[Vo]:MIT designs small, modular, efficient fusion power plant
Advances in magnet technology have enabled researchers at MIT to propose a new design for a practical compact tokamak fusion reactor - and it's one that might be realized in as little as a decade, they say. The era of practical fusion power, which could offer a nearly inexhaustible energy resource, may be coming near. https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810 http://www.kurzweilai.net/mit-designs-small-modular-efficient-fusion-power-p lant Mats http://www.animpossibleinvention.com www.animpossibleinvention.com
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
I would add also that currently central bank are desperately injecting keyneisian money to stop depression, and deflation, but all it does is inflating assets values, not prices. this is benefiting finance and crony capitalism, not real economy which suffer from bad investment decisions. people asking for gold (I find it stupid) or electronic curencies where central bank cannot manipulate the primary monetary mass do to prevent cehtral bak to promoting crony practices like today. my feeling is that it cannot work, because M3 money is not printed or even mined. someone explained how you can create money in a sane economy (and I understood why there is no inflation despite tons of paper printed). imagine that you are in a world with real great opportunities, like farming rice with neolithic technology. the idea is that as soon as you have money, even if the mass is small, you pay someone to work, and this man have money, that he can consume, or invest. this gives money to people who can buy or consume... if people have many thing to buy or to invest and always work to do that is productive, the money wil circulate very quickly. deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to look less indepbted. hyperinflation in germany was on the opposite becaus epeopel lose trust in deutchmark and immediatemy bought goods with money, to people who do the same ASAP. monetary mass is not the key factor... key is the speed, and the opportunities or fears. if there is opportunities to create value, money will flow, and be reused hundred of time a month. if people are depressed they will keep it dying on an account. only hope is the bank reusing it (where fractional banking is useful), but if people invest them in dead value (bonds on dayly state expenses) it will not flow anymore. if people are terrorised on the opposite money will flow frantically like false notes. today we have strandes asses that are exchanged frantically creating asset bubles. on the opposite there is depressed economy which make real economy deflate because nothing real seems productive. central bank don't solve, but feed, those problems. 2015-08-13 10:25 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com: it seems there is an irrational fear of good deflation. what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil. currently the Airbnb deflation is giving value to the people by reducing prices of goods and service... the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and rates, in contracts, compared to price. inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of productivity. This is a good way to increase wages. one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation is on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd. deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of rent, of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem. 2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
it seems there is an irrational fear of good deflation. what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil. currently the Airbnb deflation is giving value to the people by reducing prices of goods and service... the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and rates, in contracts, compared to price. inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of productivity. This is a good way to increase wages. one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation is on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd. deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of rent, of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem. 2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT designs small, modular, efficient fusion power plant
Dear Mats, Hot Fusion has an effect to make decades very fertile and then start to multply fast. I bet that this will not go commercial in 2o26. Peter On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mats Lewan m...@matslewan.se wrote: ” Advances in magnet technology have enabled researchers at MIT to propose a new design for a practical compact tokamak fusion reactor — and it’s one that might be realized in as little as a decade, they say. The era of practical fusion power, which could offer a nearly inexhaustible energy resource, may be coming near.” https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810 http://www.kurzweilai.net/mit-designs-small-modular-efficient-fusion-power-plant Mats www.animpossibleinvention.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
You are a good teacher Alain - well said. My personal opinion is that we cannot give this kind of power to large institutions. There will always be misuse and the cronies as you say will always be the beneficiary as they can 'scratch' the back of the central banks. Unfortunately we do accept the status quo. With modern technology we could have other means to regulate our barters. As you say the whole thing hangs on the speed. The only reason to not use direct barter is that it takes very long time to find business opportunities. Money supposedly solves that problem. However, we have now let this instrument have its own life. Manipulation is now the name of the game to achieve political, financial and military goals (see surge in US dollars). Because the manipulation is on a national basis, we have introduced another political/ military weapon. Currency fluctuations - not because of different prices but because of political reasons will of course screw up the barters (I say that because it all should be about barter and that is it.) