Re: [Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution
OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: All three of us, Stanford, the Cruncher and I believe that the web of life was divinely ordered. I have previously made the case that, if the earth sun system is viewed as a closed system, then the web of life is reversing the second law of thermodynamics. AFAIK, it is the only example of this reversal. Stanford is making a similar case for the control mechanism. Perhaps it's time to repeat once again what Bohr suggested Einstein might want to consider. Who are you to tell God what to do? http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/9_2.html By all means, Thomas, express your opinions on how you believe the universe operates. We all indulge in the entertainment on occasion, myself included, though I must admit that Dougles Adams had a much better handle on the skill. ;-) ...Just as long as you remain honest with your audience and, more importantly, to yourself that what you have just expressed above is a religious belief, not one based on scientific inquiry. Looking at this issue from a slightly different angle I have no idea what religious persuasions Dr. Ed Storms might adhere to, or even if he has any. Dr. Storms will certainly correct me if I error on this point but I suspect he learned very early in his life the consequences of traveling down the road of conducting research within a framework of pre-conditioned religious beliefs, particularly as to what the outcome SHOULD reveal. Since you asked, I will throw out a few ideas. I believe that a reality exists based on the intelligence that can be contained in complex energy fields, in contrast to the reality in this world based on matter. This other reality is frequently called the spiritual world. This and our world sometimes intersect, thereby allowing information to be exchanged. This is the basis for psi phenomenon, religious experience, and other unexplained events. The various religions try to explain this other reality, but with variable and limited success, which changes over time. Unfortunately, a faith gene exists that is very useful if applied properly. When this gene affects our efforts to understand any reality, it blinds people and makes then reach conclusions that are based on their own imagination, or more exactly, on the imagination of various authorities. I find the hardest challenge when attempting to understand this world, and especially the spiritual world, is to fight the faith gene and keep a completely open mind. Nevertheless, it is necessary and useful to have some faith. The problem is applying this faith to the right facts and then holding on to these facts with a light grip. Ed I suspect it is difficult for many on the Vortex-l list to respect the positions of those like Stanford, or the Cruncher, primarily because these individuals do not appear willing to personally risk engaging one of the most fundamental principals of scientific investigation: Questioning one's current opinions on how they believe the universe operates. This is a very old road that you and I have traveled down, Thomas. There is little desire on my part to suggest once again that you might actually benefit by opening up to a slightly less rigid perspective on how The Baker bakes her cookies, the ones we all enjoy eating. Previous discussions on similar topics have consistently rolled off you as quickly as water off the back of a duck. How unfortunate. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution
leaking pen wrote: so, im curious, have you any expericence in actual nueral chemistry/physiology, and have you done any research into where it occurs? its where im headed, myself , after finishing my degree. No, I have done no research in this area. I'm only an innocent bystander who has accumulated a lot of experience from various sources and who tries to put it all into a framework that makes sense to me. Life, like science, gives a collection of apparently unrelated observations. The challenge is to put them together without making too many assumptions. The assumptions get a person off reality and into imagination if care is not taken. For example, religion makes the assumption than mankind is special and the spiritual world was designed with him/her in mind. Given the size of this universe and time is has existed, I think a better assumption is that mankind is a trivial part of this spiritual reality and, in fact, a rather late arrival. Also, given the unstable nature of the earth and the surrounding galaxy, as well as our own stupidly, we may not exist for very long by universe standards. If the assumption is changed to reflect this recently acquired knowledge science has given us, the result is a more humble attitude and one that is more accepting of our fellow travelers on this temporary space ship. The unwillingness of the various religions to accept this new assumption, I'm afraid, will be our undoing. Ed On 12/20/07, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: leaking pen wrote: ed, would you suggest that the ability to interact with this energy world is inherent with the existingly known mechanisms of the brain, through some form of 4th dimensional aspect of the brain we dont understand, or through another mechanism/organ/spirit entirely? and, your own reality is quite similar to mine, i find. Thanks, its always nice to know that we are not alone in our beliefs. As for the mechanism of communication, I expect it involves the normal interaction between matter and energy fields. I see no reason to involve another dimension. Science is gradually finding ways to detect a wider and wider range of energy. I expert some day, the energy that is involved in communication between the two realities will be tapped and the flow of information will increase. Right now, this communication is based on interaction with the cell structure within a few sensitive brains, a very unreliable method. ED On 12/20/07, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: All three of us, Stanford, the Cruncher and I believe that the web of life was divinely ordered. I have previously made the case that, if the earth sun system is viewed as a closed system, then the web of life is reversing the second law of thermodynamics. AFAIK, it is the only example of this reversal. Stanford is making a similar case for the control mechanism. Perhaps it's time to repeat once again what Bohr suggested Einstein might want to consider. Who are you to tell God what to do? http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/9_2.html By all means, Thomas, express your opinions on how you believe the universe operates. We all indulge in the entertainment on occasion, myself included, though I must admit that Dougles Adams had a much better handle on the skill. ;-) ...Just as long as you remain honest with your audience and, more importantly, to yourself that what you have just expressed above is a religious belief, not one based on scientific inquiry. Looking at this issue from a slightly different angle I have no idea what religious persuasions Dr. Ed Storms might adhere to, or even if he has any. Dr. Storms will certainly correct me if I error on this point but I suspect he learned very early in his life the consequences of traveling down the road of conducting research within a framework of pre-conditioned religious beliefs, particularly as to what the outcome SHOULD reveal. Since you asked, I will throw out a few ideas. I believe that a reality exists based on the intelligence that can be contained in complex energy fields, in contrast to the reality in this world based on matter. This other reality is frequently called the spiritual world
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jed, It depends on what you mean by relationship. Both hot and cold fusion produce the same end products, but in different ratios. The reactions in each case involve the fusion of deuterium. However, the two process are completely different in the mechanism that allows the fusion to occur. As a result, saying that a relationship exists between hot and cold fusion has no meaning because the only relationship that exists is trivial. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Frederick Sparber wrote: IOW, Is Cold Fusion-Deuteration Target Factory, the required preliminary step for attaining Hot Fusion? I have no idea, and I do not understand the technical issues in this case, but I have long had an intuitive feeling that hot fusion and cold fusion must be the same phenomenon in different domains. Two sides of the same coin, in other words, or as Chris Tinsley liked to say, like metabolism and fire. It would not surprise me to learn that cold fusion reactions are a necessary precursor to hot fusion. I do not think that nature has two completely unrelated ways of fusing deuterons to form helium and produce heat in the same fixed ratio. Although the other day when I talked about that ratio in a manuscript, Ed Storms suggested I leave out hot fusion because it confuses the issue, and I should just say the heat-to-helium ratio is fixed. I think Ed's recent plasma experiments also point to a relationship between hot fusion and cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding it with Deuterons to get Hot Fusion energy multiplication. Doping the Pd cathode with Lithium and/or Boron by Sputtering and/or Ion Implantation might enhance the Hot Fusion yield. Otherwise you're stuck with good science and low-grade heat. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, I'm not a mind-reader, but I think that what Fred (and other assorted non-skeptics tuned-in to Vo) really want to know is this: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? No, boron has no effect. If it does, then many of us would (at least partly) disagree with your conclusion that speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose... ... this is because there could be one critical thing (pathway) which you are missing here, even though your logic is based on the voluminous past findings of lack of neutrons in LENR. That would be the likelihood that cold fusion, like hot fusion, does indeed initiate a neutron producing reaction, but that the neutrons themselves are highly (extremely) subthermal and not detectable in the same sense (same equipment) that hot neutrons, or even thermal neutrons, are detectable. This would indicate that the prior non-detectability is itself what is flawed, and that is due to lack of a proper neutron detector being placed extremely close. Low energy neutrons will activate many elements in a normal cold fusion environment producing radioactive isotopes. This kind of radioactivity is seldom detected even though it would be easy to detect. One might even surmise that CF neutrons could possibly have a negative effective temperature, in the sense of low compreture (combined pressure and temperature property). Such a species might still interact with high cross-section elements like boron of gadolinium, however, IF (and only if) that element were close-by and did not require neutron transport over a few nanometers. An extremely subthermal neutron might spend most of its lifetime locked in a lattice vacancy, where its negative near-field and the electron cloud of the the Pd keep it relatively frozen for extended periods. I don't understand how a subthermal neutron can be made. If it results from a nuclear reaction, it will take up some of the energy produced by this reaction and not be subthermal. That is: A neutron of very low kinetic energy, formed in any LENR electrode, which is produced in a situation of high relative compression but modest temperature, is most often locked in place till its low-energy decay, leaving a proton. Or if it eventually emerges into an ambient pressure situation, might show an effective kinetic profile which would make it so highly subthermal that it would not go far in distance. If such a neutron does not become thermal in its normal lifetime (latest average lifetime: 886.8 seconds (about 14.8 minutes) plus or minus 3.4 seconds according to NIST), then no one would suspect that they were ever present, except for more hydrogen than expected. Nevertheless, if such a neutron was exposed to a local absorber of high cross-section, then that secondary reaction would be the evidence, but that scenario would require extremely close proximity. BTW - Far better than boron would possibly be gadolinium, element 64, which is more than an order of magnitude improvement over boron. This sounds crazy until one realizes that any neutron interacts so slowly with low-cross section elements anyway - that a highly subthermal neutron might never approach the kinetic energy necessary to propel it into a detector, even if that detector was able to register the interaction. Futhermore, the decay itself might not be detectable in some detectors. I don't understand the issue. You assume a thermnal neutron can form. You assume that it does not react with the surrounding elements to make a radioactive isotope, yet you assume it can react with deuterium to make I presume tritium, which is not see. Or perhaps it reacts with protium to make deuterium. What exactly do you expect to happen that would explain the observations and make this a hot fusion process? In any case, this is not hot fusion. Hot fusion makes energetic neutrons. It does not use neutrons for subsequent reactions. Ed Jones Edmund Storms wrote: Fred, Hot fusion initiates the neutron producing path, cold fusion does not. This is the basic difference based an observation. The glow discharge does not produce neutrons. In addition, the voltages are too low to produce a hot fusion reaction. As for heat production, the glow discharge technique is designed and being used to understand the mechanism. Once the basic information is obtained, development of a practical device will be easy. At this point, speculation based on conventional ideas serves no purpose. In fact, the mechanism is very unconventional. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Ed Storms wrote. It depends on what you mean by relationship. Ed Radiation Produced By Glow Dioscharge in Deuterium http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf To me this experiment suggests a vital relationship between loading the Pd cathode with Deuterium for Cold Fusion, and bombarding
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Hi Jones, Here is some background information. Boron is used to remove oxygen from palladium, which makes the palladium brittle. Addition of boron was done to prevent cracking, which I showed prevents the required high composition from being achieved. Miles used a Pb-B alloy to measure the He/energy relationship and found that this sample gave the same relationship as the samples without boron. Therefore, boron plays no role in the nuclear process. Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. The situation is much more complex than you are taking into account. Ed Jones Beene wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Does LENR glow discharge benefit significantly from boron content in the electrode? No, boron has no effect. Well, that answers the question then. Many observers had hoped that Miles' work with boron and his reported 100% reproducibility was accurate. Apparently not. Miles did go to the trouble to patent it: #6,764,561 - although Uncle Sam picked up the tab: it was assigned to the US Dept of Navy. Palladium-boron alloys and methods for making and using such alloys Guess the LENR powered sub will have to wait... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way. There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts. ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are actually present. Obviously, too few are present to be detected outside of the cell even while over 10^12 fusion events are taking place within the cell. That is to say - if that particular type of cell (SPAWAR) is producing neutrons, then that type would benefit (energy-wise) from boron, but this does not mean that other variations of LENR technique are going to do the same, as they may or may not produce neutrons. The issue involves the rate of the reactions. Neutrons are only important if they are generated at a sufficient rate. A few neutron/sec reacting with boron, while making energy, will be totally invisible and unimportant, which seems to be the case. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
for the possibility of several different varieties of LENR, then W-L theory certainly rings truer and more logical than anything yet put forward to explain that variety of experiment. The SPAWAR experiment is indeed in that variety, but many others, including those of Ed Storms are not. Edmund Storms wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Boron is deposited on the Pd surface in every P-F cell as the Pyrex dissolves. Nevertheless, no radioactivity is detected and heat is seldom produced. As for the Pd-B, I attempted to get heat both from a sample supplied by Miles and by a fresh sample supplied by NRL, and failed both times. All of my work indicates that success requires both a high composition, which the boron helps achieve, and deposition of a special alloy material, the NAE, which is not influenced by the boron. This clarifies why you are negative about boron. I take it that you are also unconvinced that the SPAWAR tracks (pits) are indicative of neutrons. However, are you saying that none (no substantial population) of those SPAWAR tracks is consistent with neutrons? They see something that is neutron-like. However, the results are not consistent with any other observation. Also, the production rate of these particles is very low, perhaps too low to be detected any other way. There seems to be substantial disagreement on this point, as the Kowalski pages indicate... There is disagreement about almost every human idea if you search for the right people to ask. You need to examine the facts. ... BUT if any substantial number of these tracks are due to neutrons, and there are a number of experts who believe this -- then you will agree that the presence of boron would add substantial energy to any such cell producing them, no? If neutrons are involved at at a sufficient rate, they will add energy by by being absorbed by any nucleus. The practical issue is how many are actually present. Obviously, too few are present to be detected outside of the cell even while over 10^12 fusion events are taking place within the cell. That is to say - if that particular type of cell (SPAWAR) is producing neutrons, then that type would benefit (energy-wise) from boron, but this does not mean that other variations of LENR technique are going to do the same, as they may or may not produce neutrons. The issue involves the rate of the reactions. Neutrons are only important if they are generated at a sufficient rate. A few neutron/sec reacting with boron, while making energy, will be totally invisible and unimportant, which seems to be the case. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Jones, I have no idea what Miley believes. Take a look at the Larsen paper where they make a comparison to a selected set of the Miley work and tell me what you think. The fit is even less good to other data sets. The logic of the fit is even flawed. When a neutron is added to an element, the isotopic ratio is shifted. To get a new element, a beta must be emitted. The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed, The isotopic distribution agrees with the distribution reported by Miley. The claimed agreement is poor at best. This could be a very important point to clarify, due to the reputation of Miley. Are you certain that Miley considers the agreement as poor at best ? I was under the impression that he considers it to be convincing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Sorry Robin, I meant to type half-life. When I'm fasting, my mind has a mind of its own. I'm now back on food so that, hopefully, I might make more sense. Regards, Ed Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:10:44 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] The dead times of the elements involved in this process are well known and do not permit the claimed distribution to form no matter how many neutrons are available. Could you please explain what dead times means in this context? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Horace Heffner wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding. Time seems to be in short supply of late. On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Jones, the Widom-Larsen theory is not only inconsistent with normal physics but it is also inconsistent with what has been observed in cold fusion. It makes the following unsupported assumptions: 1. Energy can be transferred to an electron from a low energy environment causing the mass of the electron to increase. This requires energy to go uphill and this process has never before been observed in normal physics. I think electrons can gain energies (with some finite probability of a very high energy state that is) from environmental (i.e. chemical) conditions. Orbital electrons can gain energy from the environment through orbital modifying mechanisms. Electrons gain mass from increased velocity, i.e. m = m0*gamma. Relativistic orbitals do exist, where gamma is significant. Not all orbitals, even proton orbitals, are spherically symmetric near the nucleus, as we typically visualize them, with probability density being smaller the closer to the nucleus. In some molecules, or even lone hydrogen atoms, orbital states can exist in which the electron plunges deep toward, and periodically (or with some probability), even into the nucleus. It is only by virtue of the fact orbital electrons can and do enter the nucleus that electron capture occurs. Further, the electron capture rate for heavy nuclei has been demonstrated to be affected by the chemical (electron orbital) environment. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions are a proven reality. See: Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages”, Physical Review Letters, 10, September 2004 Ohtsuki et al.,“Radioactive Decay Speedup at T=5 K: Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 252501 (2007) The Larsen-Widom mechanism requires the electrons gain mass without gaining velocity. If the energy is supplied by velocity, the resulting neutrons will not be subthermal. Besides the electron has to be on a collision course toward a proton, which is not possible if it gets its energy from being in an orbit. Electron capture only involves a complex nucleus. It happens when the gain of an electron results in a lower energy for the entire system. When a proton gains an electron, energy is increased, not reduced. Therefore, this is not the same as the EC process. 2. This electron can react with a proton to make a neutron. The electron gains mass only by acquiring kinetic energy. As far as I know, the electron is not believed to contain internal energy states that would allow it to store energy as mass. The rare occasion when energetic electrons are found to react, the rate is very low. The reaction rate of electrons with hadrons is low because they are weak reactions, and typically require the interaction of a neutrino, or manufacture of a neutrino pair from the vacuum. Creation of a state that can spawn electron capture thus requires a condition in which that state can exist for long periods (long from a nuclear perspective). It may well be possible an island of feasibility exists in which the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is small enough to avoid field overlap, and the energy of magnetic binding plus Coulomb binding are sufficient to overcome the centrifugal force. For the proton see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf For the deuteron see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf This provides some interesting possibilities. (1) If electron radiation can occur from this state then the electron becomes energetically trapped, plus the energy so radiated is free energy and beyond chemical energy. (2) If electron radiation can not occur from this state, then the state is quasi-stable. (3) If the state is quasi-stable, then the entity can act like a neutron (or di-neutron in the case of deuterium) for purposes of overcoming the Coulomb barrier because the binding energy can even exceed the energy of fusion. The problem is determining the mechanism by which an electron can enter into (i.e. tunnel into) this very small state. While this is a problem, it is not a serious problem in that electron capture presents exactly the same problem. If it is assumed the electron actually is comprised of one or more highly flexible and expandable strings, then it is not so difficult to imagine how such tunneling mechanisms, or even ordinary ones, might exist. What is most interesting is the fact the EM fields of the nucleus plus electron are capable of creating enormously energetic states, states so energetic that their relativistic masses exceed the rest masses of the particles themselves. This, however, is due to the fact particles are point like, or at least
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion-Treated Palladium-Lithium-Boron Laser Fusion Target Factory
