion free at the Amazon 
Kindle store this week.


http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Project-Znidarsic-Science-ebook/dp/B007OWFI3G/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356457228&sr=1-3&keywords=frank+znidarsic+science+books



If you don't have a Kindle you can download the software for it from Amazon 
free on your computer.  Merry Christmas and please drive safely over the 
holidays. 


Frank Znidarsic

RE: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

2012-12-25 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Dave,

 

First you post an opinion that this particular conversation thread, a
conversation which I would agree has been extensively researched, should be
taken elsewhere. 

 

But then, in your next post you begin to participate in the conversation!

 

Perhaps you have succumbed the dark side of The Force, my young Jedi Knight!

 

Season's Greetings!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

> From: David Roberson

 

> Of course you have the right to be offended by the off topic threads that
seem to show up often.

 

...

 

[snip]

RE: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

2012-12-25 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Dave:

Can you perform some stats on the model vs reality and give us the std
deviation?

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

 

During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that
there is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant
exponential waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best
curve fit to the exact solution of the differential equation I have been
forced to modify the constant of integration slightly away from the ideal
value as determined by steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but
now I realize that it is required to compensate for the displacement of the
rising edge due to the above delay. 

 

It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the
best overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual
temperature of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.
The addition of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!

 

So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This
delay is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution
time domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision
the effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition
of heat  applied to the cell is registered at that test point.  An
exponential smoothing (filtering) factor is applied.

 

My suspicion is that the extra pulse of heat must be distributed within the
gas and then result in a temperature reading at the outer glass monitor
after heating the envelop.  The heating of the other structure elements may
also be involved in the overall action.

 

A careful review of the waveform hints that the test might be demonstrating
an excess power of about 1 watt during the experiment that supplied the
data.  This is a small amount of excess power and only additional, careful
analysis would enable me to be sure.  At least it is in the right direction!
My virtually perfect curve fit to the data tends to support this conclusion.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:13 am
Subject: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

The data has been flooding in from the MFMP and I have been seeking a time
domain model of the system behavior when power to the Celani replication
device is modified.   Most of my effort has been exerted by analyzing the
rising edge of the time domain waveform when the drive power is stepped up
by a significant amount.  The temperature follows a certain path as it ramps
up to the value required to balance the input and output power of the cell. 

 

We have been fortunate in this particular case to find that the relationship
between temperature and input power is well behaved and follows a second
order curve to a remarkable degree.  It is not uncommon to see a curve fit
with R^2=. or better in many independent test runs.  I initially was
expecting to see a power series that included a forth order term of
significance due to the S-B radiation equation.  This has not ever been
dominate in any test and I still am trying to understand why this is true.
For the time being I will accept this gift happily.

 

A quick glance at the shape of the rising edge of the temperature curve
suggests that it follows an exponential.  I thus began my model by making
that assumption and got fairly reasonable results.  It was always evident
that my curve fit contained holes, but a couple of degrees of error did not
seem too excessive at that time.  Being a perfectionist, I decided to
improve the situation and to determine how well a model could match the real
life test.

 

I very soon added a second exponential to the mix and noticed that the fit
improved remarkably.  Also, I noticed that the second real frequency was
close to the second harmonic of the first one determined by my earlier work.
A light went off inside my head and I realized that this would be expected
since the non linearity is mainly of second order in the relationship
between variables.  Now, I saw that the accuracy of my model was becoming
very acceptable.  There remained a short period of time at the initial power
increase where the fit was not as good as I hoped.  To fix this problem I
added another exponential with an associated time constant of about 40
seconds.  With this model, I could obtain an excellent match between my
simulation and the real world data.

 

I could have left it in this state, but it is hard to accept imperfection.
To pursue the matter further I used a LTSpice model of the system.   I
guessed correctly in my first try with the model and was rewarded with a
wel

Re: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device

During the night Santa brought me a gift!  A thought occurred to me that there 
is a very good explanation for the 30 to 40 second time constant exponential 
waveform that I have been seeking.  In order to get the best curve fit to the 
exact solution of the differential equation I have been forced to modify the 
constant of integration slightly away from the ideal value as determined by 
steady state measurements.  This seemed strange, but now I realize that it is 
required to compensate for the displacement of the rising edge due to the above 
delay.