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I would add also that currently central bank are desperately injecting keyneisian money to stop depression, and deflation, but all it does is inflating assets values, not prices. this is benefiting finance and crony capitalism, not real economy which suffer from bad investment decisions. people asking for gold (I find it stupid) or electronic curencies where central bank cannot manipulate the primary monetary mass do to prevent cehtral bak to promoting crony practices like today. my feeling is that it cannot work, because M3 money is not printed or even mined. someone explained how you can create money in a sane economy (and I understood why there is no inflation despite tons of paper printed). imagine that you are in a world with real great opportunities, like farming rice with neolithic technology. the idea is that as soon as you have money, even if the mass is small, you pay someone to work, and this man have money, that he can consume, or invest. this gives money to people who can buy or consume... if people have many thing to buy or to invest and always work to do that is productive, the money wil circulate very quickly. deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to look less indepbted. hyperinflation in germany was on the opposite becaus epeopel lose trust in deutchmark and immediatemy bought goods with money, to people who do the same ASAP. monetary mass is not the key factor... key is the speed, and the opportunities or fears. if there is opportunities to create value, money will flow, and be reused hundred of time a month. if people are depressed they will keep it dying on an account. only hope is the bank reusing it (where fractional banking is useful), but if people invest them in dead value (bonds on dayly state expenses) it will not flow anymore. if people are terrorised on the opposite money will flow frantically like false notes. today we have strandes asses that are exchanged frantically creating asset bubles. on the opposite there is depressed economy which make real economy deflate because nothing real seems productive. central bank don't solve, but feed, those problems. 2015-08-13 10:25 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com: it seems there is an irrational fear of good deflation. what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil. currently the Airbnb deflation is giving value to the people by reducing prices of goods and service... the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and rates, in contracts, compared to price. inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of productivity. This is a good way to increase wages. one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation is on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd. deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of rent, of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem. 2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more
RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. From: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
RE: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
From Eric This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. I'm baffled that there still exist politicians who want us to go back to the gold standard, believing that doing so would ensure the safety of U.S. currency. I think not. The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God. I doubt God cares. Neither is paving the streets of heaven with pure gold (as Thomas Malloy, once envisioned) recommended due to its soft pliability. In no time there would be scuff marks and ruts. I wonder if there exist road repair jobs in heaven. Going back to a gold standard is insane. FDR got rid of it back in 1933. Later, Nixon and G. Ford fiddled with how much gold U.S. citizens could purchase. I believe part of the problem was due to the fact that U.S. gold reserves held in Fort Knox was in the process of being decimated as other nations tried to convert their national currency reserves into gold. By 1971 the U.S. went completely off the gold standard, allowing the price of the precious metal to float from a fixed $35.00 price to current market value. The price is currently hovering over $1,100. Gold was much higher not all that long ago. The more perceived angst there is in the world, the pricey gold gets, and vice versa. Given the topic of bitcoin currency being raised in this discussion I suspect inflation might be more likely of some concern rather than the ravages of deflation. Speaking of inflation, it's really another form of taxing the entire nation. When the effects of inflation end up costing you more to purchase a product or service, it is no different than having to pay a tax on the same item when you are living on a fixed income. When a nation experiences moderate inflation, wealth is being reallocated. Not surprisingly the wealthy tend to weather taxation by inflation far better than who are typically living on limited fixed incomes. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
No - Craig I did not write that but I think it is correct in a way. Your more in dept series of events is actually supporting the statement as I see it. More important to me is that you actually give good example to how the manipulation for political reasons becomes more important than the economical reality. No body could get money without paying a high interest, which was impossible as it was shortage of income opportunity - so nobody invested so nobody bought more than absolute minimum and nobody invested . . . In the end of the day devaluation took place anyhow. The real irony is of course that as the US dollar dictated the value of other currencies it was no real devaluation or rather everybody devaluated. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote: deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to look less indepbted. No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce. The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels, which had not been seen before that period in time. Craig
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: Hi all In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance, wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such relationship can be shown to exist. Craig
