Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

[Chuck Sites]

Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
be as high as 15% more or less.   Think about it.  Sunspots are dark; Dark
spots emit less light.  So more sunspots, less light.  Less light, less
Solar input.  Less solar input should mean less average global temperature
rise from sun cycles..  What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The
Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer
to the sun than the other half.   So yes Craig, I will agree that on the
solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables
that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening
for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now.

Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average
global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human
activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity
creating CO2 as a byproduct.

Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts
and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high
altitude clouds.   Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional
thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming.   I encourage
everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds.

--
Chuck


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig  wrote:

> On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
> > Haha.  Yeah I saw that story,  It's just bait for the deniers
> > (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks.   For that
> > matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
> > global warming.
> >
> > I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically
> > against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming.   First lets
> > start with this graphic
> > http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
> >
> > With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath.   The cycle is
> > cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year,
> > releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back
> > into it's stems and roots during growing season.  It's a cyclic
> > effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.
> >  The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2
> > from human activity.
>
> I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global
> warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a
> certain causation.
>
> I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now,
> that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so
> this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during
> the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point.
>
> >
> > Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to
> > global warming that isn't man made.  All polluters wish they didn't
> > pollute I guess.  But solar input isn't the cause of global warming
> > either.  For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's
> > rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up.  Exactly how  is
> > that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.
> >  It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much
> > heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space.
>
> Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't
> look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more
> active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider
> the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot
> possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe
> so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the
> correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures
> are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between
> sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that
> increases in CO2 can show?
>
> > So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS,   The solar input is as
> > it has been for the past 1million years.
>
> No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the
> previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise?
>
> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

[Craig]

On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
> Haha.  Yeah I saw that story,  It's just bait for the deniers
> (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks.   For that
> matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
> global warming.  
>
> I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically
> against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming.   First lets
> start with this graphic 
> http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
>
> With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath.   The cycle is
> cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year,
> releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back
> into it's stems and roots during growing season.  It's a cyclic
> effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.
>  The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2
> from human activity.

I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global
warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a
certain causation.

I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now,
that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so
this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during
the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point.

>
> Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to
> global warming that isn't man made.  All polluters wish they didn't
> pollute I guess.  But solar input isn't the cause of global warming
> either.  For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's
> rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up.  Exactly how  is
> that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.
>  It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much
> heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space.  

Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't
look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more
active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider
the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot
possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe
so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the
correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures
are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between
sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that
increases in CO2 can show?

> So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS,   The solar input is as
> it has been for the past 1million years.

No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the
previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise?

Craig

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

[Chuck Sites]

Haha.  Yeah I saw that story,  It's just bait for the deniers
(or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks.   For that matter,
mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global
warming.

I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his
denial of Man-made causes of global warming.   First lets start with this
graphic
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif

With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath.   The cycle is
cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing
stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems
and roots during growing season.  It's a cyclic effect, and it show very
well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.  The trend line in background of
that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity.

Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global
warming that isn't man made.  All polluters wish they didn't pollute I
guess.  But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either.  For
example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses
cause the atmosphere to heat up.  Exactly how  is that to happen when the
solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.  It's part of the solar
forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how
much escapes into space.

So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS,   The solar input is as it
has been for the past 1million years.
The Earth has been as it has for the past 1million years.   The only thing
that makes these past 63 years different is actually several points;  The
population growth;  the demand for energy, and the commercialization of
 agriculture and burning fossilized carbon!All are effecting that
carbon cycle and pushing more carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) into
the air (CO2 a green house gas) that is trapping even more solar input.
 I'm ignoring all of the feedback environmental mechanism that accelerate
warming, like the polar ice caps melting, glacier melts or excessive
amounts of atmospheric water vapor from warming oceans that effect weather
patterns globally.

So when you look at your graph that shows from 1958 to 2005 showing a
hockey stick slope from 315 to 395 just remember this equation;  T= 10.31
degreeC + (0.0114 degreeC /ppmv).  That is the take away the AGW
contrarians need  to answer.

--
Chuck

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Brad Lowe  wrote:

> It isn't just AGW we need to worry about...
> EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate
> Change Research.
>
>
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change
> This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the
> experts.
>
> - Brad
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>>
>> **
>>> Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their
>>> populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse.  Nor do
>>> developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly
>>> correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions.
>>>
>>
>> This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest
>> loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing
>> more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught --
>> they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard
>> to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck
>> to paycheck.  In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you
>> have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your
>> expenditures until the time that disaster strikes.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:It's Alive!