It is necessary to add back the initial plug of energy lost when the best 
differential equation solution is followed.  This ideal solution for the best 
overall data match must start at a value that is below the actual temperature 
of the cell at t=0 in order to accommodate the delayed behavior.  The addition 
of this missing energy is exactly the amount required!


So now I can say with confidence that there exists a delay mechanism which 
retards the reading of the temperature at the outer glass surface.  This delay 
is in addition to the ideal non linear differential equation solution time 
domain response which is discussed below.  So, another way to envision the 
effect is to realize that it takes 30 to 40 seconds before the addition of heat 
 applied to the cell is registered at that test point.  An exponential 
smoothing (filtering) factor is applied.


My suspicion is that the extra pulse of heat must be distributed within the gas 
and then result in a temperature reading at the outer glass monitor after 
heating the envelop.  The heating of the other structure elements may also be 
involved in the overall action.


A careful review of the waveform hints that the test might be demonstrating an 
excess power of about 1 watt during the experiment that supplied the data.  
This is a small amount of excess power and only additional, careful analysis 
would enable me to be sure.  At least it is in the right direction!  My 
virtually perfect curve fit to the data tends to support this conclusion.


Merry Christmas!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 2:13 am
Subject: [Vo]:Non Linear Model of Celani Device


The data has been flooding in from the MFMP and I have been seeking a time 
domain model of the system behavior when power to the Celani replication device 
is modified.   Most of my effort has been exerted by analyzing the rising edge 
of the time domain waveform when the drive power is stepped up by a significant 
amount.  The temperature follows a certain path as it ramps up to the value 
required to balance the input and output power of the cell.


We have been fortunate in this particular case to find that the relationship 
between temperature and input power is well behaved and follows a second order 
curve to a remarkable degree.  It is not uncommon to see a curve fit with 
R^2=. or better in many independent test runs.  I initially was expecting 
to see a power series that included a forth order term of significance due to 
the S-B radiation equation.  This has not ever been dominate in any test and I 
still am trying to understand why this is true.  For the time being I will 
accept this gift happily.


A quick glance at the shape of the rising edge of the temperature curve 
suggests that it follows an exponential.  I thus began my model by making that 
assumption and got fairly reasonable results.  It was always evident that my 
curve fit contained holes, but a couple of degrees of error did not seem too 
excessive at that time.  Being a perfectionist, I decided to improve the 
situation and to determine how well a model could match the real life test.


I very soon added a second exponential to the mix and noticed that the fit 
improved remarkably.  Also, I noticed that the second real frequency was close 
to the second harmonic of the first one determined by my earlier work.  A light 
went off inside my head and I realized that this would be expected since the 
non linearity is mainly of second order in the relationship between variables.  
Now, I saw that the accuracy of my model was becoming very acceptable.  There 
remained a short period of time at the initial power increase where the fit was 
not as good as I hoped.  To fix this problem I added another exponential with 
an associated time constant of about 40 seconds.  With this model, I could 
obtain an excellent match between my simulation and the real world data.


I could have left it in this state, but it is hard to accept imperfection.  To 
pursue the matter further I used a LTSpice model of the system.   I guessed 
correctly in my first try with the model and was rewarded with a well behaved 
simulation that included the second order distortion effects.  This model was 
used for a significant time as it matched the real world waveforms everywhere 
except for the initial short period that required another time con

[Vo]:RE:OVRUT-fznidarsic@NASA:SomethinWYRD out there & IT AIN'T SANTA!