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Lennart, Money is used to facilitate the exchange of good services; it needn't have any intrinsic value. The money supply needs to be balanced distributed to foster it use to balance distribution of these goods services within the economy. Hence the need for regulation. All those derivatives fancy wall street products were effectively unregulated money in a huge shadow economy when they suddenly went away that money had to be replaced which the Fed has been doing; although not perfectly as the financial sector has a lot of power influence in our political system. I believe your faith in a laissez faire solution is naive. Ron --On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:25 PM -0800 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Eric and Jed, Why do we need someone to control the amount of money in circulation? Why do we need to split it up in pieces? I guess it is good for China they can now fix their economy by letting others pay for it. This nationalistic way of solving problems will go away. Just let it go natural. I do not think we need a financial nurse checking out for us. Freedom is a god thing liberalism does stand for that from the beginning but now it has become to mean socialism. Is that why everybody like to have more nursing? Cannot distinguish between liberalism and socialism:) Big difference. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. *From:* Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob *From:* *Eric Walker* eric.wal...@gmail.com Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium
From a previous post except in part as follows: I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles together with combination with light: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: *From:* Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:41 PM *To:* Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium Yes, I have read the circumstances of his death but that does not answer the basic question of whether his technology worked or not. If it did, somebody out there should have been able to replicate at least part of it. The only evidence I ever heard of was a very old Sci Am article in which a radium coated antenna appeared to generate a stronger reception signal (although together with much random noise). I recall someone named Moreland made claims similar to Brown but few details were published. There is an emotional component about random radioactive decay – as anything contrary is usually brought up by Creationists. A classic paper by Emery (Embry?) is usually quoted as exhaustively showing that absolutely nothing can influence the rate of decay. However, I still wonder about thin film layers and HV – also NMR effects. A physicist at American University claimed an influence of 1 x 10 -5 power on Beta decay but I never heard further about it.
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Hi all In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us Kind Regards walker On 13 August 2015 at 17:32, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: No - Craig I did not write that but I think it is correct in a way. Your more in dept series of events is actually supporting the statement as I see it. More important to me is that you actually give good example to how the manipulation for political reasons becomes more important than the economical reality. No body could get money without paying a high interest, which was impossible as it was shortage of income opportunity - so nobody invested so nobody bought more than absolute minimum and nobody invested . . . In the end of the day devaluation took place anyhow. The real irony is of course that as the US dollar dictated the value of other currencies it was no real devaluation or rather everybody devaluated. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote: deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to look less indepbted. No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce. The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels, which had not been seen before that period in time. Craig
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. I disagree. All real world economies are a combination of the two. Hybrids, that is. With some freedom to trade, and some restrictions. For example, few people are allowed to trade in explosive materials, for the practical reasons demonstrated in Tianjin, China, yesterday. There has never been a time in history when trade and commerce were unrestricted by laws, licensing, inspection and so on. For example, the law governing beer purity (Reinheitsgebot) has have been force in Germany since 1487, more or less unchanged. (Although Wikipedia says it was rescinded.) There were extensive laws governing house and barn construction in Pennsylvania in 1750. Builders who did not follow these laws were run out of town on a rail according to an expert I know. He really is an expert: he repairs and rebuilds 18th century structures in Pennsylvania. He knows all of the codes from that time, as well as those presently in force. In U.S. history, over the last 200 years, the number of laws and restrictions to trade have been drastically reduced. We are now living in the golden age of unrestricted free market competition, unlike like any previous era. This is contrary to what conservatives believe, but it is true. You have to read a lot of original source history about boring subjects to understand this. For example, in 1800 all along the east coast, hotels were regulated to an extent that would be unthinkable today. The amount of money they could charge every night, the size of the room, and the exact menu of food they had to offer was set out in detail in the laws. In examples, up until the 1960s, lawyers and doctors were not allowed to advertise their services or post their rates; advertisements were not allowed to name their competing products (so they called them brand X); rates for trucks, airplanes and taxis were set by law; and established companies has trade groups that more or less banned the entry of competition. Also, the telephone and electric power industry did not allow competition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Lennart, I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without gov intervention regulation. I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in government regulation as most institutions are very CYA risk averse (I work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and standards are essentially good for industry society even if implementation can always be improved. Ron --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons. Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and I could not start businesses with this type of products. If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required and that technology can replace the many outdated laws we have. Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see that we change the current format to a working modern system. The alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return, by constantly 'improving' the existing system. Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work better - implement that plan - evaluate . . . . Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: Hi all In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-c apitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance, wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such relationship can be shown to exist. Craig
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Lennart, I guess we will just have to disagree. As an example just compare countries (or states) with strong code enforcement to those with little on none. You will find the former much nicer. Corners will always be cut if it's possible. Ron --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:32 PM -0800 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Ron, I understand your view. I might just be too radical. However, my experience is that starting with a clean plate - taking in a minimum of the regulations and try to catch the regulation with as generic statements as possible is a good starting poin. The other way to eliminate what is not required is just not going to eliminate anything - it actually will add more stuff. My thinking is that any law that is not easy enforceable is useless and laws that does not make sense or violates general moral (did not find a better word) should not be allowed. I do know very little about building roads. However, I think the industry knows what is required. I see no reason that the government should be involved in determine how. The competition would easily force a set of standards to be 'typical' and then the buyer could buy what standard he wants. I know that someone is saying that would be people taking short cuts. That is just as it is today also. It is still very costly and in-effective to litigate based on details. The method I suggest (to delegate the standardization would bring new methods in quicker as it could create competitive advantages to the implementer. Now we are doing things as we always done and hope for a better result and you know what that means.:) Just stick with what always was and then no risk for the behind and no difficult new stuff to have to learn about. This goes for most of our regulation. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Lennart, I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without gov intervention regulation. I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in government regulation as most institutions are very CYA risk averse (I work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and standards are essentially good for industry society even if implementation can always be improved. Ron --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons. Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and I could not start businesses with this type of products. If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required and that technology can replace the many outdated laws we have. Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see that we change the current format to a working modern system. The alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return, by constantly 'improving' the existing system. Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work better - implement that plan - evaluate . . . . Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
OK Jed. I am just imagine things then. I am 100 % sure there were less laws and regulations in the US when I came here almost 30 years ago. My experience is that it is true in Europe also. I only can build that opinion on hearsay but . . I have not read all the boring stuff you read. I have experienced first hand how much more everything need to be as molded in to the form. We allow less personal freedom. Sure there were many laws in old time we cam laugh about today. Good we managed to stop protecting hotels from robbers. The monopolies are all because the banks saw that it was possible to monopolies certain industries under the philosophy that it would be a waste f resources to build competing telephone lines. such a large infrastructure that only the banks could handle. Regarding the law about German beer. That has changed in my lifetime so it is at least different than it was 1487. I also know for sure that it ws not a German law as there was no Germany at that time. Probably a Pilsen (today no longer in Germany) idea. On the other hand - yes there were many laws that kept people from moving 'up' in the ranks. Not defending that. It did not take so many laws when you had a dictator who could change the law as he found best, when he so wanted. Not my idea about freedom. I am not comparing with the history I am looking for a solution for the future. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. I disagree. All real world economies are a combination of the two. Hybrids, that is. With some freedom to trade, and some restrictions. For example, few people are allowed to trade in explosive materials, for the practical reasons demonstrated in Tianjin, China, yesterday. There has never been a time in history when trade and commerce were unrestricted by laws, licensing, inspection and so on. For example, the law governing beer purity (Reinheitsgebot) has have been force in Germany since 1487, more or less unchanged. (Although Wikipedia says it was rescinded.) There were extensive laws governing house and barn construction in Pennsylvania in 1750. Builders who did not follow these laws were run out of town on a rail according to an expert I know. He really is an expert: he repairs and rebuilds 18th century structures in Pennsylvania. He knows all of the codes from that time, as well as those presently in force. In U.S. history, over the last 200 years, the number of laws and restrictions to trade have been drastically reduced. We are now living in the golden age of unrestricted free market competition, unlike like any previous era. This is contrary to what conservatives believe, but it is true. You have to read a lot of original source history about boring subjects to understand this. For example, in 1800 all along the east coast, hotels were regulated to an extent that would be unthinkable today. The amount of money they could charge every night, the size of the room, and the exact menu of food they had to offer was set out in detail in the laws. In examples, up until the 1960s, lawyers and doctors were not allowed to advertise their services or post their rates; advertisements were not allowed to name their competing products (so they called them brand X); rates for trucks, airplanes and taxis were set by law; and established companies has trade groups that more or less banned the entry of competition. Also, the telephone and electric power industry did not allow competition. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. From: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron”
[Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
It may be that the intense magnetic field keeps the mediation bosons at bay so that the weak force interaction doesn’t work as fast. Also muomic atoms occur—a +muon and an electron. Such an item may act like a light neutron and bring electrons into the vicinity of a nucleus and allow the generation of real neutrons from protons within the nucleus and then expel the original +muon to form more muonic atoms. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net Ø …the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater… This brings up the subject of “muonic hydrogen”. Since the muon is like a heavy electron, it can orbit the proton like an electron. This is fairly well studied. What is needed for LENR, in addition, is a way to significantly increase the lifetime of such an arrangement. In the literature, there is no mention of a decrease in the decay rate of muons - due to orbital capture by a proton. However, the muon is about 200 times heavier than the electron, and muonic hydrogen is the same 200 times smaller in diameter than ordinary hydrogen. In a magnetic field - where the muonic hydrogen is polarized - assuming “inverse-square” applies (and why wouldn’t it?) this situation would seem to create a magnetic near-field which is 40,000 times greater than the normal 12.5 T field. Thus … with a nickel substrate, notably ferromagnetic, or with Holmlid’s iron oxide, also ferromagnetic - perhaps there is a previously unknown phenomenon which is occurring to alter the decay rate of muonic hydrogen and do it via magnetism ? SPP also have a large effective magnetic field. We could be talking megatesla (1,000,000 Tesla field strength) in combination. Of course, near fields are always much stronger, but this is the magnetic field equivalent of a neutron star.
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons. Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and I could not start businesses with this type of products. If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required and that technology can replace the many outdated laws we have. Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see that we change the current format to a working modern system. The alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return, by constantly 'improving' the existing system. Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work better - implement that plan - evaluate . . . . Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: Hi all In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance, wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such relationship can be shown to exist. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:36 -0700: Hi, [snip] Let me backtrack If we follow the credo that experiment rules and that Holmlid appears to be making muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to make them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about (drum roll) zombie muons ? Unfortunately, the lifetime of the muon is not the only problem. They tend to get stuck orbiting heavier nuclei, and are thus removed from the fusion chain. So even if their lifetime were severely extended, they probably wouldn't catalyze all that many reactions each anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net Ø …the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater… This brings up the subject of “muonic hydrogen”. Since the muon is like a heavy electron, it can orbit the proton like an electron. This is fairly well studied. What is needed for LENR, in addition, is a way to significantly increase the lifetime of such an arrangement. In the literature, there is no mention of a decrease in the decay rate of muons - due to orbital capture by a proton. However, the muon is about 200 times heavier than the electron, and muonic hydrogen is the same 200 times smaller in diameter than ordinary hydrogen. In a magnetic field - where the muonic hydrogen is polarized - assuming “inverse-square” applies (and why wouldn’t it?) this situation would seem to create a magnetic near-field which is 40,000 times greater than the normal 12.5 T field. Thus … with a nickel substrate, notably ferromagnetic, or with Holmlid’s iron oxide, also ferromagnetic - perhaps there is a previously unknown phenomenon which is occurring to alter the decay rate of muonic hydrogen and do it via magnetism ? SPP also have a large effective magnetic field. We could be talking megatesla (1,000,000 Tesla field strength) in combination. Of course, near fields are always much stronger, but this is the magnetic field equivalent of a neutron star.