Horace Heffner wrote: snip We can debate all day about what the arrangement of electrons looks like and how they might in theory behave. Nevertheless, if electrons can in fact gain the required 0.78 MeV from their surroundings to make a neutron, why is this process not detected? There is in fact much more than 0.78 MeV feasibly available from electron-nucleus interaction, so energy is not the issue. Horave, the energy is the issue! A free neutron, as W-L propose, can only be made by an electron adding to a proton. This takes energy. This energy must be available at the time the neutron is formed, not later when the neutron might react with a nucleus. Therefore, it must be accumulated from the environment and added to the electron. I'm saying that no mechanism exists, other than imagination, that can make this happen. If it were to happen, many chemical effects would be produced by the energetic electron long before a neutron was produced. Such effects are NOT observed. The main issue is time. Making a neutron requires a weak reaction and the availability of a neutrino. Such a reaction would be highly improbable to observe because it would have a huge half-life. Further, the radius of the particle I computed would likely preclude a neutrino-proton-electron reaction. Further I am not advocating for neutron formation as being possible or even the creation of a more than attosecond order neutron like deflated state as even being likely. What I have said is there is a *possibility* of a neutron like entity being created, and there may be a chance for a longer bound entity. I just don't know, but the calculations I provided in this thread earlier seem to support the possibility. Such an entity represents a major energy deficit to a fusion reaction though, as I explained in my theory, and would be unlikely to be detected at all by nuclear physicists or anyone looking for nuclear reaction signatures. My main point though was not that such things exist, but rather that your argument for their non-existence does not hold water. Other arguments may. What argument would you think would hold more water? Do you know of any experimental observations, other than EC, that would support this idea? That is the issue of this discussion. Sorry that I did not make clear earlier my reasons for mentioning EC. I did not intend to imply EC was relevant at all to making an actual neutron from a proton. EC clearly demonstrates (a) the ability of an orbital electron to enter into and stay in the nucleus, (2) the energy level of the electron must be appropriate to its proximity to the nucleus and thus on the order of MeV, a relativistic energy, and (3) the de Broglie wavelength of the electron is not an issue in preventing it from entering the nucleus. I think that further provides evidence that, since nuclear transit events at light speed should occur with very short durations, they must necessarily occur with great frequency in order to make EC feasible and observable. Another way to state that common sense notion is that (4) the wave function must provide for a high probability of observing the orbital electron in the nucleus. I have no problem believing that the electron wave function must somehow involve the nucleus so that when the nucleus finds that addition of an electron results in a lower energy, the electron can be sucked in. However, this process does not always occur when addition of an electron would result in lower energy. Therefore, other factors must operate. But, this is not the issue of this discussion. The additional experimental evidence required is: A Water Molecule's Chemical Formula is Really Not H2O”,Physics News Update, Number 648 #1, July 31, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein, http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/648-1.html This I think confirms the notion that a very brief nuclear bound state exists between the electron and proton even in water. Water examined on an attosecond scale is not H2O but actually H1.5O, despite the fact it reacts in all chemical reactions as H2O. Some of the hydrogen is thus frequently, but very briefly hidden. A brief electron-proton bound state is a very sensible explanation as to how the protons can disappear to an incident neutron beam. I do not think this is evidence of formation of a neutron. On the contrary, I think it is evidence of a fairly high probability non-radiating degenerate state for the orbital electron. I don't know of any way to detect such a state except by means similar to those used in the above experiment. However, I think CF provides further evidence to the existence of such a state. More to the point of this thread, it provides some evidence that a *neutron-like* entity with half life more than a few attoseconds might be formed by orbital electrons in the right
Re: [Vo]:Nothing on
OrionWorks wrote: Jed sez: Regarding the Storms book listing in Wikipedia, the books are listed in alphabetical order by author, as they should be. I put them that way at one point. They have deleted Beaudette again, which is an atrocity. I forgot about Beaudette's book. Glad I read it. I suppose with a title like: Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition) they had to loose it. Setting my personal conspiratorial opinions aside, why would they remove Beaudette's book but not Ed Storms? I imagine they deleted Beaudette because the title advocates a view they do not believe. They leave my book because it has a neutral title and, because they have not read it, they have not discovered that I advocate the same conclusion. We are dealing with morons and I suggest they are not worth the trouble. Ed steve
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to make more money and to hasten the end of American meddling in Middle East affairs. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to play the game. Ed OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
OrionWorks wrote: My, my, Ed, you're *are* the cynic, aren't you! I prefer the term realist. :-) A realist is a cynic who was proven right. I'm hoping we elect a more gooder regime next November, at least a new gang of criminals that will have the sense to avoid the temptation of getting our country involved in additional regime changes. It would be much safer for the world if we could elect a new regime that finds it immensely more satisfying to conduct their illicit activity behind closed doors and bedrooms rather than on the battle front. As for oil prices, my personal feelings gravitate towards the hope that, despite all the pain and suffering it will cause us all, oil prices remain outrageously high. As best as I can tell maintaining stable high prices will be the only way to help encourage serious AE RD in our capitalistic economy. Our way-of-life depends on it. I agree. Only the pain of spending money will get the public's attention, and eventually the small minded politician's attention. But is this being too cynical? Its hard to tell these days. Ed I doubt we can afford another 80's flip-flop where oil prices sky-rocketed then plummeted. I suspect we're all pretty much in agreement on the point that decades of cheap oil essentially killed off AE research for decades. Had AE research started twenty years ago and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane conversation now. On 1/15/08, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to make more money and to hasten the end of American meddling in Middle East affairs. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to play the game. Ed OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? No, but throughout its history, OPEC has been careful to keep the price reasonably low, for two reasons: 1. To keep from hurting the U.S. economy, because the U.S. is their biggest customer. (And nowadays because they get paid in dollars, but that was never an issue in the past.) 2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source. See the book The Prize for details. Yes, these are the arguments of the past. The question is do they still apply. A growing opinion is developing that a US depression is unavoidable with the price of oil have little effect on the outcome. The issue of developing alternate energy has changed from saving a few bucks to saving the world. The price of oil will have no effect on this issue. After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China . That is exactly my point. If they lower the price to help Bush, they also get less from China. China is not hurting and would gladly pay the price. . . They get the same price no matter who they sell to. Oil is completely fungible. They don't care who buys the stuff. By the same token they want to avoid a U.S. recession no matter who else is buying, because a U.S. recession will lower worldwide demand and reduce the price of oil worldwide. For that matter, they want to avoid a Chinese recession. They would be concerned about the U.S. economy even if the U.S. were still self-sufficient and exporting oil, as it did until the 1970s. It could easily become self-sufficient again, by mandating the use of plug-in hybrid cars. The U.S. could be a member of OPEC by 2015. In that scenario, the Saudis would still prefer to see a strong U.S. economy. Except they would hate to see GM sell millions of hybrid cars a year. (Not a problem so far. Ten years after the Prius was introduced and after Toyota has sold more than a million of them, GM has not sold a single hybrid automobile. What a disgrace!) If the U.S. stopped using oil completely, from all sources, then OPEC would no longer care about our economy. Of course, if we had the technology to do that, so would everyone else in the developed world, and OPEC would be in a desperate situation. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Bush is too late to avoid this outcome to his general policy. The forces of greed that Bush allowed to take over the mortgage industry and his encouragement of outsourcing of our basic industries have done the job without the help from high energy cost. A U.S. depression is what they are trying to avoid. That's why they would be wise to do what Bush suggests. They should also pump the stuff and sell it as quickly as they can, before someone invents a cheaper alternative. Sooner or later, it will be worth nothing. Yes, eventually this will be true, but not in the life time of anyone living today. In spite of a wish for a better attitude, the present energy industries will fight any effort to change the present source of energy at every turn. They will support efforts that have no hope of pushing them aside, such as ethanol and hot fusion, while fighting any thing that will have an effect, such as more efficient cars. But, watch and see if the price of oil actually drops thanks to Bush. That will be the final evidence of his impotence. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Edmund Storms lecture video at YouTube
Thanks Steve, but Brian has already done this. Ed Steven Krivit wrote: I can get the whole 50min piece up on Google. Give me a day or two. At 11:26 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote: See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ltZhii3g2HY This is pretty good. Ignoring the content, here are some comments about the video itself: This is only 8 minutes of a 50-minute lecture. I guess the other parts will be uploaded later. Is there a file size limit at YouTube? The sound quality, lighting, focus and other video attributes are much better than most cold-fusion related videos. This is almost as good as a professionally made video. I am especially pleased there is no background noise. The video quality could be improved by inserting the computer screen images (viewgraphs and figures) directly into the video. I think this can be done fairly easily. I will ask a video expert, such as my daughter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Storms video and the observables
You are right, Frank. The size and the temperature do not affect the nuclear reaction directly. However, both affect the NAE. This environment is very important because it allows the nuclear process to occur. This feature of the reaction is generally overlooked by theory. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was able to watch some segments of Storm's videos, then they stopped working. What I was able to see was very good. Storms mentioned that the hotter the system the more intense the nuclear reaction. There is no way that thermal vibrations at a fraction of an electron volt should effect nuclear systems. I saw the same thing at the CETI demo in 1995 and wondered why. Stroms mentions the 50 nano meter pladium black domain. Nuclear forces extend only for a fermi meter. There is no way that the 50 nm dimension should have anything to do with a nuclear reaction. I multiplied the product 50nm times the thermal frequency and got one megehertz-meter. I thought nothing of it. Then I went to NASA Marshall to witness the Potletnov replication experiments. These experiments used a 1/3 meter disk stimulated at 3 meghertz. The product equals one megahertz-meter again. What is this I thought. I have since worked on and refined the constant (Znidarsic's constant) to 1.094 megahertz-meters. I have found that the constant describes the velocity of the quantum transition. Among other things, I was able to compute the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the energy of photon, and the intensity of the spectral lines from this constant. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html I hope that someone understands what I am getting at. The observables from cold fusion and antigravity experiments have shown how to control all of the natural forces. This knowledge can change man's position within the universe. Frank Znidarsic Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Edmund Storms video URL
I just tried looking at this (1-21-08, 8:30 MDT) and was told it s not available. Looks like the black forces have struck again. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: The video is now available here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9026092151512597723 We hope it will not change again. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storm's and thermionic generators
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed Stoms mentions in the video that electrical production may be possible with thermal to electric generations. These would be of very low efficiency and not suitable for your cell phone. I believe that without the lack of a proper theory, he has missed the main point. Thermoelectric converters are being explored by several companies and are getting sufficiently efficient, especially because the CF fuel is essentially free. The main point of the talk was to show that the effect is real. A proper theory is needed and will gradually be developed when sufficient experimental data has accumulated. Right now most of the experimental data is worthless as the basis for a theory. However, it has great value to show that the effect is real. We need to learn how to crawl we before we can run. I asked Ed a few years back, Did anyone try radio frequency stimulation? He said someone did and it did not work. Did not work to produce thermal energy, maybe. I tried to present Miley with a disclosure on my the radio frequency technique a few years back. He did not accept the disclosure. I am still mum about the details. Unless you can show the details, no one will take your idea seriously. You can't make a buck just from ideas, so why keep them secret? This is especially true because most ideas have no reality at all, except to the originator. Regards, Ed I did not believe that high energy exits the cold fusion process and then degrades through a process of collision. I believe that process takes place at thermal energy. The connection with the thermal stimulation is clear. This thermal energy is orders of magnitude removed from nuclear energy. The heat of a supernova is required to transform lead. One more order of magnitude shift downward and we have radio energy. We can, through the use of diode, convert this radio energy directly to electrical energy. My theorem, The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at the dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz meters shows the way. With an adjustment of the domain and the frequency the greatest potential of the process will be realized. I'm going to try it again with my non existent lab and my non existent funding. Frank Znidarsic Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:I'm bored and writing to much, but what is fused salt Ed?
Fused salt is a mixture of potassium and lithium metals containing dissolved D. No water or Cl is present. D2 is produced at the anode, which is palladium. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If that salt water. Is chlorine liberated? Does the cell produce yucky green sludge? Frank Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:I'm bored and writing to much, but what is fused salt Ed?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:23:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] Fused salt is a mixture of potassium and lithium metals containing dissolved D. No water or Cl is present. D2 is produced at the anode, which is palladium. So the salt is actually Li/K deuteride? No, it is a solution of Li and K containing a little deuterium. At the temperature of 450° C, the solution does not dissolve much D. Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:D2 at the anode, now I am really confused
Frank, The D does not carry a positive charge in this solution because the Li and K are more electropositive than is D. This is standard chemistry. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fused salt is a mixture of potassium and lithium metals containing dissolved D. No water or Cl is present. D2 is produced at the anode, which is palladium. Ed Does not the Hydrogen and the Deuterium ion contain a positive charge in solution. Are not these positive charges attracted to the cathode which is negative in a cell that is receiving energy. Is not the D2 liberated at the cathode. Frank Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489 in the new year.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Harry Veeder quotes.. Al Gore The brunt of this climate crisis is going to be felt in the developing world. All your work... will be undone if you don't focus on this, Bono said. It is clear that those people who have least created this climate crisis... are the least equipped to deal with it. Gore added: I want to say to everyone who wants to solve the climate crisis, they have to take Bono's agenda on extreme poverty, on fighting disease and dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis and make it an integral part of the world's effort to solve the climate crisis. Howdy Harry, At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Of course Richard, some problems have no solution. That is not the issue. It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. Finding a substitute for oil, for example, may not impact the climate much but it will have many other benefits, which won't be achieved without the encouragement of the climate change issue. Think beyond the local issue and who is benefiting and ask if taking the advice of Al Gore might not benefit us all in many other ways. Meanwhile, move to higher ground. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. Of course Africa is imploding. Helping Africa is not done because of guilt but because unstable regions, if ignored, tend to spill out into the reset of the world either as disease or terrorist. Africa was destroyed by the Western nations in the past and even at the present time harm is being done because powerful companies want the resources. The biggest problem in the world is jealousy, vanity, lust and greed. That is not the major problem because these have been part of the human condition from day one. The problem is that these conditions now impact a larger part of the society because of increased power in the hands of government and corporations. In the past, leaders who had too much of these characteristics would screw up a small part of the world. Now they can screwup the whole world. But, we just keep on electing them. As a result, we get what we deserve. Add drugs to this equation and witness a decay in civilized society. An attorney friend remarked tha he no longer knew what justice is as a result of his work in the court system. Drugs are not the problem. The problem is the approach used to deal with drug uce. Some countries take a better approach than others, with the US being one of the worst. In this country, any rational approach based on an understanding of human nature and history is labeled as liberal. As a result, the brute force method of people who only respect and enjoy the use of power are in charge. We see this battle between the liberal and conservative approach being carried out on many issues, with the conservatives winning. As a result, society just keeps getting worse. The response to this deterioration is to apply more force and power. Make people behave rather than give them the freedom and reason to behave. If you want to find the reason for the decay, you might consider this one. I explained the definition of the word justice as love of order, that which preserves it, we call justice. Neither Al Gore or any of the politicians in or from Washington hold legitimate credentials to speak to the American people on issues they help create. Not because their political position in failing us.. but.. by their lack of moral leadership. What did they and the politicials of either party expect in their constant degradation of congress and the constitution they were sworn to defend and protect. Unfortunately, the term moral leadership describes one of the reason things are going down hill. Too often, the criteria is based on some religious idea that has no relationship to the present reality or to the need of the general population. Meanwhile the basic beliefs behind the religious philosophy are ignored in an attempt to force compliance with a few emotional issues. Of course a society goes down hill when the moral leaders speak with such hypocrisy. Ed Richard
Re: [Vo]:some experiments completed
Thanks for the offer, Frank. However, I have my hands full exploring the radiation produced by gas discharge. The beauty of this method is that the radiation gives a window into the process and mechanism. Once this understanding is achieved, it will be easy to predict what will work and what won't, without guessing. Regards,Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: EXPERIMENTS COMPLETED THROUGH JAN 31, 08 I got called back to work in Charlotte next week. What happened to my promised break? I will have no more time to conduct experiments. I completed the following in January. Added Powdered Nickel to heavy water. Stimulated the suspension with a laser pencil. No anomalous thermal energy was detected. Added nano colloid gold to heavy water. Stimulated the suspension with a laser pencil. No anomalous thermal energy was detected. Loaded a nickel wire with heavy water through electrolysis. This wire was connected in a series loop with a radio frequency turning capacitor. I salvaged this capacitor form an old multiband radio quite a few years ago. The capacitor is a fine piece of craftsmanship. One side of the loop was grounded and connected to the cathode of an electrolysis power supply The anode was connected to the + connection of the power supply. I stimulated the tuned circuit with sparks from an automotive spark coil. I did this at a rate of 200 sparks per second with a square wave coil driving circuit. I observed the waveform on an oscilloscope. The circuit rang in a range for 5 to 50 megacycles depending on the tuning capacitor was adjusted and jumped You have to make sure the ground and the circuit is tight or you may damage the scope with sparks of high voltage. No anomalous RF energy was detected. EXPERIMENT NOT COMPLETED The last experiment with a palladium wire. I did not have the wire. The experiment requires an 6 inch length of very thin wire. Its easy to theorize about cold fusion. It is even easier to reject it. It is difficult to produce a positive experimental verification. I wish Ed would repeat the last experiment with a palladium wire. Ed if you want to do this I can send you my hand built coil sparking device. You can also drive a spark coil through a two stage transistor amplifier. The input to the transistors is a square wave signal generator. You have to boost the signal generators output current by a factor of 100 to drive the coil. Frank Z Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030002548
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Colds and the Future