2012-12-25 Thread Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan


! ! ! Well now Alpha-Vortexians FELIZ NAVIDAD & PROSPERO NUEVO AN~O 2 U; & GOD 
BLESS US EVERY ONE! ! ! ~:^)

 
& PER VOLTAIRE 2013:  "I may not agree with a single posit ner premise yer 
talkin but I'll DEFEND TA THE DETH YER RIGHT
TA SAY IT!"

*God Particle/GodSpace/God-M-Brane*//FUNNY THINGS OUT THERE & it ain't Santa! 
(Quantum-Hertz GENERATIVE ENTROPY)



Per: Frank Znidarsic(Vo)NASA//Vortex-l@eskimo.com/thinktank/~HERTZ-RESONANCE of 
Virutal Infinity-Eternity~
 
Frank:  RIGHT you are NAILING IT:  ?What is TRUTH:  The ENERGY 'CHARACTER' of 
any &/or EVERY POINT COORDINATE of a WHOLE-SYSTEM(which the ENTIRETY IS) will  
RESONATE via 'Hertz-Spectrum Systematc Resonance' INTERACTIVELY with EVERY 
OTHER POINT COORDINATE upon the ENTIRETY/Super-M-Brane.  And 'IF' the 
Super-M-Brane ENTIRETY aka 'All in All' exhibits the contiguous-continuous 
CHARACTER of VOLITIONAL-WILL-'Sentience;' . . . then SENTIENCE-VOLITION is 
ubiquitous as ONE INTEGRATED WHOLE-CLOTH.
 
CONSIDER:  Per: Spooky Action @ a Distance EINSTEIN ROSEN BRIDGE CONNECTION(s) 
is PERVASIVE and Einstein Rosen TRANSTEMPORAL Bridges can  SPAN VIRTUALLY 
INFINITE DISTANCES at INSTANTANEOUS HYPER SPEED as sub-atomic
diameter gossimer threads(worm wholes with micro-singularity 'ends') virtually 
WEAVING ETERNITY-INFINITY into the trans-temporal tapestry as ONE WHOLE 
CONSCIOUSNESS
SENTIENT SYSTEM and ALL THAT IS is simply ENERGETIC PHENOMENON of 'IT's'  
Whole-Fabric. And that tapestry of 'Einstein-Rosen-
Bridge is of transtemporal-subatomic threads into our very FLESH, BLOOD, & BONE 
and (?spirit-SENTIENT-ENERGY-matrix?) at least as pervasive as the whole number 
of [protons(quasi gray hole microsingularities)-atoms] in our bodies.  ?And the 
'question of questions' is, "Where-when is the 'origin point of the other 
'ends' of this EINSTEIN-ROSEN sub-atomic micro-fibrile-worm-filliment-TAPESTY 
that is US and EVERY OTHER ENERGY SYSTEM within the super-system of the 
SUPER-M-BRANE?  OVRUT@UPENN might call this MICRO-BRANE MATRIX.
 
HERTZ RESONANCE is virtually the 'notes' within the SYMPHONY OF ETERNITY aka 
the DANCE OF ETERNAL LIFE. . . and in 'this season' if indeed the ETERNAL 
SENTIENCE is TRUELY BENIGN rather than MERELY INDIFFERENT; then we are all 
'meant' to be GROWING OUT OF THE HUMOUS OF RUDIMENTARY JUNGLE BIOLOGY up into 
the sunlight of ETERNAL LOVE of the HIGHER EVOLUTION OF PERFECTED SENTIENT 
AWARENESS. . . So let us all LEAN FORWARD-quantum leap  into the ENLIGHTENMENT 
of the ARCHETYPE perfected 'MAN.' 
The VOLITION  projected the ARCHETYPE into our 'TRANSTEMPORAL HISTORIC TIME 
FLOW' as a COLLAPSING STAR to be first a QUANTUM-SINGULARITY BLACK-HOLE and 
'extract the malignancy of our TANGLED BEAST-LIKE/MAYAN LIKE 'brilliant though 
hyper paranoid holocaust dark' and lost JUNGLE MINDS.  And as His STAR CENTRE 
COLLAPSED with that 'dark-burden' into 'discreation-disintegration;' He then 
SUPERNOVA'ed AS the PERFECTLY EMPATHICALLY TUNED-RESONANT METAMORPHIC 
RE-CREATIVE Mega-Positive-Entropy-ENERGY that characterized Perfect Altruistic 
LOVE. . .  or we can continue on in the bloody & viscous 
lost-paranoid-holocaust 'anti-genius' of the TOLTEC-MAYA-AZTEC, 3rd REICH, 
Ahmadinejad/SADAMites etc. as this latest branch of deluded (but 'bright') 
Neanderthals marinated in their own 'happening extinction' by 
arrogant-hysterical-conceit.
 