[a.ashfield]

This paper that you can find from one of the links gives more details 
than I have seen before.

http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf
Seems they claim they can get a COP of 22

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Brad Lowe  wrote:

It isn't just AGW we need to worry about...
> EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate
> Change Research.
>
>
> http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change
> This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the
> experts.
>

I actually don't take a strong position on AWG.  I'm inclined to go with
expert opinion on the matter, with the following caveats:

* I'm not sure that expert opinion is as lopsided towards support for the
AWG thesis as has been represented in the media; perhaps it is that
lopsided, and perhaps it isn't.
* I think it's an interesting epistemological challenge to try at the same
time to go with expert opinion on AWG, on one hand, and to buck mainstream
expert opinion on LENR, on the other.  I suspect it can be done, but it's a
rickety ship for a hobbyist to try to keep afloat.
* From a purely risk-based approach, one should take the bad consequences
that could ensue from a given outcome and multiply them by the probability
of their occurring   On the basis of my limited analysis of the AWG
question, the risk alone justifies well-conceived, proactive action in
connection with AWG.
* I am not persuaded in the slightest that money spent on clean technology
is money down the drain; quite the opposite.  I suspect it would over the
medium term create jobs, revitalize local economies and do the world some
good.

My earlier point about having have money and having to be willing to spend
it in order to save money over the long run is more general and had sort of
been made tangentially to the whole AWG debate (which is mercifully
civilized now).  I just think it's a basic principle that you have to be
willing to pony up funding for what you care about, even or perhaps
especially if it means that there will be some sacrifice on your part as a
consequence.  This line of reasoning for me does away with most of the
parochial US-specific all-star wrestling death match body-slam budget
debate, but I don't have in mind AWG all that much, specifically.  I do
think the AWG debate carries depressing overtones of the war back in the
1970s and 1980s on whether smoking tobacco is bad for your health, but I'll
leave it to future generations to be the final judge of the accuracy of the
parallel there.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming

[Brad Lowe]

It isn't just AGW we need to worry about...
EAGW Earthworm-Accellerated Global Warming is the new hot topic in Climate
Change Research.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/global-worming-are-earthworms-accelerating-climate-change
This is peer-reviewed hard science, so please refrain from mocking the
experts.

- Brad



On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> **
>> Rich nations can afford. No, they can't. That's the point. Their
>> populations are suffering and it's going to get much worse.  Nor do
>> developing nations operate in a vacuum as markets are now more tightly
>> correlated than ever, contrary to many predictions.
>>
>
> This is the same rationale that poor people use to take out high-interest
> loans; to buy items at the store in tiny quantities, which ends up costing
> more overall; or to forgo car insurance, hoping they won't get caught --
> they cannot obtain a mortgage that is not on usurious terms, and it is hard
> to justify a big expenditure on bulk items when you're living from paycheck
> to paycheck.  In the end, you have to have money to save money, and you
> have to be willing to spend it up front, rather than backload all of your
> expenditures until the time that disaster strikes.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[David Roberson]

You have to wait in line for that job.  NASA or whoever builds the gun might be 
able to sell the rights.  The only downside is that you have to take aim 
without a telescope since that gives the asteroid a fair chance.   The federal 
department of game and fishery establishes the rules for hunting.


Dave 



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>> Paintball railgun.
>
>
> From Earth, you mean?!? Wow! We gotta make one of them. Splat the moon!

I want to shoot it!


 

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>> Paintball railgun.
>
>
> From Earth, you mean?!? Wow! We gotta make one of them. Splat the moon!

I want to shoot it!

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Paintball railgun.
>

>From Earth, you mean?!? Wow! We gotta make one of them. Splat the moon!

I recall that in the early 1950s someone planning a moon rocket thought
about loading it with flower or white powder so that when it impacted on
the moon they would be able to look through a telescope and confirm it had
hit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/technology/
>>
>>
>> Nothing at this URL.
>>
>> - Jed
>
>
> Hmmm it was working when I first posted it to vortex-l.
>
> Harry

try this

http://defkalion-energy.com/technology/

Harry

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/technology/
>
>
> Nothing at this URL.
>
> - Jed


Hmmm it was working when I first posted it to vortex-l.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Third-Party Paper : Good News / Bad News

[Rob Dingemans]

Hi,

On 5-2-2013 23:49, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Alan Fletcher mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:

In Great Britain they say: my garden is smaller that  England, but
bigger than a stamp.