Jed, the cure is simple. When you feel a cold coming on, take a hot sauna or hot-tub. The virus does not like the increased body temperature this produces. Afterwards, bundle up and stay warm. Do not take aspirin. Repeat several times while taking lots of fluids to wash the reaction products out of the body. Large doses of vitamin C also help. If the virus is still in the nasal passages, breathing steam helps kill them. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I am stricken with a stuffy nose and post-nasal drip. This happens to me a lot. In lieu of sleeping, I got to thinking about we might treat the common cold, in the distant future. What would be the ideal treatment, given what we now know? Let us assume we do not discover some panacea that wipes out all rhinoviruses. Nowadays, you wake up feeling kind of stuffy, with a slight cough and an irritated throat. What next? What I do is pretend there is nothing wrong for a day, and then I resort to saline solutions to irrigate the sinuses (which are dry) and decongestants. As far as I can tell, this does nothing to cure the problem but it alleviates the symptoms. As they say, with the best treatment you can cure a cold in about 7 days, whereas if you leave it alone it gets better in a week. In the distant future . . . You wake up feeling kind of stuffy, not even at the irritation phase, but you take no chances. You call in the robot nurse-practitioner. No visits to the doctor or drug store where you might infect someone else. No waiting. The robot arrives in an self-driving automobile/mobile lab 15-minutes later. The robot comes into your house, checks your vital signs, and takes a swab from your nose. It puts the sample in a DNA analysis machine and determines that you do have a cold. It genotypes the virus, reports back to the CDC main computer, and downloads instructions and cautions. If it is a dangerous virus or an unknown, unrecognizable type, it calls an ambulance which takes you to a human doctor. That hardly ever happens. What usually happens is the robot selects a vaccine targeting the particular strain of virus you are infected with. Or, perhaps, in the more distant future, it does on-the-spot recombinant splicing and gins up exactly what you need. It give you a shot (or topical swab, or whatever works). It gives you a 1-day supply of decongestant pills, 2 liters of orange juice, and it suggest you get some bed rest. (Or in a more authoritarian society, it orders you not to go out of the house or infect anyone else, and assigns a small watchdog robot to record who you come in contact with.) You take it easy, wake up the next morning, and cold is gone. Treatment like this might be available today -- I wouldn't know. But I expect this would cost thousands of dollars and probably days of effort to identify the virus, with human-labor intense methods. By the time you did this, the cold will get better on its own. In the scenario I envision the whole job is done in 15 minutes by a robot, and it costs effectively nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Colds and the Future
OrionWorks wrote: Ed sez: Jed, the cure is simple. When you feel a cold coming on, take a hot sauna or hot-tub. The virus does not like the increased body temperature this produces. Afterwards, bundle up and stay warm. Do not take aspirin. Repeat several times while taking lots of fluids to wash the reaction products out of the body. Large doses of vitamin C also help. If the virus is still in the nasal passages, breathing steam helps kill them. Ed My spouse also subscribes to the same methodology. Makes sense. Can't hurt to try. After a week of hot soaks and massive C dosing I'd probably tire of the repetition. ;-) Its a race of whether you or the virus tires first. :-) If the process doesn't work the first day, I usually feel too lousy to continue the war. So, I and the virus go to bed for the duration. Ed Jed's previous comments remind me of the film GATTACA. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world. Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply another consequence of evolution, but based on radiation energy rather than matter. Of course, the spiritual intelligence is beyond ours because it has been soaking up knowledge for billions of years from millions of intelligent species. No wonder it looks like a God to us. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. Many religious biologists agree. However, by and large scientists and biologists in particular tend to be atheists. The best explication for their reasoning can be found in R. Dawkins, The God Delusion. To make a long story very short, his main argument -- which is very ancient -- is that introducing God is a violation of Ockham's razor; i.e. multiplying entities unnecessarily. If the complexity and the origin of life are difficult to explain, it is far more difficult to explain how God might have originated. Furthermore, the laws of physics, chemistry and Darwinian evolution satisfactorily explain all aspects of life (so far anyway), without reference to any motivation, plan or conscious action by any intelligent being, mortal or immortal. In other words, there is no evidence whatever that extraterrestrials seeded earth with the first cells, or that a cosmic intelligence guided the development of life. There is no need to invoke such ideas to explain the phenomena discovered thus far. Perhaps, in the future, some aspect of biology will require such explanations, but I doubt that will happen. Dawkins restates the argument in another thought provoking way. As far as anyone knows, complexity and intelligence only appear as the end product of natural forces, after billions of years of evolution. There is no evidence that they can arise by any other means. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the laws of physics were operative from the moment of the big bang on. So the forces that would eventually drive evolution were there all along, but it does not seem physically possible that they were accompanied by or controlled by intelligence. The Dawkins book has attracted a lot of emotional attacks, but by and large I think it is a quiet philosophical exposition which should not upset any intelligent reader, even a very religious one. All of his arguments have been around since Darwin, and many for thousands of years before that, so any educated believer will be familiar with them. So I can't see why they would upset anyone. I have not read the other best selling books about atheism, but based on reviews and extracts they seem to be more confrontational and emotional. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry Veeder wrote: On 4/2/2008 7:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world. Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply another consequence of evolution, but based on radiation energy rather than matter. Of course, the spiritual intelligence is beyond ours because it has been soaking up knowledge for billions of years from millions of intelligent species. No wonder it looks like a God to us. Ed Like a primal world wide web? Exactly! Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:Notes regarding NAE construction and maintenance
Jones, A marked difference exists in cold fusion between what the experiments tell us and what people propose to happen based on their overactive imaginations. The paper you quote is pure speculation that has no basis in reality. As Horace has correctly noted, cracks are bad. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Horace : Well, there is the case of fractofusion, but that is not an excess heat phenomenon and arguably not even a cold fusion phenomenon. OK - Here is some of what I was referring to, this from Frisone in Italy: Theoretical model of the probability of fusion between deuterons within deformed lattices with micro-cracks at room temperature There are many other hits using the keywords LENR and microcracking which I have not checked on. I am pretty sure that Mitchell Swartz has seen similar results to Frisone. In this work, we wish to demonstrate that a reaction path as the following, dislocations, deformations due to thermodynamic stress and, finally, micro-crack occurrence, can enhance the process of fusion of the deuterons introduced into the lattice by deuterium loading In fact, calculating the rate of deuteron-plasmon-deuteron fusion within a micro-crack, showed, together with an enhancement of the tunneling effect, an increase of at least 2-3 orders of magnitude compared to the probability of fusion on the no deformed lattice. Well - That claim (if true) seems to run contrary to what you are saying, despite the lack of direct evidence for excess heat, per se ... unless, of course, the excess heat which is seen without microcracks is derived from a source other than fusion. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Notes regarding NAE construction and maintenance
Jones, The treatment given the Pd is designed to achieve a high composition. In addition, the treatment would be expected to reduce crack formation. Unfortunately, it is too bad that the studies have not included a measurement of crack formation, especially in view of my work showing the negative role of cracks. Nevertheless, they have had good success in achieving high compositions and improved rates of heat production. Still unanswered is what process is improved by the high composition. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed The paper you quote is pure speculation that has no basis in reality. I must say that the both the papers, and the visual images of FF do not convey the same sense of trust of, say, Stephen Hawking. Looks can be deceiving, however. There are some good images of treating Pd in the issue of NET below, and that info which should be of particular interest to Horace is down in topic #11 on ENEA Frascati. This is a very well-equiped and impressive operation - and some of the ways that they surface treat Pd are shown. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#frisone Jones
Re: [Vo]:Notes regarding NAE construction and maintenance
Jones Beene wrote: --- Horace AFAIK - *everyone* including FF, agrees that high loading is critical. No argument there. I am not arguing that the Italian theory is correct, far from it, and I agree with Ed that without proof, it is just a hollow theory --- but I can see his main point, even if it is only thoretical... and you seem to overlooking that entirely. And that point involves increased self-targeting of a fully loaded matrix BUT it is the WHEN the micro(nano)cracking occurs, and it is in the proper dimensions, which is important (for him). In fact, if done properly ahead of time, he apparently expects increased, not decreased loading, due to an increased dimension of access and much larger effective surface area. There is a certain amount of (paper) logic there. The increased self-targeting apparently for him is kind of like a rifle (using Michel's 'sphincter' effect) where if the target is placed too close, like against the end of the barrel, then it will get less energy from an emerging projectile, than if it is a few feet removed. Again, we all agree that the FF micro-cracking theory is meaningless unless/untill demonstrated (but he did manage to get it published in Fusion Technology). Ed Storms himself in his introduction to the LENR site and in several other publications has stated: Application of deuterium gas to finely divided palladium ... has been found to generate anomalous energy along with helium-4. OK - ask yourself this - isn't finely divided Pd (i.e. palladium black) the very antithesis of what you are advocating ?? YET **palladium black** has been shown, in actual experiment with D2, to work and produce helium without the need for electrolysis AT ALL -- ERGO it MUST produce excess heat! Palladium black is much different from cracks in palladium. Palladium black is mostly surface that attracts a high concentration of deuterium. Although the surface of a crack in bulk Pd will have a high concentration of absorbed deuterium, this area is a very small fraction of the total sample. Therefore, even if some reaction occurs on the surface, the amount would be impossible to measure and can not account for the observations. I suggest the reaction rate is determined by two main variables, the deuterium concentration in the NAE raised to some power and the concentration of the NAE. The P-F method attempts maximize the deuterium concentration and the method using palladium black maximizes the amount of NAE. In both cases, the final rate of nuclear activity is the product of these two variables. Simply proposing that cracks increase the reaction rate without taking these factors into account is not useful. Of course, other variables need to be added to these two variables to account for the process that overcomes the Coulomb barrier and the absence of energetic radiation. I suggest it is a waste of time to speculate about models that are too simple and incomplete to explain even the most basic behavior. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:[VO] : Old Energy New Money
It gets worse. The administration has not only made government bigger, they have made government part of the free enterprise system by printing money to keep large financial institutions from failing. This means that the lose will be shared by everyone who holds dollars. In other words, currency debasement is used to save an incompetent part of the capitalistic system. In the past when its currency was debased by a country, the government made no pretense about free enterprise. Only in the US has the Bush administration found a way to fool the tax payers into believing this is a natural and necessary part of free enterprise. We are such fools! Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Lets see if I have this straight in my mind.. Bear Stearns is an investment bank.. not a bank, so they cannot borrow money from the Fed. JP Morgan-Chase is a bank.. so JP borrowed 15 bil and change from the NY Fed and loaned it to Bare nekid because it's too big to fail. Translation.. when there is $ 550 trillion dollars in funny money ( derivitives) in play out there in the great game, us good ole boys need to stick together of somebody's gonna thinks wez a bunch of crooks. Richard The USA has operated under the Keynesian economic model since FDR. This model ,as in all pyramid schemes, anticipates a sustained gravy train with biscuit wheels economy where everything purchased yesterday will be paid for in tomorrows dollars well.. err.. until.. there is no tomorrow. Thomas wrote, It's the mother of all pyramid schemes. John Kenneth Galbraith was a student of John Maynard Keynes, and a member of ,That Awful Man in the White House's brain trust. Someone pointed out that his economic ideas wouldn't work in the long run. Galbraith's reply was, in the long run we will all be dead. Galbraith died a few months back, his scheme out lived him. The deterioration of the US economy is following an exponential curve. With the rejection of the US dollar by oil producing countries, this deterioration has now gone into the straight up portion of the curve. It has been prophecized that a new source of energy will emerge in the next 5 months, which will allow America to balance it's trade deficit. Yah, Yah, and my pig plays the flute.
Re: [Vo]:The Twinkle in Clarke's sk(eye)
Thanks Terry for making this story available. Although Sir Clark provides a cute tale, it resets on the hubris of the human belief that God cares what we do and has any more or less interest than for the billions of other aware life forms in the universe. In fact, the salvation of our life form rests on accepting that we are only a very small part of the total intelligence of the universe. Once this idea is accepted, we would have less incentive to war on each other. Instead, we could start to accept what we need to understand from our situation rather than make up beliefs that we fight over. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: One of my favs. Here's the whole short story: http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/9billion_clarke.html Terry On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author-Authur wrote a short story 55 years ago - The Nine Billion Names of God which has not received as much comment in the various obits which have come out -- as the more famous Childhood's End ... which curiously, was written at almost the exact same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God ... in which story, computer programmers were sent to a remotemonastery in Tibet to help the monks compile alist of all the names of God. The story offers more surprising insight into the kind of spiritual atheism which Clarke is suspected of harboring. His was a kind of Buddhist outlook, more so than atheistic. Never mind that in a rewrite of the tale in 2008, any old X-boxes could do the job of figuring our all the permutations of the possible names in about 10 microseconds. That is part of the quaint naiveté of many Sci-Fi stories from the fifties, when looked back in retrospect. Anyway, ACC's story came around long before the X-box was available; and to make the plot work, it was said that once the list was complete the monksbelieved that the pre-ordained cosmic destiny of our planet would be fulfilled; and the worldwould end. This is somewhat reminiscent of the denouement of Childhood's End ... at least in transactional relevance. Take the two plots together, and you have the insight into Clarke's kind of Zen. The reason this came to mind just now, was not only the recnet changes in the night sky - but also a song playing on internet radio as I was stargazing last night, The song was titled 9 million bicycles in Beijing. Isn't the human mind a very strange kind of information processor ? BTW the short story ends with the programmers fleeing the monastery to escape the monks' disfavor -- since the program finished the task, and the world was still there, but oops... one of them looks up: Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. Come to think of it without Authur around, the night sky does seem to twinkle less that before. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Twinkle in Clarke's sk(eye)
I realize the story is fiction and it does not represent Clarke's views. In fact, the plot might even be considered sarcasm because it is based on a simple-minded attitude that many people have about humans being God's chosen people. Clarke might well have been poking fun at people who think God is just waiting for us to do certain tasks. He chose naming God as the task, but various religions very seriously choose other tasks. If these tasks are not done a certain way, God will take vengeance or provide rewards if they are done correctly. To me, the story is a simple allegory that pokes fun without stirring up trouble. Whether this was Clarke's view is unknown. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Thanks Terry for making this story available. Although Sir Clark provides a cute tale, it resets on the hubris of the human belief that God cares what we do and has any more or less interest than for the billions of other aware life forms in the universe. Yes, but Clarke did not believe any such thing. The story is a lark. Clarke was an atheist. See: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clarke_19_2.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LHC Lawsuit
Now isn't this ironic. The physics community spends a lot of money to understand aspects of nature that appear to have very little application to the real world. Then they are are stopped in their tracks when people carry their theories one step further and actually apply them to the real world. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: Had we been as litigious when the first H-Bomb was tested with a minute possibility that it could ignite the atmosphere . . . http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/823924.aspx
Re: [Vo]:Which are the new results at BLP?
thomas malloy wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:32 -0400: Hi, [snip] This must be what everyone is talking about. The description of the power plant is rather nebulous. The section gets off on the wrong foot with this stateme Nebulous, I like that. Based on what I've read Mills has been claiming just that from the first interview I heard. My friend Leon read his book and is excited by it. Actually, it says that the laws of thermodynamics allow one to go below the ground state. If that is the case, then one of you is wrong. AFAIK, Mills contention is that his hydrino formation process is just that. Then there is the matter of induced LENR's by the hydrinos, which I thought was settled. Ed Storms, are you lurking out there? Yes, I'm lurking. I did not say that LENR was caused by hydrinos. I said that of the various theories proposed to explain LENR, the Mills theory has the fewest problems, provided you accept hydrinos as being real. Therefore, the role of hydrinos needs to be explored. Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The (possible) oil peak rolls on
I'm confused. Perhaps someone on this list has the answer. Everyone who has discussed the issues here seems to agree to the following: 1. Increase in energy cost will drive up food and other commodity prices, which will reduce consumer spending. 2. Increased cost of personal transportation will reduce consumer spending. 3. The collapse of the housing market will reduce consumer spending. 4. The fed generated inflation will reduce consumer spending. 5. Loss of jobs will reduce consumer spending. Consumer spending determines the profit of companies. So, why then is the stock market going up? Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The government office concerned with such things has predicted that oil prices will average about $101/bbl this coming year, if I recall correctly. Commodities traders don't seem to agree. As I write this, May crude oil contracts are going for $116.82/bbl. That's up $4 in the last four days. Sorry if this seems boring or off topic, but I'm finding this run-up in oil prices fascinating/horrifying. It's presumably driving the food price problems, of course. And in turn, the oil price run-up is no doubt driven in part by the nascent recovery in the U.S. stock market (which may very well sputter again, of course, due in large part to the run-up in oil prices). Leading indicators blipped up in March, for the first time in months, despite the stock market still being down. Ratios of coincident to lagging and leading to lagging are still both down, though, for whatever that's worth. Here's the text from the first page of the March leading indicators report: == [begin quoted text] • The leading index increased slightly in March, following five consecutive monthly declines. Money supply (real M2)*, index of supplier deliveries (vendor performance) and the interest rate spread made large positive contributions to the index this month, offsetting the large negative contributions from initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), building permits and stock prices. During the six-month period ending in March, the leading index declined 1.6 percent (a -3.3 percent annual rate), and the weaknesses among its components have been very widespread. • The coincident index also increased slightly in March, following a decline in February. Industrial production contributed positively to the index in March, more than offsetting the decline in employment. Despite this month’s gain, the six-month change in the coincident index has fallen to - 0.1 percent (a -0.2 percent annual rate) from September 2007 to March 2008, down from 0.6 percent (about a 1.1 percent annual rate) in the six-month period through December 2007. In addition, the weaknesses among the coincident indicators have been very widespread in recent months. The lagging index continued to increase in March, and as a result, the coincident to lagging ratio continued to decrease for the third consecutive month. • Since the middle of 2007, the leading index has been declining while the coincident index, a measure of current economic activity, has also deteriorated in recent months. In addition, the weaknesses have also become more widespread among the components of both indexes. Meanwhile, real GDP growth slowed substantially to 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, down from 4.9 percent in the third quarter and an average of 2.2 percent, annual rate, in the first half of 2007. The current behavior of the composite indexes suggests economic weakness is likely to continue in the near term.
Re: [Vo]:The (possible) oil peak rolls on
Yes Jones, the market has dropped from its recent record high near 14000, but presently it has gone up from slightly below 12000 to now near 12800 while all kinds of bad things are becoming perfectly obvious. Someone must be buying stocks without any concern about the real world conditions. I know that the market can be random and differences in opinion can caused reasonable variations, but the rise over the last 6 weeks makes no sense. All Hell is breaking loose that only the insane would ignore. Is this the weeding out effect just before the crash? Ed Jones Beene wrote: Short answer: Because the stock market is not really going up ;-) Yes, it may look at first glance like there have been some small increases in the market, in terms of its listed valuation in $US ... ...but thanks to the continuation of the Bush record budget deficits, in terms of real worth on an international standard, such as gold for instance, the stock market has lost over half its value since Bush took office. cough, cough ... actually the market has lost most of that real value since he started his second term... Jones Original Message From: Edmund Storms I'm confused. Perhaps someone on this list has the answer. Everyone who has discussed the issues here seems to agree to the following: 1. Increase in energy cost will drive up food and other commodity prices, which will reduce consumer spending. 2. Increased cost of personal transportation will reduce consumer spending. 3. The collapse of the housing market will reduce consumer spending. 4. The fed generated inflation will reduce consumer spending. 5. Loss of jobs will reduce consumer spending. Consumer spending determines the profit of companies. So, why then is the stock market going up?