*EVEN SO//MERRY CHRISTMAS YA'LL*








To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:46:15 -0500
Subject: [Vo]:there is something funny go one out there

You can believe it or not, but I produced the quantum condition from a set of 
classical principles.  According to this train of thought the probability of 
transition is proportional to the amplitude of vibration at a dimensional 
frequency of 1,094,000 hertz -meters per second.  It sort of like a house of 
cards.  The higher you build it the greater the probability that it will fall 
down.  In the case of the house of cards, a vibration, a gust of air, or 
somersetting gives it a nudge and it falls.  What nudges an atom?  There is no 
wind or external vibration on the atomic scale.  Yet, there is a chance that a 
low vibration low probability reaction will proceed and there is a chance that 
high vibration high probability reaction will not proceed.  What is nudging the 
vibration.  Life proceeds through a series of quantum transitions.  In a baby 
these traditions appear to be random and the baby moves without purpose.You 
could simulate a baby with a random number generator driving its actions.  As 
we develop these transitions manifest their self's with a purpose.  The purpose 
can be years, decades or centuries down the road. 








































What gives the quantum transitions of life a purpose?  What is nudging them 
with a purpose?  Is it the moon god or the sun god?  I am an atheist and can't 
believe that.  What is it ...help...what is driving the probability of 
transition in the dire

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Of course you have the right to be offended by the off topic threads that seem 
to show up often.  I tend to be more concentrated on the LENR subject than 
many, but it is refreshing to have my attention averted on occasions.  Do not 
consider my opinion as any more valid than that of yours or others when seeking 
off topic offense levels.  I find vortex-l a location where a number of 
intelligent and science minded individuals hang out that I can utilize as a 
sanity check for many unusual concepts.


The recent intense concentration upon religious issues is not very useful for 
several reasons.  It is apparent that you have a strong Christian faith and 
that others within this group favor the Muslim faith to an equally strong 
degree.  This in itself is a good thing and I say nothing against the religious 
beliefs of you or anyone else.  The world has enough conflict over religion 
already and it is of little practical use for us to continue that tradition 
here.  As I said, neither side to this argument appears to be capable of giving 
an inch toward a common resolution.  For this reason, all I see within the 
arguments presented is a repetition of the same disgusting issues.  Why waste 
so much energy toward this type of discussion when it is known ahead of time 
that nothing will change?


Most of the off topic subjects do not result in the amount of conflict that is 
seen within the religious type.  As you have noted, there has been awful and 
unwarranted name calling engaged in and insults which I find offensive.  I 
would not object if you or anyone else suggests an off topic subject that 
encourages discussions as long as they do not result in that sort of behavior 
and they were at least related to science.  You will find me objecting if these 
unrelated threads begin to become too long or cause serious personal attacks.  
The recent discussions concerning global warming came close to that threshold 
due to the sometimes heated exchanges that resulted from what some perceive as 
a world endangering situation.  I can understand the passion since there are 
some convinced that the fate of the world is in the balance unless something is 
done quickly.  Of course you and I fall on the same side of this issue where we 
seek reasonable, cautious, and thoughtful preparation.


I am attempting to understand the nature of the religious issues that keep this 
and other threads like it alive and so passionate.  Do both sides of the 
argument believe that they must prevail and have the last word?  Is God 
watching the debate and pushing each side forward in a manner that seems a 
little less than brotherly?  For some reason I do not believe so.  Why don't 
both parties to this discussion realize that they will never make headway in 
convincing the other side and just stop the insanity?  I find both sides 
equally guilty and plead for each to abandon the discussion.