OOOkay. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that might mean?


Found a similar quote on this page 
(http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Asterix-in-Britain):




Trivia

  * In French, Obelix remarks on the tweed worn by Asterix's Briton
cousin, asking, "Is it expensive?" ("c'est cher?"); the Briton
replies, "My tailor is rich" ("mon tailleur est riche") --- an
allusion to basic lessons in English, available in many European
states. It has been said that "My tailor is rich" was the very
first spoken phrase said in the first Assimil
 "English without
Pain" (Anglais sans Peine) English learning vinyl record volume
released circa 1960 .

  * Later there's another gag with the same basic premise in reverse:
when Asterix remarks that his cousin's boat is small, Anticlimax
replies obscurely, "It's smaller than the garden of my uncle, but
larger than the pen of my aunt," a phrase used in English texts of
the period when teaching French.



It seems, that Andrea is actually saying something like: "I really have 
no clue what those scientists who are performing the tests are thinking, 
so I can't comment on it at all."


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[Terry Blanton]

Paintball railgun.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Third-Party Paper : Good News / Bad News

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> In Great Britain they say: my garden is smaller that  England, but bigger
> than a stamp.
>

OOOkay. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what that might mean?


In Japan they say "fools and caterpillars like to climb up things." I just
learned that yesterday. Not sure what that means either, but it's funny.

- Jed

[Vo]:MFMP : The Genius of Celani

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Hi Vortex,

 

The MFMP has just released an interesting update on their experiments to
replicate the Celani's effect. There is also a contribution from the new
protocol used by Celani.

 

 
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc

 

Arnaud

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Third-Party Paper : Good News / Bad News

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Alan Fletcher" 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:43:10 AM
> 
> Don't hold your breath .
> 

Andrea Rossi
February 5th, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
The scientists are still working and I have no idea of what they are
thinking. I do not think we will know what they know and what they
think before the publication of the report.
About what we are doing: I do not know if it is big or not. All I know
is that we are working very hard to deliver the industrial plant we
have to put in operation as scheduled. In Great Britain they say: my
garden is smaller that England, but bigger than a stamp.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:48:08 -0500:
Hi,

Upon thinking further about this, painting it may not actually make much
difference at all, because some of the photons are already reflected, and most
of those absorbed are radiated again more or less straight away, roughly in the
direction from which they came, due to the fact that the temperature of the rock
remains fairly constant.
Because the thing turns in space, some delayed emission will occur on the dark
side. How much this is would depend on the rotation time, and the cooling time.
In short, it could turn out to be a very expensive "white elephant". ;)



> wrote:
>
>
>> True, however I don't see the sense in painting only one side white. Why
>> not the
>> whole thing?
>>
>
>That's what I meant. I did not mean to give it a spin. I meant sunlight
>will push it the way it pushes a Crooks radiometer, although there is some
>question whether that works in a high vacuum.
>
>You might also attach a gigantic solar sail, which is the same thing I
>guess, but I think that would call a lot more engineering and monitoring
>after deployment. There are also scheme to land a rocket which then
>excavates rocks and shoots them off, perhaps with a mass driver. That does
>not sound like it would work for long.
>
>Search for "meteor deflection" to see various proposed methods.
>
>- Jed
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[David Roberson]

Painting asteroids is a messy job.  The paint drys out fast in empty space.  
And, by the time you deliver enough paint to do the job, you have spent your 
national budget on rockets.  There has got to be a better way to divert these 
things.  I hope that we will be able to put this job off for at least 1000 
years when the task will be easier.  I think the odds are in our favor that it 
will be a very long time before the big one has our name written on it.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:27:20 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
>Have you ever tried to paint an asteroid?  :-)

Have you ever tried to paint half an asteroid? :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


 

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 5 Feb 2013 00:27:20 -0500 (EST):
Hi,
[snip]
>Have you ever tried to paint an asteroid?  :-)

Have you ever tried to paint half an asteroid? :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Third-Party Paper : Good News / Bad News

[Alan Fletcher]

Don't hold your breath . 


Broenink
February 5th, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Daar Mr. Rossi,

With the verification of your technology being imminent can you please tell us 
who financed the independent research and the report which will be published 
shorty?