Re: [Vo]:The (possible) oil peak rolls on
Thanks Steve, this is a very nice summary. However, even I, a nonbusiness student, can see the flaws when the logic is applied to the present situation. When the business cycle turns around, it is because some basic money making process is improved. In the process, consumer demand goes up because people have the money to spend, which causes a self-reinforcing process. All the factors in place now are also self-reinforcing, but in a negative way. I fear that this is the start of the crash that occurs when the supply of ignorant people runs out and no one is left to buy stocks. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I'm confused. Perhaps someone on this list has the answer. Everyone who has discussed the issues here seems to agree to the following: 1. Increase in energy cost will drive up food and other commodity prices, which will reduce consumer spending. Yes, and increasing energy prices are what may very well kill the bull for good this year. We shall see. I think it's significant that news stories about oil still talk about demand much more than they talk about supply -- it's as though most observers haven't yet absorbed the fact that supply is not going to respond to increased demand, no, not this time... 2. Increased cost of personal transportation will reduce consumer spending. 3. The collapse of the housing market will reduce consumer spending. That's already happened, stocks have already fallen as a result, and stock market investors try to drive very far ahead on the road. The housing mess is already fully factored into stock prices, or so it appears; in fact some building stocks have actually been showing signs of going up again. As an outrageously out-on-the-end-of-the-bell-curve example, Comstock Homebuilding, http://www.comstockhomes.com/, is up almost 40% **today**. (If you'd bet the wad on Comstock yesterday you' be grinning today, that's for sure -- but yesterday they looked like going bust; you just never know.) 4. The fed generated inflation will reduce consumer spending. But injecting money into the economy stimulates spending, it doesn't restrain it, and in fact the increase in the money supply is one of the elements pushing up the leading indicators. (Looks like M2 is the one they use, don't ask me why; when I was in school it was M1, M1, M1, nobody cared about M2 or M3.) Inflation favors borrowers, it favors spenders, it favors people who buy today and don't wait for tomorrow. 5. Loss of jobs will reduce consumer spending. Yes, but job loss *usually* comes late in the downturn, and the stock market tends to turn up long before the employment data, because all the players are trying to outguess each other and get there first. So, reduced employment may actually encourage investors to get back into the market. The stock market leads the job market, typically by a number of months. Consumer spending determines the profit of companies. So, why then is the stock market going up? It goes up in advance of the changes in company profits. ** But wait, we need a caveat here: Anyone who listens to investment advice from me should have his head examined. ** OK with that said, let's move on: Last Friday, GE reported weaker results than expected and the market went down like a rock. It looked like a panic, and against a backdrop of skyrocketing oil prices, things looked very black indeed. That's how it usually looks at the market bottom, of course. This week, in stark contrast, a whole raft of companies reported earnings results, and they were all awful. In response, the market ... went up. Everything's heading up this week; it looks like spring. As I mentioned, even some homebuilding stocks are coming back from the dead; even the *airlines* are apparently bouncing back a bit. Of course, it could be just an upward blip before the *real* crash, or it could be that the market has turned the corner. Anyhow after seeing the market showing a little life, I dug out the leading indicators report and was surprised to see that the leading indicators had gone up this month, in spite of the stock market going down over the last few weeks (the market is one of the biggest items in the leading indicators, IIRC). There are other straws in the wind: Congress is about to pass a rescue package, which normally happens only after the need is gone. (I learned that in a management class I took a long, long time ago -- Congress's inability to act fast enough to do any good in battling a recession is so consistent, it's included in standard curricula dealing with business cycles.) Jobs data finally are showing rising unemployment, which usually happens not long before the market starts to recover (employment's a lagging indicator). So, my personal conclusion is that the market's heading up again, or if not just yet
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC A friend without health insurance
This is indeed a sad story, Jed, that is repeated many times each day. The basic problem is that the American people have accepted the idea that life in this country should be based mainly on the individual effort, with socialism being un-American. Liberalism, which tries to use the state to protect the individual, is considered a dirty word. These ideas are accepted by the ordinary working person even though this is not in their self-interest to do so. Your friend probably even voted for Bush and would not support a politician who proposed socialized medicine, even though variations of this approach work well in other countries. We get what we vote for. If we are too ignorant to vote wisely, we get the government we deserve. Hopefully, the pain inflicted by the Bush philosophy will cause people to reexamine their criteria for voting. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: A friend of mine in his 50s has no health insurance. Normally this is not a problem because he is a vet who goes to the VA hospital. He has a lot or problems, including some service related ones. The other day he suffered from a minor stroke and passed out while at a Lowe's hardware superstore. They called an ambulance, which took him to Grady Hospital, because that is usually the only hospital in Atlanta that take uninsured patients. He was there for 4 days, mostly doped up or asleep to keep him from moving. He is much better now. At Grady they did not have to do much for him other than to take some cat scans and keep him immobilized. They sent him home and he went to the VA hospital a few days later, where they did a bunch more tests and declared him okay. Anyway, the point of this story is to relate the appalling fact that Grady just sent him a bill for $82,000. This is an self-employed, ordinary, middle class guy who probably doesn't earn that much in a year. In other words, four days of hospitalization for a relatively minor health problem cost enough to bankrupt an ordinary person. This is insane. The U.S. healthcare system is unsustainable. Bush correctly pointed out that anyone in the U.S., even an uninsured poor person, can get healthcare at an emergency room, just as my friend did. He did not say that after a few days in the hospital you will be billed more than your net worth, and then hounded by bill collectors until they run you out of house and home. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC A friend without health insurance
Yes, I agree. However, even if I were paying the bill, how would I, while sick, bargain with the doctor to lower my payment? The insurance company and the government are supposed to do this for me, in their own self-interest. If the government were the single payer, they would have a bigger stick to keep the costs under control. I suggest, the problem is that the medical and insurance companies are in bed together. Together, they have paid for a government that won't intervene. As long as the employer/employee pay, and the government won't stop the rape, why change a profitable system? The medical/insurance companies have no reason to lower costs because both gain profit from the situation, the insurance companies with higher premiums and the medical companies with more income. Every time the government tries to bring the situation under control, both scream socialized medicine and predict loss of quality. The voters buy the nonsense and continue to pay. Unfortunately for the medical/insurance companies, the rest of the system is stating to hurt and is starting to put pressure on the government. Perhaps if a few more of the purchased congressmen are voted out of office, things will change. Ed leaking pen wrote: Unfortunately Ed, health insurance is in part the problem. When insurance and not a person was paying the bill, doctors and hospitals found they could charge more. Insurance companies raise prices to compensate, but are thus willing to pay more, and the cycle continues. On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is indeed a sad story, Jed, that is repeated many times each day. The basic problem is that the American people have accepted the idea that life in this country should be based mainly on the individual effort, with socialism being un-American. Liberalism, which tries to use the state to protect the individual, is considered a dirty word. These ideas are accepted by the ordinary working person even though this is not in their self-interest to do so. Your friend probably even voted for Bush and would not support a politician who proposed socialized medicine, even though variations of this approach work well in other countries. We get what we vote for. If we are too ignorant to vote wisely, we get the government we deserve. Hopefully, the pain inflicted by the Bush philosophy will cause people to reexamine their criteria for voting. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: A friend of mine in his 50s has no health insurance. Normally this is not a problem because he is a vet who goes to the VA hospital. He has a lot or problems, including some service related ones. The other day he suffered from a minor stroke and passed out while at a Lowe's hardware superstore. They called an ambulance, which took him to Grady Hospital, because that is usually the only hospital in Atlanta that take uninsured patients. He was there for 4 days, mostly doped up or asleep to keep him from moving. He is much better now. At Grady they did not have to do much for him other than to take some cat scans and keep him immobilized. They sent him home and he went to the VA hospital a few days later, where they did a bunch more tests and declared him okay. Anyway, the point of this story is to relate the appalling fact that Grady just sent him a bill for $82,000. This is an self-employed, ordinary, middle class guy who probably doesn't earn that much in a year. In other words, four days of hospitalization for a relatively minor health problem cost enough to bankrupt an ordinary person. This is insane. The U.S. healthcare system is unsustainable. Bush correctly pointed out that anyone in the U.S., even an uninsured poor person, can get healthcare at an emergency room, just as my friend did. He did not say that after a few days in the hospital you will be billed more than your net worth, and then hounded by bill collectors until they run you out of house and home. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC A friend without health insurance
Yes Jeff, that is an argument that is always raised when some form of socialized medicine is suggested. The fact is that under no successful system is the service completely free. For example, I'm one of the lucky people who has good insurance. Nevertheless, I have to pay part of the service and I have to actually be sick to want to endure the process of seeing a doctor. However, I don't have to worry about emergencies nor not being able to afford to get well. Of course, if everyone had such insurance, more doctors would be needed to handle the increased load. Simply making more low-interest loan money available to attend medical school would eventually solve this problem. Again, this money would have to be provided by a government program because we now see what happens when the process is turned over to private companies. After all, an advancing society needs to make getting a higher education in any field much easier, so why not encourage an education in medicine along with the other options? Meanwhile, the government would be free of the influence being applied by the combination of powerful insurance and medical providers. Influence in the government would be more evenly balanced through the efforts of employers and voters. Gradually, a single payer, government run system will be created simply because all other options have obviously failed. Eventually, we will have a process similar to Social Security, but in health instead of income. Why not start sooner rather than later? How much more suffering must occur before the conclusion becomes obvious? Ed Jeff Fink wrote: If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it's free. Jeff -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC A friend without health insurance This is indeed a sad story, Jed, that is repeated many times each day. The basic problem is that the American people have accepted the idea that life in this country should be based mainly on the individual effort, with socialism being un-American. Liberalism, which tries to use the state to protect the individual, is considered a dirty word. These ideas are accepted by the ordinary working person even though this is not in their self-interest to do so. Your friend probably even voted for Bush and would not support a politician who proposed socialized medicine, even though variations of this approach work well in other countries. We get what we vote for. If we are too ignorant to vote wisely, we get the government we deserve. Hopefully, the pain inflicted by the Bush philosophy will cause people to reexamine their criteria for voting. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: A friend of mine in his 50s has no health insurance. Normally this is not a problem because he is a vet who goes to the VA hospital. He has a lot or problems, including some service related ones. The other day he suffered from a minor stroke and passed out while at a Lowe's hardware superstore. They called an ambulance, which took him to Grady Hospital, because that is usually the only hospital in Atlanta that take uninsured patients. He was there for 4 days, mostly doped up or asleep to keep him from moving. He is much better now. At Grady they did not have to do much for him other than to take some cat scans and keep him immobilized. They sent him home and he went to the VA hospital a few days later, where they did a bunch more tests and declared him okay. Anyway, the point of this story is to relate the appalling fact that Grady just sent him a bill for $82,000. This is an self-employed, ordinary, middle class guy who probably doesn't earn that much in a year. In other words, four days of hospitalization for a relatively minor health problem cost enough to bankrupt an ordinary person. This is insane. The U.S. healthcare system is unsustainable. Bush correctly pointed out that anyone in the U.S., even an uninsured poor person, can get healthcare at an emergency room, just as my friend did. He did not say that after a few days in the hospital you will be billed more than your net worth, and then hounded by bill collectors until they run you out of house and home. - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1388 - Release Date: 4/20/2008 3:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1388 - Release Date: 4/20/2008 3:01 PM
Re: [Vo]:Blacklight Power: Sci-fi science rejected by UK-IPO
After reading the decision of the patent examiner, my impression is that the patent was rejected for good reason. The rejection argument is not that the theory is wrong but that Mills is trying to patent a theory and its application to calculating electron states. This would be like having a patent for using the Laws of Thermodynamics to calculate reaction energies. Imagine having to pay a fee to the patent holder each time a person attempted to use the patented methods. It is my understanding that a theory can not be patented. Why do people keep trying? Patents are granted when a theory is reduced to practice in the form of a working device. When is Mills going to have a working device? Ed OrionWorks wrote: For those who have a propensity towards understanding lawyer-speak. Jones? Mr. Carrell? http://lawbites.com/blacklight-power-sci-fi-science-rejected-by-uk-ipo/ http://tinyurl.com/5wwbvp and http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/076/08 http://tinyurl.com/439trx There is a 13 page PDF document that can be downloaded from the UK IPO that describes the reasoning behind rejecting Blacklight's attempts. What I'd like to know is whether UK IPO's final decision was due to a difference in scientific opinion or whether other factors may have been involved. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:John Lear Interview
Any one who believes we did not land on the moon is simply delusional. Consequently, any opinion they have about any subject should be ignored. Of course, such an event is impossible to prove to such people without actually taking them to the moon. Normal people don't need such proof because they have common sense and an ability to evaluate information from many sources. Such an event involving thousands of competent and honest people that is witnessed by scientists from several countries simply can not be faked. For example, Russian radar tracked our space crafts to the moon. Can you imagine the Russians going along with a fake while we claimed we beat them to the moon? Ed thomas malloy wrote: Vortexians; John Lear was a guest on C to C AM this morning. He mentioned Pari Spolter's, Gravitation Force of the Sun. According to Mr. Lear, it shreds Newton's Laws of Gravitation, and proves that we didn't land on the Moon. Mr. Lear's comments, IMHO, were rather flakey, and his friends, http://www.thelivingmoon.com/ seem even flakier, what do you people think? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Still Likes NiMH
Here we have an example of the basic policy difference between the US and other countries. The US, in the body of GM, proposes to make the perfect hybrid using batteries that are not yet available and may never work as expected. In addition, the car will not be available for two years. In contrast, Toyota proposes to make a less perfect hybrid that they can sell now using proven batteries. When the GM perfect-car becomes available, the less-perfect Toyota hybrid will be much cheaper, yet good enough. Who do you think will win this battle? This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.startribune.com/business/19199614.html Toyota building $192 million plant in Japan to produce batteries for gas-electric hybrid vehicles By YURI KAGEYAMA , Associated Press TOKYO - Toyota is building a $192 million plant in Japan to produce batteries for gas-electric hybrid vehicles, as it seeks to keep its lead in an intensifying race for green cars among the world's automakers. Toyota's joint venture with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., which makes Panasonic brand products, is building the plant in Shizuoka prefecture, in central Japan, Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco said Friday. He declined to give more details. The plant will produce nickel-metal hydride batteries, now in the company's hit Prius hybrid. more
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Jones, After reading the rather poor description on the website, I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. No nuclear reaction is involved or possible. As they say, it is like a battery that provides energy for a limited time. I agree, this is a convenient way to move energy to a site where it is required without any danger or the need for complex technology. At the end of its life, the entire charge of uranium can be recycled using another energy source and this energy can be transported to another location. The advantage comes from the fact that the volume density of the energy is greater than in any normal battery and the energy is released only as fast as air is pumped into the system. Of course, some severe and obvious engineering problems may doom the idea to failure. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If somehow all the D in one cluster shrinks to a size capable of fusing, then one might even get the reaction 4 x D - 2 x He4 (perhaps with an intermediary Be8*), with each getting equal energy and momentum (which has previously been suggested as the primary CF mechanism (Takahashi, or Arata himself?). The more one thinks deeply about the implications of this particular route to fusion (actually even fusion--fission)-- even as 'alien' as it is to traditional nuclear physics- and especially with the importance of the Be intermediary (more on that later) the more it kind of fits into one particular circumstance ... ... that is: the situation of hexavalent hydrides of very large AMU atoms like Uranium, which can adsorb 6 protons or deuterons. Uranium is the perfect candidate for a hybrid reaction which is somewhere between fission and the type of LENR which was promoted by the Cincinatti Group mentioned by Nick Palmer. That one resulted in the disappearance of expected energy and radioactivity, but this would not happen with U. That 6-1 ratio in U might be the reason that this new reactor (below) is for real - and not just vapor-ware despite the total lack of provenance so to speak. When I first read about it, the initial impression was April fool joke which evolved into LENR ripoff but now looks like it may bridge the gap between LENR and the hydrino, and fission, and with a dash of top secret stuff which was not supposed to get out from our National Labs so soon: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/news.html The purported inventor (coming out of the woodwork)is Dr. Otis (Pete) Peterson of LANL. I hope he did not set out to rip-off the work-product of others including many LENR experimenters (including Ed Storms) - and let me make it clear that there is NO indication that he did, or has done this... just a fishy smell. That is: in addition to the aforementioned out-of-nowhere lack of provenance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance Maybe it was a flash of Eureka from an alien encounter or the result of one of those infamous Area 51 reverse-engineered reactors, LOL. Look at the guy's bio. Sorry, it just does not add up from what I can see ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Jones, If this is a nuclear reactor, the radiation would be too dangerous to make this practical. Even if it were buried deep enough to stop the radiation, it could not be safely dug up after 5 years. Besides, no sane person would want a nuclear reactor buried near them. The chemical reaction is very energetic, with enough stored energy in a few tons of material to make this work. However, I personally doubt that this idea will go anywhere because of the various engineering problems. Ed Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. I do not see how it could be chemical if the assertion that it will run 24/7 for *5 years* before refueling is true. If the U is natural, that much of it (with water as a moderator) would certainly go critical. Even if the U is depleted, or if there are poisons to keep it subcritical - that much of it in one place, for only chemical conversion - would be unimaginable Jones
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Robin, If this energy is produced by a nuclear reaction, then neutrons and gamma are produced. This requires significant shielding. In addition, the core would be too active to dig up in five years and haul away for reprocessing, at least right away. In addition, the electric conversion equipment would have to be contained in the shielded structure to avoid releasing radioactive materials. This means the energy conversion process needs to be completely automatic. While I agree, the hydride would make the nuclear reaction fail-safe, it does not solve the significant engineering problems the design would have. UH6 is not used in conventional nuclear reactors in spite of the fail safe nature because it is very reactive to water and air. The danger is too great when water cooling is used. One has to ask how the cooling is accomplished on this design? Ed Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 27 May 2008 21:28:58 -0600: Hi, [snip] Jones, After reading the rather poor description on the website, I think this is only a way to provide chemical heat by converting UH6 to U3O8. No nuclear reaction is involved or possible. As they say, it is like a battery that provides energy for a limited time. [snip] See their FAQ:- How does Hyperion work? Unlike conventional designs, the proposed reactor is self-regulating through the inherent properties of uranium hydride, which serves as a combination fuel and moderator. The temperature-driven mobility of the hydrogen contained in the hydride controls the nuclear activity. If the core temperature increases over the set point, the hydrogen is driven out of the core, the moderation drops, and the power production decreases. If the temperature drops, the hydrogen returns and the process is reversed. Thus the design is inherently fail-safe and will require minimal human oversight. The compact nature and inherent safety open the possibility for low-cost mass production and operation of the reactors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:4D reactions HPG - was :Arata device schematic
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Wed, 28 May 2008 21:13:05 -0600: Hi Ed, Vortex is bouncing my posts again, could you forward this for me? [snip] Robin, If this energy is produced by a nuclear reaction, then neutrons and gamma are produced. It clearly is a nuclear reaction, because moderator implies neutrons. The Hydrogen (Deuterium?) atoms serve as a moderator, because protons have almost the same mass as neutrons, which means that when a fast neutron hits a proton, the neutron stops, and the proton absorbs almost all of the energy, which it then rapidly loses through ionization of the surrounding atoms. IOW a single collision can be enough to thermalize a neutron. This *may* mean that little neutron shielding is required, particularly if the outer shielding is rich in protons, and contains no fissionable material (e.g. plastic). This reactor is no different from normal reactors. It produces neutrons and gamma. The only thing that makes it less dangerous is its small size. Nevertheless, it is considerable source of radiation that needs to be kept under observation and control. The size is similar to a ship reactor, but such reactors are designed to be observed and serviced. The proposed reactor is to be buried, out of sight and out of mind. This requires significant shielding. In addition, the core would be too active to dig up in five years and haul away for reprocessing, at least right away. Of course the whole thing is dug up, but the core is still very radioactive. This can only be protected by significant shielding, which adds to the weight and cost. Imagine the political problems of transporting a potentially active reactor that contains massive amounts of radioactive material. It isn't the core that gets dug up, it's the entire reactor, shielding included. The gammas would be shielded by burying the thing underground. If the reactor output can be varied, then it can probably also be turned off, which would kill off the prompt gammas, though there would still be the gamma output from the daughter nuclides to deal with after shutdown. This could indeed make transport tricky. In addition, the electric conversion equipment would have to be contained in the shielded structure to avoid releasing radioactive materials. Not necessarily. One would just need the first level heat exchanger to be internal, so that the fluid exiting the reactor never actually comes in contact with the fuel. But what transports the heat within the reactor? Water can not be used because a leak would be catastrophic. Helium or hydrogen might work, as you note, but it would have to be pumped, requiring equipment that could never be serviced while being exposed to intense radiation. I suggest, too many engineering problems exist in this design to make it economic as a nuclear reactor. That is why I expected this to be a chemical source of energy. Perhaps, as Jones suspected, this is only a dream being used as a method to extract money from the uneducated. I called the company and talked to a phone-answering person who said someone would get back to me. Heard nothing yet. Regards, Ed This means the energy conversion process needs to be completely automatic. While I agree, the hydride would make the nuclear reaction fail-safe, it does not solve the significant engineering problems the design would have. UH6 is not used in conventional nuclear reactors in spite of the fail safe nature because it is very reactive to water and air. Perhaps they use Helium cooling. The danger is too great when water cooling is used. One has to ask how the cooling is accomplished on this design? Good question. Note however that they still don't have regulatory approval. Perhaps for the very reasons you state. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?]
Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:04:24 -0600 From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Energy K. Systems To: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before you get carried away with this idea, consider that electrolytic action, under water, supplies deuterium ions to the surface at a very high activity (pressure). As a result, loading of Pd with D is much easier using this method than is any other method. In all cases, two conditions must be met. The NAE must be formed and the D concentration in the region of the NAE must be high. The electrolytic method is not often successful because the NAE does not easily form even though the D concentration is high. In the Arata method, the NAE is more easily created even though the D concentration is relatively low. Ed Nick Palmer wrote: because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Blimey Michael - I've never seen this mentioned before! If true, it is a *Eureka* observation - well done!!! Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Hoyt, where did you get this information? In all my reading, I have never seen where F-P added CS2 to their cell. Ed Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Remember PonsFleishmann deliberately poisoned their electrolyte with carbon disulfide ( which unfortunately disables any platinum recombiner you may be using if allowed to splash up there (from experience) ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry? Michael Foster wrote: Since I haven't read all the papers on LENR-CANR, I'm not sure if this subject has already been covered. The recent Arata demonstration confirms what I've thought for some time concerning the CF phenomenon. That is, the electrolytic version of CF has been difficult to reproduce because electrolysis is not the actual mechanism at work in producing fusion and heat. Maybe it is merely another but more difficult way of creating the same conditions that Arata presents. The well-known period of cathode loading in the CF electrolysis cells has been shown to require the formation of micro-fissures in the palladium before excess heat is produced. This makes a lot of sense because those who are familiar with the history of catalysis know that platinum and palladium are considered to be poisoned catalysts if they have been in contact with water. In other words, no hydrogen adsorption would take place if the catalyst had been poisoned with water, among other substances. So how could the deuterium adsorption take place in a palladium cathode under water? Short answer: It couldn't. Um ... Perhaps I've misunderstood this but I didn't think *adsorption* was all that relevant to CF. In CF the hydrogen/deuterium actually enters the Pd lattice. In adsorption, OTOH, it sticks to the surface. Quoting from Wikipedia, * *Adsorption* is a process that occurs when a gas or liquid solute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute accumulates on the surface of a solid or a liquid (adsorbent), forming a film of molecules or atoms (the adsorbate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbate). * In catalysis, adsorption is very important, because the reactions actually take place on the surface of the catalyst. But in CF they take place within the mass of the Pd and whether anything is sticking to the surface or not would seem somewhat irrelevant. The nuclei which fuse in CF are actually inside the lattice, as I understand it. The H and O which react when Pt (or Pd) catalyzes a reaction, OTOH, are stuck to the surface. Water on the surface poisons the latter but it's not clear it would have any effect on the former. Boosting surface area of the catalyst by using fine particles makes an enormous difference to catalysis, because there's that much more surface area present; OTOH, though it speeds loading of D into the Pd, it's not a ticket to instant success in CF because it's not the surface area, per se, which matters.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion, Wet or Dry?
Hi Horace, Thanks for remembering this heroic effort to make tritium using the F-P method. The intention was to create a NAE on the surface, not to improve loading, which this treatment did not do. We tried a lot of stupid ideas at a time when we didn't know what might work. A few did work, but not often and for no apparent reason. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On May 31, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Hi Ed, That's a tough one, I tried to duplicate their results just after they announced them, and read all I could find about their experiments. It probably came from usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion. If I remember the source, I'll let you know. Hoyt Any chance you are thinking of pretreating the palladium with paraffin and hydrogen sulfide. This is a process Ed Storms himself seems to have used. See: http://tinyurl.com/3get6w http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.fusion/browse_frm/thread/ ffb4919c5f94090f/bfe21ee8f4e8c4c8?lnk=gstq=pons +sulfide#bfe21ee8f4e8c4c8 Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
At the risk of replowing the same field, of course intention and belief play a role at some level. For example, people can never win at the slots unless they have sufficient belief to actually put the coin into the machine and push the button. If the expected belief is not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the belief was not strong enough. If you win, the belief was clearly justified. Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. While this is a trivial example, the same process occurs in all actions, frequently where the relationship between belief and outcome is not so clear. Superstition relies on this ambiguity while science attempts to show the underlying process. Unfortunately, many people are not educated enough to understand what is already known and enough true ignorance remains to give support to the belief in magic. To make matters even more confusing, while science attempts to sort out the actions in the material world, I believe the spiritual world can always throw in a joker to confuse the issue. This is how religion gets its power. In addition, must people feel inadequate in their ability to control reality using their knowledge. Instead a strong belief, which everyone has without effort, or faith in a God, which requires no knowledge, are used as a substitute for skill. It is sometimes difficult when exploring this subject to separate the true reality from the substitution, especially when the true reality is scary and the substitution is entertaining and loving. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: There's a popular NewAge saying which proclaims that we create our own reality. I suspect most who ponder the ramifications of the NA phrase take the meaning metaphorically, perhaps in the same vein as reading certain passages from the bible, particularly Genesis. Others are beginning to ponder the ramifications of wondering if there might actually be more to this NA meaning. Back in the 1970s, the pre-NewAge author, Jane Roberts, was one of the first to explore the ramifications in a series of alleged channeled writings - the Seth Material comes to mind. NewAge mumbo-jumbo set aside, I suspect aspects of these ramifications have been explored in certain SF novels. Waldo and Magic, Inc, both by Heinlein are probably the best known. If you've ever heard someone refer to a remote manipulator as a waldo then you've heard of the first of these. The Childe cycle of Gordon Dickson explored a chunk of the idea in Necromancer but Dickson dropped it later on in the series (it makes for a rather hard to manage world). The Practice Effect explores a cute variation on it; can't recall the author. Many, many other books have touched on the notion that belief can make it so. It's an easy proof that in an infinite universe there's a world where magic works. Sadly, it's an equally easy proof that you could never find such a world even if you had interstellar teleportation so you could visit lots and lots of star systems in hardly any time.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
You raise an interesting point, Richard, by this example. People need encourage to believe they can do things that need to be done but are threatening or hard. Stories like David and Goliath, whether it is true or not, provide this encouragement. Missing, of course are the stories of the more common occasions when the giant is challenged and the David gets creamed. Once again, we need to separate out the real reality from the one being generated for another purpose. For example, the reality in the Bible has been modified to promote Christianity just as the reality in the Koran is designed to promote Islam. Both attempt to describe the spiritual world, but with different results. How should a person discover the true reality? Science, at least, has a few tools that can be used. Unfortunately, religion does not provide such tools nor does the idea of magic. Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, By asking for a return to science, this theme, begun by Jones is beginning to reach a level of scientific inquiry, fitting of Vorts. Solomon expressed his opinion that time and chance happens to us all. This profound wisdom does not escape Jones in his musings. There can be an entire trioloxy of writings on one simple observation .. say for example..the story of David and Goliath in 1 Sam:17... if one can get past the religious aspect of the account, the story becomes an interesting exercize in mental gymnastics. Most of the elements of which novels are composed are contained in this seeming fairy tale of a boy slaying a fearsome giant. Here, out of the annals of history, is captured an essence of what dreams are made of. Remarkably, within the story, the method and resultant is revealed, offered to the world for use, provided one searches. Richard Ed Storms wrote... Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. While this is a trivial example, the same process occurs in all actions, frequently where the relationship between belief and outcome is not so clear. Superstition relies on this ambiguity while science attempts to show the underlying process. Unfortunately, many people are not educated enough to understand what is already known and enough true ignorance remains to give support to the belief in magic. To make matters even more confusing, while science attempts to sort out the actions in the material world, I believe the spiritual world can always throw in a joker to confuse the issue. This is how religion gets its power. In addition, must people feel inadequate in their ability to control reality using their knowledge. Instead a strong belief, which everyone has without effort, or faith in a God, which requires no knowledge, are used as a substitute for skill. It is sometimes difficult when exploring this subject to separate the true reality from the substitution, especially when the true reality is scary and the substitution is entertaining and loving.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
You are right, Steven, if belief were only required, the reality we find ourselves in would not work and it would not survive long enough for us to debate the issue. I suppose we could conclude that the Darwin process has eliminated this possibility. If this is true, then this process would have a low-level recessive characteristic, having been weeded out of the general population. Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Jones, Ed and Richard continue to transfuse stimulating thoughts into this delightful subject called MAYA - sometimes interpreted as reality. It comes as a nice tangential distraction from recent BLP speculation. Oh, what a relief it is! I'd like to contribute additional fertilizer to a thought vector recently express by Ed. At the risk of replowing the same field, of course intention and belief play a role at some level. For example, people can never win at the slots unless they have sufficient belief to actually put the coin into the machine and push the button. If the expected belief is not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the belief was not strong enough. If you win, the belief was clearly justified. Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. IMO, there's a subtle point often missed in regards to this conjecture where one perceives a flaw in believing in the intensity of believing or wishing for a specific outcome to manifest. It's not that it's a sign of ignorance that a person believes they didn't believe hard enough and/or sincerely enough that they didn't get their cheese. Consider the possibility that it's how we designed the rules of etiquette. Consider the ramifications that creation is a group effort. When we all agreed to enter the SandBox I think it became pretty clear to most that in order to make our time in the SandBox interesting and educational nobody is going to want to play with anyone who suddenly decides that whenever they plunk a quarter in the slot machine they instantly become jackpot winners - every damned single time. Where's the sport in that? Hey! You Out of the sandbox! Perhaps that's why we created Statistics. In any case, how's that for a rationalization! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Hi Richard, I used religion as an example of my point because you used a metaphor based on religion in your example. I agree with you, the organized religions are nothing but power structures that are used to control behavior, which is needed of course. However, they offer very little insight into the workings of the spirit world. A personal belief system is best, but what should it be based on? Where should a person start? Most people in this society start with Christianity. The debate I would encourage is to understand reality, which includes both the material and spiritual realities. The question is how should this research be undertaken. Science has developed tools to explore the material world. How can these be applied to exploring the spiritual world? Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, Is is possible to engage in a discussion of ideas without veering off into religion? Yes! perhaps, among Vorts which make for such an interesting group. Religions have perplexed me because I cannot understand why so many reasonably educated people cannot get past religion and establish a personal faith based belief system. Mention of the brief account of the story of David and Goliaththe account is overflowing with the basics of how to view, how to plan and how to execute a simple life strategy. Facing the giants!. In the mind, where all battles are ultimately won or lost. Does one individual's mind victory impinge on the overall direction of society ? Yes! To those that believe... it's true !, To those that don't .. it's not ! Richard Ed Storms wrote, Science, at least, has a few tools that can be used. Unfortunately, religion does not provide such tools nor does the idea of magic.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
OrionWorks wrote: From Edmund Storms: Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Ed Evolution is fraught species that cheat. Learning how to get away with it is all that is required. Perhaps that's why we don't hear much about them. That's right. Never show more intelligence than the average and never admit to having special talents. This approach will even get you elected president. Continue to act stupid and you can get the country to do anything you want. Or am I just being cynical? Regards, ed Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Interesting logic, Stephen. Let's explore another possibility. Suppose thought transfer is common in animals that do not have a complex language. One might use schooling fish as an example or perhaps a flock of birds. While other explanations can be suggested for the observed behavior, thought transfer provides a very consistent explanation. In addition, this ability would have great survival value. Suppose mankind, as we evolved, also had this ability, thus accounting for our success before language evolved. Now, suppose that language, because it is so much more efficient in providing the necessary communication, replaced thought transfer. As a result thought transfer became a recessive ability. Even though this idea has been suggested and explored before by other people, I think it needs to be given more attention. Like musical ability or other talents that are randomly distributed in the population, most individuals would have no awareness of such a talent, yet they could see that some people seemed to know what to do before the need became obvious. For example, some people seemed to win all the time at cards or know when their loved ones were in trouble, etc. The fact that any single individual did not have these abilities would mean nothing, any more than a person's inability to play a musical instrument very well means than no one can do this. Indeed, some people have suggested ways to amplify this ability. Of course, these ideas are not accepted because the process is not very reproducible and has no theory to explain it. (Does this sound familiar?) In addition, as Steven pointed out, a person with this ability might want to hid this fact. To get back to science, a lot of scientific study has been done to reveal the existence of this ability. The results of this work, at least to me, show that thought transfer is real. But like all such claims, this belief is rejected by conventional science. My question is, what would it take to change this attitude? Or is this possibility too scary for it to be accepted regardless of the evidence or logic? Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: You are right, Steven, if belief were only required, the reality we find ourselves in would not work and it would not survive long enough for us to debate the issue. I suppose we could conclude that the Darwin process has eliminated this possibility. If this is true, then this process would have a low-level recessive characteristic, having been weeded out of the general population. Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Let's consider telepathy a little more closely. I think we can actually conclude something about the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of mind-reading simply by an exercise in logic, with a small handful of reasonable assumptions used to guide the argument. Point zero -- a baseline assumption: Mind reading involves information transfer and that transfer must have a mechanism. For the time being, let's assume there's a physical mechanism and proceed from there. With that said, we should recognize that there are *two* kinds of mind-reading: Cooperative -- where the subject /wishes/ to have their thoughts read -- and non-cooperative -- where the subject does not want to have their thoughts read, and may not even know it happened. The first kind -- cooperative -- happens all the time, and it's so commonplace that we don't even think about it. The information transfer takes place via waves in a compressive medium. We call such a transfer talking. The second kind is the more interesting kind. Is there a possible physical mechanism? -- Of course! Brains are more or less electrical in nature, and EMF is a fine way to transfer information. Let's follow this a little farther. Is it conceivable that one could decode the EMF radiated by a brain to distill out the thoughts in that brain? A priori one would have to say yes -- there's nothing obvious which would forbid it. I can think of two examples off hand which support this: a) Sharks can read the life signs of other creatures by their EMF emissions. This is not exactly mind reading but it's a first cousin. b) The CIA was very concerned about printer cable emissions (in the distant past) because it was apparently pretty easy to pick them up remotely and figure out exactly what was being printed just from the leakage. Printers are not exactly brains but none the less this seems like a fine Proof of Concept to me. But now let's take this farther. First, let's think about
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, This thread is becoming most interesting because it deals with a voyage toward a science of ideas where, once embarked upon that sea, there can be no return. Our decision then becomes that of selecting the posture one takes in the boat, I agree partially Richard, this is one of our decisions that needs to be made. We also need to decide where the boat is heading and what we do when we get there. As the human species of flesh on an earth, populated by animals, we alone, do not practice survival of the fittest. Since when? No species PRACTICES survival of the fittest. Instead this is imposed on them. We are now being selected based on a different criteria than was imposed in the past. Of course, the criteria depends on which country and where in that country a person happens to live. Jones touched on this subject some time back with his comment on maji. On occasion, in history, a single brilliant mind may rise every couple hundred years. I suggest part of this brilliance is the ability to learn from thought transfer. One of my grandchildren is in private school for gifted children. These children have every resource available for their education and they demonstrate certain intellectual heights that cannot be otherwise explained except to describe them as gifted. The school has yet to reveal a maji after 60 years and some 100 grads per year. The school has children from across the earth. While these gifted kids are being taught conventional knowledge, they have to learn the skill of mind reading on their own, which is not easy and is usually discouraged. I suggest that without this skill, a person will only be gifted and never a maji. I suggest you study the life and teachings of Sai Baba (check Amazon.com) to see this process in operation. There are perhaps a half dozen schools like this in the USA. The represent a form of intellectual survival of the fittest. There are examples of this practice in history.. Alexandria, Byzantine, Seville, Florence, etc. There are also schools on earth for the black arts. The US government is now budgeting a fortune toward these black arts schools. What skills do the black arts schools teach? I presume we are not talking about Harry Potter. Regards, Ed Richard Ed Storms wrote, Of course, these ideas are not accepted because the process is not very reproducible and has no theory to explain it. (Does this sound familiar?) In addition, as Steven pointed out, a person with this ability might want to hid this fact.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: . Regardless of the difficulty in accepting the claims and observations, when thousands of people keep experiencing the same reproducible events, something real must be happening. I don't want this to be a discussion of Sai Baba. Nevertheless, his existence raises some important questions about how we evaluate reality. Since we are discussing reality and how to separate the real from the imagined, we must evaluate such phenomenon by Sai Baba is an interesting person. I met a man who was healed by him. Worn out knees are difficult to fix, and expensive to replace. Materializing gold is quite a trick too. It would be interesting to do an analysis of that ash that he materalizes. Indeed, I suggest he is more than interesting, Thomas. Every once in awhile a person comes along who has such unusual abilities that the whole fabric of conventional reality is brought into question. This, I believe, is what Sai Baba has done. He makes claims about how the spirit reality works and does things that are impossible without his claims being true. In fact, he readily admits, this is exactly what his tricks are intended to do. In his case, what appears to be magic actually occurs, as many people have clearly seen. Consequently, his existence is unique and needs to be examined beyond the claims and logic of religion. As he says, he is the messenger who comes from the spirit world about every 2000 years to clean up the mess mankind has made of the last message. This is a claim worth exploring without imposing any religious connotations. As for the ash and objects he materializes, these have been examined closely by scientists in India, as you might expect. Also, you can forget the arguments advanced by the usual skeptics because his abilities have been examined very closely in India by experts and thousands of people on many occasions. Apparently, the objects he materializes are normal and seem to have been transported from where they are made by the usual methods into his hand where they become visible. Of course, the process violates our ideas of space and time. The ash is a water soluble organic material similar to solid honey that is observed to form about a centimeter below his outstretched palm in quantities that are observed on occasion to reach many hundreds of pounds. It is also been observed that the material forms spontaneously in the homes of certain people in India. Of course, all of this has to be accepted from the testimony of people who have witnessed the events, of which there are many thousand in India. And of course, some of the events will be exaggerated. This does not change the fact that such a person with very unusual abilities exists at the present time. At last count, I found at least 150 books about him available on www.amazon.com. Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Thanks for pointing this out, Philip. I have not read of Richard Rose, but I know of many other people who have acquired extraordinary insight. In addition, some people have also been able to master some of the abilities Sai Baba exhibits. As with all things, these talents occur throughout the population to varying degree. However, only Sai Baba has these abilities in complete form and totally at his control. Besides, he is using the abilities to focus attention on a message worth hearing. This is not always the case. Sai Baba says that additional men having the same abilities are alive now in various countries and presently at different ages who will carry the message into the future. Keep your eyes open. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Ed, I wonder if you've ever heard of a man they called the Backwoods Buddha... Look him up on the 'Net if you're interested... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of me to have temporarily forgotten him. Isn't it interesting that someone with his unique perception on reality, combined with his ability to manipulate reality (seemingly the fundamental laws of physics) as Sai does remains, for the most part, an undiscovered resource of the potentiality of humanity. I'm sorry, but I have to ask this... If he can work miracles, and if he's here to fix up the mess in any way shape or form, what's he actually doing to fix things up? Sai Baba is presently helping remake India by supporting schools he founded that teach his philosophy along with modern technology. As he says, a person can not remake the world without first remaking his own country. Obviously, the spirit world believe this is easier to do in India than elsewhere. I agree. The spirit world attempted to do this in the middle East 2000 years ago, but now look at the mess. Turn it around: Sai Baba is a miracle worker and yet his impact has apparently been so slight that people outside of India are nearly unaware of him. Why is that? A person only knows what they seek to learn. The information about Sai Baba is easily available, but not in the American press. But then, what's new about tat? The world abounds with problems which cry out for the touch of a miracle worker, from lack of clean water for humans to lack of usable habitat for polar bears. Surely someone gifted with physical powers which allow him to manipulate reality at a fundamental level should be doing more with this capability than just using it as a sort of publicity stunt to get folks to come and listen to his sermons? One man, no matter how talented, can not do it alone. His role is to teach other people how to solve the problems. After all, it was mankind who created the problems in the first place. We need to learn how to stop doing this. Philosophers ultimately wield great influence over events, it is true. But whatever power sent Sai Baba here must have intended him to be more than a philosopher, else why grant him such astonishing *physical* abilities? His message will eventually start another religion, as have the messages of the other messengers. However, this takes time. Gradually, this religion will be corrupted, as has happened every time repair was attempted, and the process will be repeated. Gradually, mankind will learn to avoid religion, as some of us have already mastered. So, what is he doing with his powers, aside from healing a relative handful of individuals? (In a world of 7 billion, hands-on healing of individuals can never reach more than a relative handful, of course. Another bit of perspective: Bill Gates, with his charitable work which includes large scale vaccination programs, has surely already reached more people and prevented more disease than any single hands-on healer could cure in a lifetime. Yet Gates is no miracle worker; surely someone who can bend reality to his will should be able to do better than Gates.) The individual is not as important as the whole of mankind. Mankind can only advance as fast as a certain level of understanding develops. This is a gradual process. Meanwhile individuals come and go, with each adding, or sometimes subtracting from this understanding. Money could not be a problem for a miracle worker, of course -- it takes only the slightest ability to affect the laws of chance, or the teeniest ability to predict the future, to allow one to amass as much wealth as you could possibly need. And it could be done subtly, as well; all the world over there are stock markets which shower riches on those with true prescience (or good judgment), and the phenomenon of getting rich playing the market is common enough that it would
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Ed, Yes - I know something of Sai Baba, the latest in a lineage of Sai Babas. I also know a disciple who spent 25 years at his ashrama. But Sai Baba is also part of the dream... Which dream is that? Or do you mean that we can only dream that the message will come true? I'm not fixated on Richard Rose, nor anyone for that matter; been there, done all that. This thread runs a long way... May I suggest that you read just the first chapter of After the Absolute by Dave Gold. Ordinariness has its attractiveness... You can read the chapter (in fact the entire book) on-line. Thanks, I ordered the book. Ed P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:23:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention Thanks for pointing this out, Philip. I have not read of Richard Rose, but I know of many other people who have acquired extraordinary insight. In addition, some people have also been able to master some of the abilities Sai Baba exhibits. As with all things, these talents occur throughout the population to varying degree. However, only Sai Baba has these abilities in complete form and totally at his control. Besides, he is using the abilities to focus attention on a message worth hearing. This is not always the case. Sai Baba says that additional men having the same abilities are alive now in various countries and presently at different ages who will carry the message into the future. Keep your eyes open. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Ed, I wonder if you've ever heard of a man they called the Backwoods Buddha... Look him up on the 'Net if you're interested... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:30:26 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of me to have temporarily forgotten him. Isn't it interesting that someone with his unique perception on reality, combined with his ability to manipulate reality (seemingly the fundamental laws of physics) as Sai does remains, for the most part, an undiscovered resource of the potentiality of humanity. I'm sorry, but I have to ask this... If he can work miracles, and if he's here to fix up the mess in any way shape or form, what's he actually doing to fix things up? Sai Baba is presently helping remake India by supporting schools he founded that teach his philosophy along with modern technology. As he says, a person can not remake the world without first remaking his own country. Obviously, the spirit world believe this is easier to do in India than elsewhere. I agree. The spirit world attempted to do this in the middle East 2000 years ago, but now look at the mess. Turn it around: Sai Baba is a miracle worker and yet his impact has apparently been so slight that people outside of India are nearly unaware of him. Why is that? A person only knows what they seek to learn. The information about Sai Baba is easily available, but not in the American press. But then, what's new about tat? The world abounds with problems which cry out for the touch of a miracle worker, from lack of clean water for humans to lack of usable habitat for polar bears. Surely someone gifted with physical powers which allow him to manipulate reality at a fundamental level should be doing more with this capability than just using it as a sort of publicity stunt to get folks to come and listen to his sermons? One man, no matter how talented, can not do it alone. His role is to teach other people how to solve the problems. After all, it was mankind who created the problems in the first place. We need to learn how to stop doing this. Philosophers ultimately wield great influence over events, it is true. But whatever power sent Sai Baba here must have intended him to be more than a philosopher, else why grant him such astonishing *physical* abilities? His message will eventually start another religion, as have the messages of the other messengers. However, this takes time. Gradually, this religion will be corrupted, as has happened every time repair was attempted, and the process will be repeated. Gradually, mankind will learn to avoid religion, as some of us have already mastered. So, what is he doing with his powers, aside from healing a relative handful of individuals? (In a world of 7 billion, hands-on healing of individuals can never reach more than a relative handful, of course. Another bit of perspective: Bill Gates, with his charitable work which includes large scale vaccination
Re: [Vo]:Gas flow to Arata cell NOT shut off
The statement made by Dr. Wang about D filling voids in the Pd lattice is based on an assumption, for which no experimental evidence exists in the literature as far as I know. A person has to be very careful to separate such assumptions from what is actually known, based on good work. Otherwise, we will have a hard time understanding what is actually causing the fusion reaction. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: In my first report on the Arata experiment, I made a mistake that upset Takahashi to no end. The captions in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 that I sent here (both English and Japanese) say D+-jet stream stopped. Based on this, plus the fact that gas loading stops abruptly, I assumed that the valve was closed and the flow of gas into the cell terminated. Dr. Wang says that is incorrect. The gas flow continues, but the material is apparently saturated, and gas loading into it ends abruptly. Pressure in the cell begins to rise as additional gas flows in, and this shows up roughly 5 minutes later in the graphs. I thought the pressure was rising because the sample was degassing. Arata told me that they prefer to raise the pressure of the cell considerably above 1 atm to ensure that any contamination will leak out of the cell, rather than being sucked into it. Arata also said that increasing the pressure in the cell after the initial loading phase does not significantly increase the excess heat. I think I should change that label on the figures from D+-jet stream stopped to something like D+ absorption stops (or ends or sample stop absorbing D+). Stopped sounds transitive, indicating that someone stopped it. I was surprised to learn that absorption can stop so abruptly. I thought it would taper off gradually. However, Edmund Storms told me: Clean, finely powdered Pd will react rapidly with hydrogen and, when all of the sample has converted to the beta phase, very little additional hydrogen will appear to be used. Of course, additional hydrogen will be added as the beta phase increases in composition, but this amount is small compared to the initial loading. This behavior is well known and is consistent with what Arata observes. Dr. Wang also explained to me (my translation): [During the initial D+ loading phase] deuterons are pushed into voids in the lattice (the Octahedrons) in groups of 2 to 4 deuterons. There they form solid deuterons which, during the Skirt Fusion zone phase gradually undergo a nuclear fusion reaction, which continues for 100 hours or longer. This produces large amounts of helium, as heat production continues. During this phase, the D2 gas pressure remains constant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Let me answer your question, Richard. The issue was how does a person evaluate reality. Of course, different kinds of or different levels of reality exist. Therefore, different methods are required. Science uses objective evaluation of observation in the material world. The question was raised about thought transfer as an example of a phenomenon that appears to be outside of the material world. The resulting discussion involved how this phenomenon is investigated and how would it behave if real? I provided another example of this type of reality in the person of Sai Baba. No mysticism is involved. My point is that examples exist of phenomenon beyond our understanding of the material world that can be tested and verified. Faith and religion are not involved. Of course, these examples impact on religion, but they do not require a religious belief. The examples have the same reality we attribute to any chemical or physical reaction, except they have no physical explanation. How does an open minded person deal with such a situation? Dismissing the phenomena as mysticism is a cop-out. Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Thanks for bringing Sai Baba back to my attention, Ed. How foolish of Money could not be a problem for a miracle worker, of course -- it takes only the slightest ability to affect the laws of chance, or the teeniest ability to predict the future, to allow one to amass as much wealth as you could possibly need. Particularly one who can materialize gold coins, eh? Howdy Vorts, 'Bout now the boys at the Dime Box are scratching their heads in wonder how this thread morphed in eastern mysticism. I thought wez discussing how the bartender could somehow slide a mug of beer down the bar at just the right time... but .. I can understand that people might not understand the understanding with the patrons. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist and the repercussions that would come from such an attack. PRATT: So is geopolitical risk now back on the table? It was sort of missing from the marketplace for a little while. KILDUFF: We were, for a while, really just dealing with the economics of everything. From the -- from watching the value of the dollar closely, watching interest rate moves very closely, even hanging each day on the various data points to see if the economy was slowing or not, which would dictate future energy demand and whether or not prices were justified at the ever-higher levels. But, yes, this brought the geopolitical worries front and center once again. PRATT: About a month ago I think I believe you were saying that you thought the top for oil prices would be somewhere in the $130s range. Now we're almost approaching $140. Are all bets off for you? What do you think? Where are we going in terms of prices? KILDUFF: We're at a crossroads. I have to say the bias is towards the upside still now. We had called for $138 to be the top and when we hit $135 at the end of May, we
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
I agree with Jed, the data show some extra heat. However, I find this approach to be very sad. Arata had a chance to design the experiment so that the doubts and speculation could have been significantly reduced. He could have, without much extra effort, made the demonstration professional and convincing. Instead, we are forced to speculate and base conclusions on very small effects. I sincerely hope this can be replicated soon. Otherwise, I fear we are looking at 1989 all over again. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I have had some complaints about Arata's paper and presentation. The paper lacks details such as the method of calibration. However, we should not overlook the fact that this is an astounding accomplishment, and even without a calibration it is obviously producing stable heat far beyond the limits of chemistry. I just sent a note to Arata in Japanese expressing these sentiments. As everyone knows, there have been scattered reports of heat after death, which is essentially output without input. This is like a vastly improved version of heat after death. Arata said it is reproducible. I do not know the success rate but there are several graphs of successful runs. Here is the critical fact about this experiment. Look at figure 3 in the News section: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Two things jump out at you: 1. The cell core temperature is hotter than the cell wall. This proves that the heat originates in the cell. (Skeptics unfamiliar with the second law will probably dispute that, but it's proof.) The cell core is not warmer with hydrogen, so there is no heat source in the cell. 2. The sample with hydrogen returns to room temperature after 200 minutes. The two samples with deuterium remain about 1°C above ambient four 3000 minutes (50 hours), and according to Dr. Wang, for another 3000 hours after that (100 hours total). The reaction shows no sign of petering out at the end of this graph. Think about this: the cell should be stone cold by minute 600, but it is still warm at minute 6000! Obviously, this is a stable, on-demand, self-sustaining reaction. It is the holy grail of cold fusion! Not to mention plasma fusion. The temperature difference of 1°C above ambient is large. It can be measured with absolute confidence with modern instruments, and it is probably palpable. Even without a calibration, and whether this 1°C temperature difference represents 1.1 W (as Arata claims) or whether it is only a fraction of a watt, I am sure it is beyond the limits of chemistry. The control run with hydrogen proves that. Plus, Mike Melich says he can do a first principle analysis based on heat loss and the approximate heat capacity of the steel cell to confirm this. I do not know how big or heavy the cell is. As I said, it is stainless steel maybe 20 cm tall maybe 3 cm in diameter. He says you convert everything into the specific heat of water to do this conveniently. The specific heat of iron is 0.45 J/g * k, and water is 4.18 J/g * k so it is about a factor of ten less. (By the way, I hope to have this figure and the others in an English version of this paper soon. However, I have found that it is better to first understand a paper and then translate it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Jed, you have bought into the logic that Israel can not be criticized without being anti-Semitic. In fact, even many Jews are unhappy by the policies of Israel. Critiquing the policy of Israel is no more being anti-Semitic than critiquing Bush is being anti-American. As for the US harming Israel, we have supported them against the Palestinians in every way, including supporting their policies and giving them money and arms. As is obvious to any thinking person, the conflict will not be resolved by a one sided approach, which the Bush administration especially has supported. Other administrations tried a more balanced approach, but were frustrated by the unwillingness of both sides to compromise. When I say the Bush administration is dominated by the policies of Israel, I'm saying Bush is taking a one side position to the conflict. Of course, this is not in the interest of Israel, but that is what the Israeli government wants. Now they want us to bomb Iran because they fear the wrath of their neighbors, thanks to their policies. Meanwhile, the US has needs and interests that do not involve Israel, many of which are being jeopardized by our focus on following the fears of the Israeli government. Why can these issues be debated without emotion and the use of anti-Semitism? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel . . . That is outrageous anti-Semitic crap. The Bush administration has done more to harm Israel than any other in U.S. history. I will grant they did not mean to harm Israel, but they didn't mean to harm the U.S. either, or for that matter the people of Iraq either. Claiming they are dominated by Israel makes about as much sense as claiming they are dominated by the Iraqi people and politicians. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political situation will get completely out of control. Meanwhile, China is developing its own oil sources independent of the jokers we deal with. Either the oil gang is totally incompetent or so totally corrupted by greed they are blind to the long term consequences of their actions. The third possibility, which I favor, is that the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel that they created a situation that even the oil gang is pissed off about. Ed Taylor J. Smith wrote: Ed Storms wrote on Sat, 24 May 2008: This approach has been applied repeatedly with the same outcome. For example, during the cold war, Russia made simple and cheap reactors that powered their satellites. We, on the other hand, tried to make a perfect reactor that totally failed. As a result, we were forced to use solar panels that even today make the satellites easy targets. These are the kinds of decisions that eventually lead to failure even though our arrogance make them look good at the time. You can see the same attitude being applied to the Iraq situation. We never learn. Hi Ed, The objective evidence is that our policy in Iraq has been an outstanding success from the view point of those in control of the U.S. government, namely the Oil Gang. In fact, the destruction of the Golden Mosque which started the Sunni - Shiite civil was classic imperial strategy: Divide et Impera. Previously I wrote The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight. What will the Oil Gang do about this? ... Well, now we know. Jack Smith -- http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080606b/ TRANSCRIPT fom The Nightly Business Report, 6-6-08 ``John Kilduff, Energy Analyst at MF Global Offers An Outlook on Oil SUZANNE PRATT: Joining me now to talk about that huge move in oil prices today is John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global. John, welcome back to the program. JOHN KILDUFF, SR. VP, ENERGY, MF GLOBAL: Thank you Suzanne. PRATT: So it was a crazy day in the energy market. Tell us what happened. KILDUFF: Well, it was really one for the record books. We had never been lock ... limit up. Futures rose as much as they possibly could today, and the commodity markets are still a little old-fashioned with our circuit breakers and we reacted strongly to several of the things that you've been speaking about in this broadcast so far. I think chief among them though was the shudder that was sent through the market from Israel and the comments from their transportation minister, who isn't just some transportation minister. This gentleman was a former defense minister, is seeking to succeed Ehud Olmert because of the scandal that's going on embroiling his administration, and he also made a comment that U.S. military had approved of this plan. [' Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz told a newspaper that Iran faced airstrikes if it did not abandon its nuclear program.'] So the oil traders didn't really want to stick around too long to get the details on that. They just bought with both hands because of the potentialities that exist
Re: [Vo]:J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard
Thanks Steven, that is indeed worth reading. Ed OrionWorks wrote: J.K. Rowling's graduation address to Harvard. Some of us may find it worth the time to read: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/06.05/99-rowlingspeech.html http://tinyurl.com/63dvc3 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