Forgive me if I offended anyone as that was not my intent.


Dave






-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 4:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


Yes, you are right of course, but It would even be better if all off-topic 
threads be terminated and brought to Vortex-B.
 
I am doing this is highlight a problem.  If you call for the termination of 
this thread, you need to call for the termination of all off-topic threads.  I 
believe that is only fair.  For why should the Vortex-L membership only be 
subjected to off-topic threads you consider "interesting".  In other words, why 
are you the arbiter of what off-topic posts should be discuss or not?  They are 
all off-topic and should be banished from Vortex-L forever.  Isn't that what 
I've always asked for only to be insulted, ridiculed and ignored?  No offense 
intended, just asking your thinking process on this.
 
I consider this discussion with Lomax interesting.  So, on that aspect, this 
thread has as much right to be discussed in Vortex as any other off-topic 
thread you consider "interesting".  Or are you saying that because you are an 
longer time member of Vortex-L, that you opinion carries more weight than mine? 
 Isn't that what the chronic off-topic posters are essentially saying?
 
It's all or nothing my friend.  No off-topic threads or ALL off-topic threads 
allowed.  Am I not being fair?  Is what I'm saying unfair?
 
 
Jojo
 
 
PS, Of course, I am ready and prepared to stop all off-topic threads that I 
participate in, but only if there is a corresponding commitment from other 
chronis off-topic posters to moderate incessant off-topic posts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:45   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens   of wives, and marriageable age
  


Guys, I would very much   prefer it if this thread were to be terminated.  It 
is apparent that   there will never be agreement

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question

2012-12-25 Thread orgasm wikipedia

   Jojo,Lomax knows when he is humiliated by his Muslim beliefs. He will not answer Student question 2.Merry Christmas.Wikipedia

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question

Gotta love this "Student".  She (I think Student is a she.) is doing more to 
highlight the corruption of islam with fewer words than I.


Good job, but we are not done with FGM yet.  Pace yourself my friend.


Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question



Lomax,

Thanks for answer. Next, is amputation prevalent in Sharia Law nations? 
Ref:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12

Student

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age

Yes, you are right of course, but It would even be better if all off-topic 
threads be terminated and brought to Vortex-B.

I am doing this is highlight a problem.  If you call for the termination of 
this thread, you need to call for the termination of all off-topic threads.  I 
believe that is only fair.  For why should the Vortex-L membership only be 
subjected to off-topic threads you consider "interesting".  In other words, why 
are you the arbiter of what off-topic posts should be discuss or not?  They are 
all off-topic and should be banished from Vortex-L forever.  Isn't that what 
I've always asked for only to be insulted, ridiculed and ignored?  No offense 
intended, just asking your thinking process on this.

I consider this discussion with Lomax interesting.  So, on that aspect, this 
thread has as much right to be discussed in Vortex as any other off-topic 
thread you consider "interesting".  Or are you saying that because you are an 
longer time member of Vortex-L, that you opinion carries more weight than mine? 
 Isn't that what the chronic off-topic posters are essentially saying?

It's all or nothing my friend.  No off-topic threads or ALL off-topic threads 
allowed.  Am I not being fair?  Is what I'm saying unfair?


Jojo


PS, Of course, I am ready and prepared to stop all off-topic threads that I 
participate in, but only if there is a corresponding commitment from other 
chronis off-topic posters to moderate incessant off-topic posts.







  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 1:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age


  Guys, I would very much prefer it if this thread were to be terminated.  It 
is apparent that there will never be agreement between the parties involved in 
the dispute and highly unlikely that one or the other will modify his beliefs.  
Why not just shake hands (electronically of course) and change the subject to 
LENR or something else more interesting. 


  I suspect that I am not the only one with this opinion.


  Dave

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Lomax Question