Andrea Rossi
February 5th, 2013 at 1:19 PM


Dear Broenink:
The third party indipendent validation tests have been funded directly by some 
of the Universities ( not Italian) which are making the tests. All the expenses 
for instrumentation, men hours, hotel, restaurants, taxi etc have been paid 
indipendently by the Entities who are making the indipendent validation. This 
is the reason why
1- the report will be published indipendently from the results
2- we cannot know anything of the date of the publication
3- we do not know where the publication will be made
4- we do not know exactly when the tests, that are still in the making, will be 
finished. Lately I have been informed that more tests will be made to be sure 
of the results, repeating again the tests.
5- we can assist to the tests, but we cannot make any operation during the 
tests.
6- the reason for which all these scientists are making these tests and for 
which their Universities are paying the expenses is merely scientific
Thank you for your questions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Andrea Rossi
February 4th, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Dear Giuseppe:
Thank you for this question.
We are working with the Hot Cat ( the E-Cat at high temperature) since May 
2012. The improvements have been remarkable, because we passed from a 
conceptual prototype to industrial plants that are in construction. The third 
party tests in course are made on a module of the Hot Cat for industrial 
applications. We are at the level of safety certification too. As for the 
theoretical issues, strong improvement has been done too. Personally, I think 
we have understood very well the phenomenon’s sources and this has improved the 
technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [nVo] Cold fusion, Joshua Cude

[ChemE Stewart]

[image: schrodingercat]


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> You may see, real is hopping up and down, communicating with a few
> self-selected somewhat more intrepid minds:
>
> "Dream!  Nothing but dream!
>
> causeless, inexplicable, event surges that are not predictable,
> understandable, controllable, measurable, never replicated, yet of
> apparent immense theoretical and "practical" significance (within the
> crippling conventions of "your" consensus daily dream realm) ...
>
> that's the evidence !
>
> you're trying to impose outmoded modes of thought since 1989,
> squabbling endlessly, trying to swim straight up in the air against
> the full descending, chaotic crash of Niagara Falls...
>
> imagine Einstein in 1905 focusing on trying to maintain and patch
> together the unraveling fabric of classical mechanics...
>
> so, follow his example, join the self-selecting networks of intrepid
> pioneers who are choosing to theoretically and experientially
> transcend recent centuries of primitive scientific thought about
> space, time, causality, reality...
>
> first: confess freely your own personal "subjective" experiences, like
> "precognition", that mandate radical expansion of fundamental
> assumptions...
>
> second: when others tell you their unbelievable, unconfirmable
> (always...), very strange personal "subjective" experiences, listen
> very carefully, and then be alert to notice similar experiences
> happening, generally rather quickly, in your own flow of "private",
> "personal", "ideosyncratic", "subjective" personal experience...
>
> third: start comparing notes...
>
> fourth: practice relaxing your mind and attending carefully with open
> curious attention to bizarre thoughts that will appear quickly in
> surprising profusion...
>
> (don't be scared, it's just dear old dad or granddad padding around in
> his slippers, muttering to himself...)
>
> fifth: start sharing these thoughts...
>
> hint: nothing but Woo Woo... hyper exponential Niagara Falls...
>
> reference: Time Space and Knowledge, 1969 Tarthang Tulku,  Rinpoche,
> Nyingma Institute -- an explorer's field manual, not dogma...
>
> coda: treat yerself to the best, buddy...
>
> within the fellowship of mutual service,  Rich
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [nVo] Cold fusion, Joshua Cude

[Rich Murray]

You may see, real is hopping up and down, communicating with a few
self-selected somewhat more intrepid minds:

"Dream!  Nothing but dream!

causeless, inexplicable, event surges that are not predictable,
understandable, controllable, measurable, never replicated, yet of
apparent immense theoretical and "practical" significance (within the
crippling conventions of "your" consensus daily dream realm) ...

that's the evidence !

you're trying to impose outmoded modes of thought since 1989,
squabbling endlessly, trying to swim straight up in the air against
the full descending, chaotic crash of Niagara Falls...

imagine Einstein in 1905 focusing on trying to maintain and patch
together the unraveling fabric of classical mechanics...

so, follow his example, join the self-selecting networks of intrepid
pioneers who are choosing to theoretically and experientially
transcend recent centuries of primitive scientific thought about
space, time, causality, reality...

first: confess freely your own personal "subjective" experiences, like
"precognition", that mandate radical expansion of fundamental
assumptions...

second: when others tell you their unbelievable, unconfirmable
(always...), very strange personal "subjective" experiences, listen
very carefully, and then be alert to notice similar experiences
happening, generally rather quickly, in your own flow of "private",
"personal", "ideosyncratic", "subjective" personal experience...

third: start comparing notes...

fourth: practice relaxing your mind and attending carefully with open
curious attention to bizarre thoughts that will appear quickly in
surprising profusion...