I don't like the situation either, Philip. However, when a nation has the oil we need, it is apparently easy to be nice. If not, we have to pay an even greater price for our principles. This is actually the way the world works these days. In the past, the US called the shots. Increasingly, the oil suppliers and China will call the shots. Get use to the idea, because it is only going to get worse. You should ask why such a situation was allowed to develop. These situations do not occur by accident. As for Israel, it is hard to choose words carefully and still be honest. The situation is not based on scientific logic, but on faith and religious belief. A significant number of people in the US believe that Israel was given to the Jews by God. These people have significant influence and they vote. Therefore, any criticism about how Israel behaves is unpopular, being called anti-Semitism. As a result, Israel can cause the US to do things that would otherwise be impossible if demanded by another country. History shows why is is true. Creation of the country displaced millions of Palestinians. These people were forced from their homes and land. This is a fact. As a result, these people and people in the surrounding countries have been and continue to be angry at the unfairness of this, regardless of the justification based on God's will. Nevertheless, the US has sided heavily in favor of Israel. Because the Palestinians do not have modern weapons, as supplied by the US to Israel, they fight with the only tools they have. The US labels this method terrorism, which it is. As a result, the situation is made more one sided and desperate. No body wins and the US is dragged deeper into the conflict. No matter which side you favor, this is the situation. The policies used in the past have clearly not worked no matter how correct you think them to be. The question is, what do you suggest we do now? Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: I personally don't like the idea of playing nice with people whose greatest wish is to cut my throat. The leader of the greatest and most benevolent country in the world (I didn't say it was perfect) has to make nice to people who by their teachings precipitated the 9/11 disaster, and who incidentally benefit greatly in many ways, many of them most unpleasant, from current oil prices? Just a little strange to me. I'm no politician, but I do respect - as the Soviets did - a nation whose leaders make it perfectly clear what would happen if America were to be jeopardized. Not so with the Saudis. We make nice. As for supporting everything the Israeli government wants. Can you be a little more definitive? You say, ... the Bush gang is so incompetent and so under the domination of Israel... Perhaps you could reword this so that we could all understand (if we're interested, which I'm sure most people here aren't) exactly what this tiny nation in this tiny sliver of land (about the size of New Jersey) is using to dominate the most powerful nation in the world. I guess it could be Viagra... Whatever it is, I'd like some of this domination juice. Please choose you words a little more carefully if you can't offer scientific explanations. They're a dead giveaway... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:03:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Well, Philip, you did see Bush holding hands with the Saudi king. He was trying to get the Saudi to pump more oil, which they refused to do. However, I see no conflict with playing nice with the Saudi and supporting everything the Israeli government wants. One is done for money and the other is done for politics. Unfortunately, the two have now formed an explosive mixture. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: That's funny Ed, I thought I saw President Bush holding hands with a Saudi person some time ago, and I heard that his dad was fundamentally owned by a bunch of these Saudi people all controlling the world's oil flows. I must have been either mistaken or blind... These must have been Mossad agents in disguise... Silly me for not immediately seeing that... P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:40:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Hi Jack, You are right. The oil gang has benefited from Iraq. However, this benefit is temporary, as I'm sure they must realize. Meanwhile, decisions have set in motion that will eventually lead to their demise as well as a situation that no one wants. For example, all kinds of oil saving technologies are in the pipeline. In addition, people are so pissed off they will put severe restrictions on the industry in the US. To make matters worse, if Israel has its way, the economic and political
Re: [Vo]:Arata's results really are astounding
Good question. The significance of 1 degree depends on how much insulation is on the cell and how well the thermocouples were calibrated. If the cell is well insulated, 1 degree would represent very little extra power. Since we don't have any information about either, the significance is totally unknown. All we know is that some extra energy appears to be generated within the cell. It's amount and source are unknown. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Jed Rothwell said: I do not think that a 1°C temperature difference is a small effect. Most CF researchers would be thrilled to have such a large temperature difference. Also, the ambient room temperature is very stable. I must ask a question that exposes my ignorance: I suspect many who aren't technically gifted are not going to perceive Arata's 1 C temperature increase, where deuterons were used instead of hydrogen, as all that impressive. So what if the 1 degree temperature increase above ambient temperature persisted for at least 6000 hours. I realize other CF researchers are likely to consider the 1 C temp increase to be a resounding breakthrough, particularly if it can be independently replicated. Nevertheless, I suspect it's difficult for the uneducated lay person to see what the fuss over a 1 degree increase is all about. Granted, I fully realize the fact that we are dealing with what I presume is a tiny experimental setup, where the reaction chamber is small to begin with. Can CF researchers perceive a way to scale up Arata's process in a practical way to eventually produce the amount of excess heat necessary for household and industrial applications? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:RE: Arata's results are really astounding
Good question, Steven. If this method is as good as claimed, it is the best and only method I believe that can result in a commercial device. Earlier use of palladium black by Arata showed similar behavior. Using this material, McKubre (SRI) replicated the claimed heat production and produced some tritium in the process. As a result, the method looks very promising. But, the difference between a scientific experiment and a practical device is always vast and littered with pitfalls. Ed OrionWorks wrote: I have found the exchange of opinions expressed so far educational. Let me pose a question I don't think has been explored adequately Does anyone here imagine it conceivable that Arata's experiment points to a practical way of scaling up the generation of heat to commercial and industrial levels? Granted this might be a difficult question to answer under the current circumstances since I gather Arata has yet to clarify a number of critical components. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives are not remembered. I suggest you read the books by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD). Prof. Stevenson spent his career at the University of Virginia investigating reincarnation using a scientific approach. Naturally, his extensive investigation has been largely ignored because, as you point out, it defies physical and conventional understanding. Nevertheless, evidence exists for past-life memories, especially in children. This life might not be a waste after all. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Philip sez: ... People are where they are because it's where they are, as part of the dream. My approach is, live with it. go out, have a coffee and a bagel (or some nice organic bread) and get on with life. There's room enough for everyone, and everyone can make good, as long as they work for everything, and don't try to plunder what the next man has. This strikes me as incredibly naive. And yet, it is precisely how I try to live my life each day. I often feel like I'm not very good at it - living up to this interpretation of the Golden Rule. It is nevertheless a worthy goal to strive towards each day, one day at a time. Perhaps in ten or twelve more lifetimes I'll get the hang of it. ;-) Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way; there isn't any practice effect among incarnated beings. Memory is organic, mediated by the hippocampus and related brain hardware. Consequently at the end of your life, you'll leave that all behind; in your next life you won't remember anything about Steve Johnson, and, considering how outnumbered humans are among the sentient creatures, chances are you won't even remember anything about what it's like to be human. You'll just have to start over from scratch, and make the best of it as a gerbil or whatever your consciousness happens to be stuck in next time around. How we're supposed to get anywhere with a system like this beats me. Baklava, anyone? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
I think people make a mistake by defining the problem too narrowly. Only those facts or observation that involve physical processes are considered. Everything else is pushed aside as being religion, mysticism, or imagination. Granted, if each metaphysical observation is viewed in isolation, such an approach looks very reasonable. However, if the whole field of such phenomenon is examined, a consistent picture emerges. The psi effects and other extraphysical mental abilities, the observations of ghosts and other such occurrences, reincarnation, and, last but not least, the abilities of certain men such as Sai Baba, all of these well studied and documented effects lead to a significant and logical conclusion. The conclusion is that a reality exists that is superimposed on the physical one we know and love. This reality is detected occasionally by the brain as well as by scientific instruments. In the past, such studies and occurrences have been the red meat of religion, with all of the confusion and superstition this approach provides. I suggest open minded people now have enough information available to them that is not contaminated by the self-serving needs of religion so that they can start to see a new reality. Since we all are interested in the physical reality, I would hope this new one would create at least as much interest and open minded discussion, without religion being involved. After all, long ago mankind moved from using religion to explain the physical reality. Why can't this improved approach be applied to this new reality? Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives are not remembered. True, it's a big one; it's based on the small amount I've read about brain science plus some major guesses. So far, as we continue to learn more about brain function, everything seems to be explainable in terms of the actual physical brain structures. Simulating or mapping an entire human brain is still 'way beyond anything anyone can do at this time, but simpler brains have been mapped and simulated, and effects caused by the ghost in the machine haven't turned up. That /suggests/ that the stuff which a brain has learned, and which its owner can remember, does indeed come from interactions with the outside world, through the apparent physical pathways rather than through any alleged extraphysical path. Supporting this view are impromptu studies of people whose interaction with the external world is limited. The most dramatic was the classic (and accidental) experiment on H.M. (hope I got the initials right) in bilateral hippocampectomy which showed pretty conclusively -- and rather horribly -- that additions to your memory are mediated by the hippocampus and do require that physical structure to take place. Remove the physical switching center and further additions to memory are impossible. Sorry, I couldn't scare up a good link on this one just now. Summary, for those who haven't heard of this, based on my somewhat hazy memories from long ago when I first learned of this case: The patient, H.M., had some problem or other (seizures, depression, something someone thought could be cured using a knife) and had the bad luck to encounter a surgeon who speculated that a bilateral hippocampectomy was just the ticket to cure him. Well, as I got the story, the surgery did indeed cure the condition, but it also made it impossible for H.M. to learn anything new, ever again. From that day forward, every day he awoke was, to him, the day after the operation ... decades later, it was still the day after the operation for him. Lucky for him, he was optimistic about the surgery and awoke in good spirits afterwards, because he repeated the experience many, many times. His short term memory was more or less OK, by the way -- it was migration of memories from short term storage to long term storage that was blocked. (After a number of years had gone by, it was observed that H.M. became agitated upon looking in a mirror -- the aged face looking back at him wasn't at all what he expected to see.) Anyhow what all this suggests to me, as I already said, is that the contents of our memory are based on the physical brain structures, with those structures being formed using a genetic blueprint overlaid with lots of training; I don't see a place for extraphysical memories to work their way in. But perhaps I'm just being too hard-headed (is that like being solid-brained?). On the other hand, as an aside, it seems to me that a strong argument can be made on probabilistic grounds in favor of reincarnation -- but I won't go into that here, at least not just now. Ironically, if memory is truly physical, then we can never know if reincarnation is fact or just fantasy. (And an interesting argument can be made, again purely on the basis of probability theory
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
On a more personal note, Shephen. I agree, the brain can do some very strange things. Naturally, these are always explained using established physical laws, rather like the approach we experience with cold fusion. But as I get older and more educated about other possibilities, I find I have a self interest in learning what is in store for me after death. Religion provides no answers I can accept, being more confident in the scientific approach. I realize other people find great pleasure in believing what religion claims and would not welcome the possibility that the claims are all just imagination and self promotion. Nevertheless, I always hope there are a few people in the world who share my approach, but apparently not many. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives are not remembered. True, it's a big one; it's based on the small amount I've read about brain science plus some major guesses. So far, as we continue to learn more about brain function, everything seems to be explainable in terms of the actual physical brain structures. Simulating or mapping an entire human brain is still 'way beyond anything anyone can do at this time, but simpler brains have been mapped and simulated, and effects caused by the ghost in the machine haven't turned up. That /suggests/ that the stuff which a brain has learned, and which its owner can remember, does indeed come from interactions with the outside world, through the apparent physical pathways rather than through any alleged extraphysical path. Supporting this view are impromptu studies of people whose interaction with the external world is limited. The most dramatic was the classic (and accidental) experiment on H.M. (hope I got the initials right) in bilateral hippocampectomy which showed pretty conclusively -- and rather horribly -- that additions to your memory are mediated by the hippocampus and do require that physical structure to take place. Remove the physical switching center and further additions to memory are impossible. Sorry, I couldn't scare up a good link on this one just now. Summary, for those who haven't heard of this, based on my somewhat hazy memories from long ago when I first learned of this case: The patient, H.M., had some problem or other (seizures, depression, something someone thought could be cured using a knife) and had the bad luck to encounter a surgeon who speculated that a bilateral hippocampectomy was just the ticket to cure him. Well, as I got the story, the surgery did indeed cure the condition, but it also made it impossible for H.M. to learn anything new, ever again. From that day forward, every day he awoke was, to him, the day after the operation ... decades later, it was still the day after the operation for him. Lucky for him, he was optimistic about the surgery and awoke in good spirits afterwards, because he repeated the experience many, many times. His short term memory was more or less OK, by the way -- it was migration of memories from short term storage to long term storage that was blocked. (After a number of years had gone by, it was observed that H.M. became agitated upon looking in a mirror -- the aged face looking back at him wasn't at all what he expected to see.) Anyhow what all this suggests to me, as I already said, is that the contents of our memory are based on the physical brain structures, with those structures being formed using a genetic blueprint overlaid with lots of training; I don't see a place for extraphysical memories to work their way in. But perhaps I'm just being too hard-headed (is that like being solid-brained?). On the other hand, as an aside, it seems to me that a strong argument can be made on probabilistic grounds in favor of reincarnation -- but I won't go into that here, at least not just now. Ironically, if memory is truly physical, then we can never know if reincarnation is fact or just fantasy. (And an interesting argument can be made, again purely on the basis of probability theory with some simple assumptions, that the end of the world is nigh -- and perhaps both arguments are correct, and that plus 3 bucks will get you a ride on a bus. Whatever. At least the end-of-the-world argument can [and will] be tested.) I suggest you read the books by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD). Prof. Stevenson spent his career at the University of Virginia investigating reincarnation using a scientific approach. Naturally, his extensive investigation has been largely ignored because, as you point out, it defies physical and conventional understanding. Nevertheless, evidence exists for past-life memories, especially in children. This life might not be a waste after all. Thanks; I will take a look at it. If nothing else it has the potential to be more optimistic than the bulk of what I read these days, which sometimes
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
You are certainly right Stephen, might does make right and land is always taken by force and retained the victor. We did it to the British, the Indians, and to the Mexicans while feeling very proud of ourselves. However, the situation with Israel is different. Here a higher moral principal is being claimed, i.e. God's will. We are to believe that the Jews are more favored than the Philistines by God and that the moral teachings of Christ allow such a conquest. This is not a normal conflict! In addition, even if we ignore the moral issue, the practical issue of Israel being able to survive while being surrounded by angry people who have access to rockets needs to be considered. Granted, Israel has won the pitched battles. But, will they win the war without compromise? Ed thomas malloy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs. This time the wedge is oil. The USA uses oil like toilet paper and everybuddy knows wez intitled to it.. or we think we do. We have enough oil provided we turn off This didn't endear the nascent nation of Israel to the locals, and doesn't seem to put the possession of the land of Israel on the firmest of legal footings. Oh, granted, God said it was theirs, so under God's law it's clear cut, but under international law it's rather hazier, I think; unlike God's law, international law doesn't technically recognize the principle of might makes right. I think that the principal of the gain of territory by military conquest is an established principal of international law. In particular, this applies to aggressors, who subsequently loose the war that they start. The problem is that people of a certain political persuasion don't want the rules to apply to the followers of Judeo Christian Civilization. IMHO, the Philistines repeated losses to the Israelis should tell you something, particularly since they out number them 10 to one. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: You are certainly right Stephen, might does make right and land is always taken by force and retained the victor. Excuse me, I didn't say that, or didn't intend to. It's Thomas who elevated it to a principle of international law in this thread, just before I went ballistic and belched out an oversized load response. Just to reiterate, I said: international law doesn't technically recognize the principle of might makes right. As always you can get away with whatever you can get away with; that's a tautology. But that doesn't make it right or legal. Sorry to misinterpret you. Nevertheless, I agree with you. However, international law is a recent concept as our examples point out. So, on that basis, Israel has violated international law as well as the moral behavior Christ taught. So, what remains? I guess if you can prove that you have God on your side, this trump's everything. Ed We did it to the British, the Indians, and to the Mexicans while feeling very proud of ourselves. However, the situation with Israel is different. Here a higher moral principal is being claimed, i.e. God's will. We are to believe that the Jews are more favored than the Philistines by God and that the moral teachings of Christ allow such a conquest. This is not a normal conflict! In addition, even if we ignore the moral issue, the practical issue of Israel being able to survive while being surrounded by angry people who have access to rockets needs to be considered. Granted, Israel has won the pitched battles. But, will they win the war without compromise? Ed thomas malloy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs. This time the wedge is oil. The USA uses oil like toilet paper and everybuddy knows wez intitled to it.. or we think we do. We have enough oil provided we turn off This didn't endear the nascent nation of Israel to the locals, and doesn't seem to put the possession of the land of Israel on the firmest of legal footings. Oh, granted, God said it was theirs, so under God's law it's clear cut, but under international law it's rather hazier, I think; unlike God's law, international law doesn't technically recognize the principle of might makes right. Thomas's response starts here: I think that the principal of the gain of territory by military conquest is an established principal of international law. In particular, this applies to aggressors, who subsequently loose the war that they start. The problem is that people of a certain political persuasion don't want the rules to apply to the followers of Judeo Christian Civilization. IMHO, the Philistines repeated losses to the Israelis should tell you something, particularly since they out number them 10 to one. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Good idea, Steven, but I suggest a different approach from atheism. A good dose of real humility would work as well. If they would simply question whether a god as old and complex as the one that must exist in a universe as vast and old as ours would give a shit who occupies this speck of land. Ed OrionWorks wrote: From Ed Storms: Sorry to misinterpret you [S. Lawrence]. Nevertheless, I agree with you. However, international law is a recent concept as our examples point out. So, on that basis, Israel has violated international law as well as the moral behavior Christ taught. So, what remains? I guess if you can prove that you have God on your side, this trump's everything. Ed And to state the obvious, we all know that both camps claim that their All-Powerful and Merciful God claims the same territory for His chosen children. I sometimes like to fantasize a sarcastic outcome: That a good dose of atheism would go a long way towards breaking this pissing contest - but I suspect if I were to suggest it one of these Almighty Gods would smite me as I stand. Life's a b_tch when the Gods are offended. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Good suggestion, Philip. I have read the biographies of Edgar Cayce. He is another example of powers that have no physical explanation and no religious significance. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Quite right Ed. For an interesting story on this, read any of the biographies of Edgar Cayce - The Sleeping Prophet P.. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds Stephen, you are making a huge assumption when you say that past lives are not remembered. I suggest you read the books by Dr. Ian Stevenson (MD). Prof. Stevenson spent his career at the University of Virginia investigating reincarnation using a scientific approach. Naturally, his extensive investigation has been largely ignored because, as you point out, it defies physical and conventional understanding. Nevertheless, evidence exists for past-life memories, especially in children. This life might not be a waste after all. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Philip sez: ... People are where they are because it's where they are, as part of the dream. My approach is, live with it. go out, have a coffee and a bagel (or some nice organic bread) and get on with life. There's room enough for everyone, and everyone can make good, as long as they work for everything, and don't try to plunder what the next man has. This strikes me as incredibly naive. And yet, it is precisely how I try to live my life each day. I often feel like I'm not very good at it - living up to this interpretation of the Golden Rule. It is nevertheless a worthy goal to strive towards each day, one day at a time. Perhaps in ten or twelve more lifetimes I'll get the hang of it. ;-) Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way; there isn't any practice effect among incarnated beings. Memory is organic, mediated by the hippocampus and related brain hardware. Consequently at the end of your life, you'll leave that all behind; in your next life you won't remember anything about Steve Johnson, and, considering how outnumbered humans are among the sentient creatures, chances are you won't even remember anything about what it's like to be human. You'll just have to start over from scratch, and make the best of it as a gerbil or whatever your consciousness happens to be stuck in next time around. How we're supposed to get anywhere with a system like this beats me. Baklava, anyone? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