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Ron, I understand your view. I might just be too radical. However, my experience is that starting with a clean plate - taking in a minimum of the regulations and try to catch the regulation with as generic statements as possible is a good starting poin. The other way to eliminate what is not required is just not going to eliminate anything - it actually will add more stuff. My thinking is that any law that is not easy enforceable is useless and laws that does not make sense or violates general moral (did not find a better word) should not be allowed. I do know very little about building roads. However, I think the industry knows what is required. I see no reason that the government should be involved in determine how. The competition would easily force a set of standards to be 'typical' and then the buyer could buy what standard he wants. I know that someone is saying that would be people taking short cuts. That is just as it is today also. It is still very costly and in-effective to litigate based on details. The method I suggest (to delegate the standardization would bring new methods in quicker as it could create competitive advantages to the implementer. Now we are doing things as we always done and hope for a better result and you know what that means.:) Just stick with what always was and then no risk for the behind and no difficult new stuff to have to learn about. This goes for most of our regulation. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ron Wormus prot...@frii.com wrote: Lennart, I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without gov intervention regulation. I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in government regulation as most institutions are very CYA risk averse (I work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and standards are essentially good for industry society even if implementation can always be improved. Ron --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons. Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and I could not start businesses with this type of products. If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required and that technology can replace the many outdated laws we have. Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see that we change the current format to a working modern system. The alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return, by constantly 'improving' the existing system. Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work better - implement that plan - evaluate . . . . Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote: Hi all In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
May the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater, not from the Rydberg mater it selves. Its may be a kind of HAD. On source for muons may be pion-decay. Pion-exchange is a part in nuclear reactions and have been suggested by Takahashi. (side 574) _http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedl.pdf_ But the Pions in nuclear reactions are virtual particles. I know if a virtual particle can be real. On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:09:56 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muon s (as opposed to creating them from nothing) . I think that we all agree that extending the lifetime of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source - is functionally identical to making them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid's experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly - one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic - but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. FROM: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob FROM: Eric Walker [2] Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a heavy electron with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … Maybe it's pretty high says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric Links: -- [1]
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of negative vacuum energy is present. That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and
Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
See this reference about vacuum energy http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time. A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of negative vacuum energy is present. That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP. Negative vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones, Eric and Axil-- I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in the dark. The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred. The standard words explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, however an interaction with what?—it’s not said. And what happens to a muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact? It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge) bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are involved, but do they appear at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay? And why is the half life of a free muon so short? If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson? Does it disappear back to the vacuum? The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec. Bob Cook . *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing). I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of
[Vo]:ER=EPR and AMPS
Physics beleives that it is impossible to experimentally demonstrate the resolution of the AMPS paradox. But this wormhole principle is demonstrated all the time in LENR. It is too bad that physics does not take LENR seriously. See ER = EPR, or What's Behind the Horizons of Black Holes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw
RE: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium
From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:41 PM To: Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium Yes, I have read the circumstances of his death but that does not answer the basic question of whether his technology worked or not. If it did, somebody out there should have been able to replicate at least part of it. The only evidence I ever heard of was a very old Sci Am article in which a radium coated antenna appeared to generate a stronger reception signal (although together with much random noise). I recall someone named Moreland made claims similar to Brown but few details were published. There is an emotional component about random radioactive decay – as anything contrary is usually brought up by Creationists. A classic paper by Emery (Embry?) is usually quoted as exhaustively showing that absolutely nothing can influence the rate of decay. However, I still wonder about thin film layers and HV – also NMR effects. A physicist at American University claimed an influence of 1 x 10 -5 power on Beta decay but I never heard further about it.
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote: deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to look less indepbted. No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce. The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels, which had not been seen before that period in time. Craig
[Vo]:LENR in molten Ni, LENR in energy plan, Info
For today: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/just-bit-more-than-lenr-info-for-aug-13.html I hope tomorrow we will know more. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 09:48 -0500, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God. Opinions and desires can't be universalized, but I believe that most of the people who want to see gold as money do so because they believe in a decentralized, universal, stable, currency, something no central bank can achieve. Craig