(don't be scared, it's just dear old dad or granddad padding around in
his slippers, muttering to himself...)

fifth: start sharing these thoughts...

hint: nothing but Woo Woo... hyper exponential Niagara Falls...

reference: Time Space and Knowledge, 1969 Tarthang Tulku,  Rinpoche,
Nyingma Institute -- an explorer's field manual, not dogma...

coda: treat yerself to the best, buddy...

within the fellowship of mutual service,  Rich

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  wrote:


> http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/technology/


Nothing at this URL.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Alan Fletcher]

> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Terry Blanton 
> wrote:
> > Defkalion's site, that is:
> >
> > http://defkalion-energy.com/
> >
> > and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for
> > Tunguska.

No forum, though. My old link took me to a 404 :

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum

but with a bunch of ... web development links, eg :

http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/our-staff/
http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/our-clients/

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Defkalion's site, that is:
>
> http://defkalion-energy.com/
>
> and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for Tunguska.
>




http://aromapress.com/~defkalio/technology/

quote
<>
unquote

If this "internationl scientific community" has been shown they
certainly aren't talking about it.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[James Bowery]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/europe/oil-tax-forces-greeks-to-fight-winter-with-fire.html?hp

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/30/whats-been-burning-in-greece/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-19289566

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Defkalion's site, that is:
>
> http://defkalion-energy.com/
>
> and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for Tunguska.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[David Roberson]

The numbers are in line with what we have been expecting.  I just hope that 
they will be willing to allow a qualified group to test one and put this issue 
to bed once and for all.  What can we do to expedite the process?


Dave  



-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2013 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!


I think each kernel is supposedly 5 MW x 9 in a reactor block

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

No, what I mean, the energy density of the box is way bigger than I thought.



2013/2/5 ChemE Stewart 

Have you seen one ?


On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

(45 kW of thermal energy in a self-contained 45x45x45cm box fully automated 
with internal software and heat management system).  



I didn't know it was THAT POWEFUL!




2013/2/5 Terry Blanton 

Defkalion's site, that is:

http://defkalion-energy.com/

and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for Tunguska.







-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com








-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

 

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[ChemE Stewart]

I think each kernel is supposedly 5 MW x 9 in a reactor block

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> No, what I mean, the energy density of the box is way bigger than I
> thought.
>
>
> 2013/2/5 ChemE Stewart  'cheme...@gmail.com');>>
>
>> Have you seen one ?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> (45 kW of thermal energy in a self-contained 45x45x45cm box fully
>>> automated with internal software and heat management system).
>>>
>>> I didn't know it was THAT POWEFUL!
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/5 Terry Blanton 
>>>
 Defkalion's site, that is:

 http://defkalion-energy.com/

 and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for
 Tunguska.


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com  'danieldi...@gmail.com');>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[Daniel Rocha]

No, what I mean, the energy density of the box is way bigger than I thought.


2013/2/5 ChemE Stewart 

> Have you seen one ?
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> (45 kW of thermal energy in a self-contained 45x45x45cm box fully
>> automated with internal software and heat management system).
>>
>> I didn't know it was THAT POWEFUL!
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/5 Terry Blanton 
>>
>>> Defkalion's site, that is:
>>>
>>> http://defkalion-energy.com/
>>>
>>> and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for
>>> Tunguska.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Near miss - hopefully

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> True, however I don't see the sense in painting only one side white. Why
> not the
> whole thing?
>

That's what I meant. I did not mean to give it a spin. I meant sunlight
will push it the way it pushes a Crooks radiometer, although there is some
question whether that works in a high vacuum.

You might also attach a gigantic solar sail, which is the same thing I
guess, but I think that would call a lot more engineering and monitoring
after deployment. There are also scheme to land a rocket which then
excavates rocks and shoots them off, perhaps with a mass driver. That does
not sound like it would work for long.

Search for "meteor deflection" to see various proposed methods.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:It's Alive!

[ChemE Stewart]

Have you seen one ?

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> (45 kW of thermal energy in a self-contained 45x45x45cm box fully
> automated with internal software and heat management system).
>
> I didn't know it was THAT POWEFUL!
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Terry Blanton  'hohlr...@gmail.com');>>
>
>> Defkalion's site, that is:
>>
>> http://defkalion-energy.com/
>>
>> and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for
>> Tunguska.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com  'danieldi...@gmail.com');>
>

[Vo]:It's Alive!

[Terry Blanton]

Defkalion's site, that is:

http://defkalion-energy.com/

and it kinda makes me think that Tesla really was responsible for Tunguska.

Re: [Vo]:OT - Global Warming

[Alain Sepeda]

I'm more conservative tha many on tha subject.

ther is no doubt that a pile of stupidiy, of scientific errors, of biased
data and interpretation, exist on both side.
It is surprising tha having suffered in LENr about pathologic consensu,
funding propelled corruption of scientific method, ego-propelled denial of
changing of data, that we are not more careful on that subject.

First consider the position of judith curry which is honest (like Duncan,
Dawn Dominguez, celani, she is a traitor, having supported the mainstream
vision, and finally admited facts).
Her position is more or less that we have too much uncertainties, not even
imagined, to have a serious opinion, and that todays mainstream confidence
is a big lie.

note on recent article on the master-key  of AGW theory : the sensibility...
big battle between integrating recent data, recent change in hypothesis
after measurements...
sensibility seems much lower in mainstream paper, reaching the skeptical
level...
yet IPCC, like SciAm, continue on the old data...
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/

this article, among - I agree- many bad critics on WUWT, is presenting a
good reasoning :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

beside that questioning (WG1) whether AGW is real or not (note the A... the
warming is more or less validated, even if there is some very strange
tendency to correct always to more warming every version of report, and to
round up or low the data to more warming...) , the question of impact (WG2)
is nearly clear...
it is judged as bullshit when presented to any specialist of the domain.
Example is teh stern report that when analysed under the assumption  IPCC,
by an economist , is clearly judget as a big manipulation designe to
justify a policy, and not as presented to deduce a policy.
the report on disease, on wars, is also pure bullshit when presented to
experts of malaria, of disease, of geostrategy...

the WG3 about solution is pure lobbying that make all engineers not selling
renewable, laughting out loud...

even if AGW is real, this process is so crony that I understand that some
reject even blatant fact. That is giving bad image to the skeptical camp,
like magnetic motors fan are giving bad image to LENR.

This AGW subject have became a bubble like I have seen earlier.
the bubble is exploding partially because some supporters (those afraid of
peak-oil happy with shale boom, those hoping for nuclear energy desperate
of anti-nuclear lobbies so powerfull) are leaving. there is however strong
lobbies, the Malthusians hoping that fighting CO2 will allow comfort and
demography decrease, the renewable energy whose survival depend on WG3
bullshit scenarii...

Balance today is endangered also because even rich countries cannot afford
energy at 5-10 times more expensive, and population seems to see it, and
industry which hoped to capture artificial growth from subsidized waste
investments realize that mostly Chinese industry capture the benefit.

LENR will disintegrate the balance of power because the price different
will be even greater. It will motivate the majority to fight the
ultra-motivated lobbies.

surprisingly the fact that LENR produce no CO2 won't be a real argument,
because it is long time since there is nobody honest in that domain. CO2
argument is not followed but exploited to defend a lobby, neo-religious or
economic. However with LENr as cheap as expected, some lobby, including
poor people, will refuse to submit to todays dominant lobbies.

note that if people were honest about CO2 they will fight about soot, not
CO2...
note that this starts to happens in France where wood heating start to be
criticized (health, soot) after some subsidies period.

times are changing, underground first, like what i see about LENR.


about LENR : be happy, it is moving underground.



2013/2/5 

> In reply to  Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar
> >activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree.
> >That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it
> >somewhat, but it's not the only thing.
> >
> I agree that Solar activity also influences the temperature, which probably
> explains the "drop" between maxima over the last 10 years. However the net
> effect is rather like a staircase. The variation in Solar activity is
> responsible for the steps on the staircase, while the CO2 increase
> represents
> the inclination of the staircase.
>
> In short, on average temperatures are going to continue to rise, however
> with a
> roughly 11 year periodicity superimposed upon it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>