thomas malloy wrote: The return of the Jews, the conquest of the land, it's subsequent prosperity, the hatred of the Arabs, their refusal to get over the indignity of the loss of that part of their conquered land, the Liberals support of Islam. IMHO, It's all supernatural. BTW, comprise will get no where with the Islamists, it's counterproductive. If this is the case Thomas, Israel better have God on its side because otherwise the country is doomed. This conclusion is obvious to any rational person, not just liberals. Here is a small country that is not self sufficient without outside aid and is surrounding itself with walls to protect itself from its neighbors. Meanwhile, it is surrounded by a hostile population that is growing richer and increasing in numbers. At the same time, the rest of the world is being significantly inconvenienced by the consequences of the conflicts in the area, i.e. higher oil prices. To make the situation worse for Israel, its actions violate modern standards of behavior, as shown by the various UN resolutions, both passed and proposed, that condemn its behavior. Surely these facts must concern all Jews and Christians. At some point, theological and historical arguments simply won't work any more. How long must people wait until this reality becomes obvious? Ed Edmund Storms wrote: God's will. We are to believe that the Jews are more favored than the Philistines by God and that the moral teachings of Christ allow such a conquest. This is not a normal conflict! In addition, even if we ignore the moral issue, the practical issue of Israel being able to survive while being surrounded by angry people who have access to rockets needs to be considered. Granted, Israel has won the pitched battles. But, will they win the war without compromise? thomas malloy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs. This time the wedge is oil. The USA --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
I'm amazed Philip that you would call my analysis lies and hypocrisy. We can differ about what the facts mean, but I don't understand why you can't acknowledge easily verifiable facts. Unfortunately, your reaction is not uncommon and it is the reason why rational decisions are not being made. So that you are not further confused by my approach, by rational decisions I mean ones that would allow Israel to survive without counting on the supernatural. Even the Bible advises that God helps those who help themselves. I see no sign that Israel is taking this advice in a rational way. Instead, they seem to have your approach. No one blames Israel for everything. However, Israel is the cause of the conflicts in that region of the world. You don't need to accept my statement because many sources of this opinion are available. Right now the price of oil is going up partly because of the conflict in Iraq and the possibility that the US or Israel will attack Iran. You can easily check this fact as well. The US has nothing to fear from a proposed nuclear weapon from Iran. First, it can not reach us, they want us to buy their oil in the future, and last but not least, we can turn them into toast. Only Israel has something to fear, as Iran has made clear. Consequently, we are helping Israel even though we have no direct threat to ourselves, while paying dearly. As for fighting thugs, you seem to forget that the people in Palestine were first attacked when Israel was formed. Naturally, they fought back. Now you use this response as a reason to fight them. This is the cycle that always leads to destruction when the sides are evenly matched. That is why Christ advised turning the other cheek. I don't advise this approach now, but the brute force approach is not working either. Unless rational decisions are made in the future, the result I fear will not please either one of us. As for further discussion of this topic, I apologize to anyone who finds this boring or unimportant. Ed PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Hmmm... Ya don't think that higher oil prices are due to (1) greed, and (2) the holy purpose of holding the world by the balls until the Caliphate is established (ie - the West succumbs financially and goes down the tubes)? It seems that the scientific idea of cause and effect is somewhat inapplicable to the situation as you see it. Got a migraine? It's Israel! It's the Jews!!! (Take your pick.) Actions violating modern standards of behaviour? Exactly what standards? I've been practising the martial arts for close to 30 years, and I can tell you how best to handle murderous thugs... including those populating that great tax waster, the UN. Like I said before, if a person wants to harm my family or myself, I will spare no effort to put an end to him. Perhaps you should think of what your gut reaction would be in that kind of situation. I venture that if a thug - any thug - came at you or your wife to commit mayhem and you had a gun handy, you couldn't get to it fast enough. If not, you're not a normal human being. This is the human condition. Survival. Not theological or historical arguments. No more walking passively into cattle-cars toward death, surrounded by thugs. Open your eyes Ed. That is, if you want to... which doesn't seem apparent. Too much education and worship of the intellect, perhaps; try using your intuition. Works also for solving Cold Fusion and other energy-related problems. To the others at Vortex; I didn't want to prolong this nonsense, but I simply won't stand by passively when I see lies and hypocrisy in front of me. It's called defamation, and it's been going on for a long time. And it's going to have to stop, or there will be horrendous problems. So I apologize to all. P. - Original Message From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:31:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds thomas malloy wrote: The return of the Jews, the conquest of the land, it's subsequent prosperity, the hatred of the Arabs, their refusal to get over the indignity of the loss of that part of their conquered land, the Liberals support of Islam. IMHO, It's all supernatural. BTW, comprise will get no where with the Islamists, it's counterproductive. If this is the case Thomas, Israel better have God on its side because otherwise the country is doomed. This conclusion is obvious to any rational person, not just liberals. Here is a small country that is not self sufficient without outside aid and is surrounding itself with walls to protect itself from its neighbors. Meanwhile, it is surrounded by a hostile population that is growing richer and increasing in numbers. At the same time, the rest of the world is being significantly inconvenienced by the consequences of the conflicts in the area, i.e. higher oil prices. To make the situation worse for Israel
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: thomas malloy wrote: The return of the Jews, the conquest of the land, it's subsequent prosperity, the hatred of the Arabs, their refusal to get over the indignity of the loss of that part of their conquered land, the Liberals support of Islam. IMHO, It's all supernatural. BTW, comprise will get no where with the Islamists, it's counterproductive. If this is the case Thomas, Israel better have God on its side because otherwise the country is doomed. This conclusion is obvious to any rational person, not just liberals. Here is a small country that is not self sufficient without outside aid and is Your comments just tickle me Ed, this is exactly the scenario that the prophecies said would occur. Good, this is the spirit we need to continue a discussion. Of course, a person explaining such a conflict even in the past would predict that some people would try to find a reasonable solution. But, this is not your point. I assume you believe this conflict was foretold in the Bible and that it will end badly, after which Christ will return and set things right again. Is this your belief? I believe this is a case of a self fulfilling prophecy that various people worked to bring about in modern times. I agree it will end badly, but I don't believe it will result in any supernatural events that will reward Christians. Instead, it will result in death and destruction for a lot of people, just as have many other decisions based on religious belief. The human race will repair the damage and stumble on as usual. We will just have to wait and see which view is correct. If you are right, we should not have to wait long. Ed --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Great story Terry, just what we need to lower the tension. If we need more proof that God is nothing but trouble, read the attached article. http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=12963 Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:50 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I'll heed the advice of several participants and step out for some fresh air. God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael, the archangel, found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired, Where have you been? God smiled deeply and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, Look, Michael. Look what I've made. Archangel Michael looked puzzled, and said, What is it? It's a planet, replied God, and I've put Life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a place to test Balance. Balance? inquired Michael, I'm still confused. God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth, while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over here I've placed a continent of white people, and over there is a continent of black people. Balance in all things. God continued pointing to different countries. This one will be extremely hot, while this one will be very cold and covered in ice. The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land area and said, What's that one? That's Washington State, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, forests, hills, and plains. The people from Washington State are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent, and humorous, and they are going to travel the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking, high achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats, carriers of peace, and producers of software. Michael gasped in wonder and admiration, but then asked, But what about balance, God? You said there would be balance. God smiled as he said: There is another Washington. Wait till you see the idiots I put there. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Divine Intervention
Thanks for the story Steven. Such occurrence can give us hope. As for your questions? Ask yourself how you would communicate a message under such circumstances if you were God. Intervention is out of the question for reasons that have been debated for centuries. To me, the message to the Israeli army is, save the innocent. Obviously, this is a message God thinks the Israeli army needs to hear. It is the message of Christ and of every great religious leader, but it is a message that is seldom followed. Also, I agree with your interpretation, he was spared to spread the message. If God is actually to be feared, I would expect a failure to heed his message would be the greatest cause for concern. Unfortunately, Israel does not seem to hear the message. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Perhaps against my better judgment I feel compelled to share the following incident. FWIW I believe it is a truthful account. A couple of years ago at one of those informal UFO meetings I attend in the Milwaukee area I had an unusual conversation with a good acquaintance of mine. I'll call him Danny, not his real name. Danny is a generous and gregarious fellow who often hosts these gatherings at his humble abode. I've grown accustomed to visiting Danny and enjoy catching up on the latest family matters. To my surprise I've discovered that I really have enjoyed his company despite the fact that he is, hands down, the most staunch conservative republican I have ever encountered in my bleeding heart Liberal Democratic life. He knows of my political predilections as well. By some miracle Danny and I seem to have acquired an amusing way of poking fun at each other's extremisms. Danny possesses a spectacular satellite photo of the entire state of Israel, as tall as my 5 foot 9 inch stature that proudly hangs on a wall. His refrigerator is stuffed with dog-eared photos of republican candidates he admires, including a few he had the privilege of personally shaking hands with. Danny is in the business of commercial Real Estate. His humble abode reveals the fact that his line of profession has been very good to him and to his family. Perhaps humble abode should be taken as a euphemism. Danny has lots of nice expensive toys, and he enjoys sharing them with his guests. It should come as no surprise to all that Danny is of the Jewish faith. Very. One evening Danny took me aside to tell me of an account he had just gotten from his son who at that time was serving in the Israeli army. I'll call him Jimmy, not his real name. Jewish American born citizens can share duel citizenship with Israel, and as such, can serve in the Israeli army. Danny and his wife being the concerned parents that they were, were worried about their son's safety, but they didn't disapprove of his desire to protect Israel. Jimmy son went to Israel and quickly got into the thick of things. One particular account I was told happened when Jimmy, along with several of his comrades were sweeping through a devastated neighborhood recently reduced to rubble. During a brief lull in the fighting Jimmy came across an open clearing where to his astonishment in the center of the rubble was a rabbi holding protectively onto a small child. It appeared as if the rabbi was trying to protect the small child under his long black coat. Jimmy was astonished to find these two individuals smack dab in the center of an extremely dangerous environment. The Rabbi noticed Jimmy's presence and motioned him to approach him. Jimmy complied, no doubt trying to figure out where in the hell these two had come from, but worse, how in the hell to get them safely out. Once face to face, the rabbi asked Jimmy if he would take the small boy currently under his protective coat and out of harm's way. The rabbi extended his hand. In his palm was some money, the equivalent of around ten dollars. The rabbi apparently wanted to give Jimmy money, to make it worth his time and effort. Jimmy was incensed. He was outraged that a rabbi would attempt to essentially bribe him, as if money would have been the only incentive he needed to make sure a small helpless boy would be taken out of harms way. Jimmy turned around to bark an order to one of his comrades, but when he turned back to instruct the rabbi where the two of them should be lead off to, both had disappeared. Jimmy had been face to face talking with two extremely misplaced enigmas in his life, and now they were nowhere in sight. Jimmy knew instantly as sure as anything that he had just had a close encounter with an angel. The encounter affected him profoundly. Later in the week when he was once again in the middle of another deadly fire fight and as he heard bullets whiz past his head he knew, utterly, that he would be protected, that some kind of divine providence was watching over him. Jimmy's parents when he called them long-distance some time later were, of course, aghast at portions of Jimmy's story, NOT that their son had had a close encounter
Re: [Vo]:Oil Gang responds
Harry Veeder wrote: On 11/6/2008 1:49 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: thomas malloy wrote: The return of the Jews, the conquest of the land, it's subsequent prosperity, the hatred of the Arabs, their refusal to get over the indignity of the loss of that part of their conquered land, the Liberals support of Islam. IMHO, It's all supernatural. BTW, comprise will get no where with the Islamists, it's counterproductive. If this is the case Thomas, Israel better have God on its side because otherwise the country is doomed. This conclusion is obvious to any rational person, not just liberals. Here is a small country that is not self sufficient without outside aid and is Your comments just tickle me Ed, this is exactly the scenario that the prophecies said would occur. Good, this is the spirit we need to continue a discussion. Of course, a person explaining such a conflict even in the past would predict that some people would try to find a reasonable solution. But, this is not your point. I assume you believe this conflict was foretold in the Bible and that it will end badly, after which Christ will return and set things right again. Is this your belief? I believe this is a case of a self fulfilling prophecy that various people worked to bring about in modern times. I agree it will end badly, but I don't believe it will result in any supernatural events that will reward Christians. I don't think the bible says only Christians will be rewarded. According to Christian interpretation, only people who are Christians or who have converted will be saved. Of course, good reasons can be suggested not to know what the Bible means on many levels. As a result, the book has been used to support the self-interest of the various churches, which adds to the confusion. Fortunately, I believe we are not going to be saved based on being Christian or having any faith-based belief. We are saved by our actions and awareness. Of course, that leaves a lot of people unsaved, including many who believe strongly in their faith. As a result, my view is not very popular. As you might expect, my definition of saved is different from what Christians mean by the word. But then, I can hear the chorus say, who cares? Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:Divine Intervention
Stephen, why do you assume the child was any less supernatural than the rabbi? It seems to me we have only two possibilities. 1. Both the rabbi and the child were real and left the scene without being noticed. This seems unlikely since help was at hand. 2. Both the rabbi and the child were an image provide to the soldier as a message. Only a combination of the two images would make the message have any value. Another question not discussed is, Are such encounters actually in the physical world or are they images created within the brain by the spirit world? Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Perhaps against my better judgment I feel compelled to share the following incident. FWIW I believe it is a truthful account. A couple of years ago at one of those informal UFO meetings I attend in the Milwaukee area I had an unusual conversation with a good acquaintance of mine. I'll call him Danny, not his real name. Danny is a generous and gregarious fellow who often hosts these gatherings at his humble abode. I've grown accustomed to visiting Danny and enjoy catching up on the latest family matters. To my surprise I've discovered that I really have enjoyed his company despite the fact that he is, hands down, the most staunch conservative republican I have ever encountered in my bleeding heart Liberal Democratic life. He knows of my political predilections as well. By some miracle Danny and I seem to have acquired an amusing way of poking fun at each other's extremisms. Danny possesses a spectacular satellite photo of the entire state of Israel, as tall as my 5 foot 9 inch stature that proudly hangs on a wall. His refrigerator is stuffed with dog-eared photos of republican candidates he admires, including a few he had the privilege of personally shaking hands with. Danny is in the business of commercial Real Estate. His humble abode reveals the fact that his line of profession has been very good to him and to his family. Perhaps humble abode should be taken as a euphemism. Danny has lots of nice expensive toys, and he enjoys sharing them with his guests. It should come as no surprise to all that Danny is of the Jewish faith. Very. One evening Danny took me aside to tell me of an account he had just gotten from his son who at that time was serving in the Israeli army. I'll call him Jimmy, not his real name. Jewish American born citizens can share duel citizenship with Israel, and as such, can serve in the Israeli army. Danny and his wife being the concerned parents that they were, were worried about their son's safety, but they didn't disapprove of his desire to protect Israel. Jimmy son went to Israel and quickly got into the thick of things. One particular account I was told happened when Jimmy, along with several of his comrades were sweeping through a devastated neighborhood recently reduced to rubble. During a brief lull in the fighting Jimmy came across an open clearing where to his astonishment in the center of the rubble was a rabbi holding protectively onto a small child. It appeared as if the rabbi was trying to protect the small child under his long black coat. Jimmy was astonished to find these two individuals smack dab in the center of an extremely dangerous environment. The Rabbi noticed Jimmy's presence and motioned him to approach him. Jimmy complied, no doubt trying to figure out where in the hell these two had come from, but worse, how in the hell to get them safely out. Once face to face, the rabbi asked Jimmy if he would take the small boy currently under his protective coat and out of harm's way. The rabbi extended his hand. In his palm was some money, the equivalent of around ten dollars. The rabbi apparently wanted to give Jimmy money, to make it worth his time and effort. Jimmy was incensed. He was outraged that a rabbi would attempt to essentially bribe him, as if money would have been the only incentive he needed to make sure a small helpless boy would be taken out of harms way. Jimmy turned around to bark an order to one of his comrades, but when he turned back to instruct the rabbi where the two of them should be lead off to, both had disappeared. Jimmy had been face to face talking with two extremely misplaced enigmas in his life, and now they were nowhere in sight. Jimmy knew instantly as sure as anything that he had just had a close encounter with an angel. The encounter affected him profoundly. Later in the week when he was once again in the middle of another deadly fire fight and as he heard bullets whiz past his head he knew, utterly, that he would be protected, that some kind of divine providence was watching over him. Jimmy's parents when he called them long-distance some time later were, of course, aghast at portions of Jimmy's story, NOT that their son had had a close encounter with an Angel, rather that Jimmy seemed so sure of himself that he was protected. Jimmy's parents weren't as convinced as Jimmy was that he would make it out
Re: [Vo]:Tell us how you really feel Bob
Even when Park is talking about ordinary things, i.e. improved gas mileage, he is uninformed. Use of a small amount of hydrogen in the air entering an engine can improve the efficiency of combustion. The only issue is whether this increased efficiency is larger than the energy needed to make the hydrogen. Of course, installing and maintaining an electrolyzer is a pain that most people don't want to endure. Nevertheless, the effect is real and worthwhile for some desperate people. I wish Park would spend his talents finding solutions rather than shooting down ideas that actually work. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Krivit sez: http://bobpark.org/ 2. HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE? BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a state below the ground state, called the hydrino. There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains. We have been so focused on Dr. Park's latest BLP comments that we almost forgot another prurient analysis: 1. ENERGY: $4 GAS SEEMS TO BE THE TIPPING POINT. The nation has suddenly become energy conscious, forcing GM to slash production of SUVs and dump the Hummer. Why, you may wonder, did it take so long? Meanwhile, old energy scams are blossoming again. This week, a reader pointed out, a new web site that sells instructions ($49.95) for converting your car to run on tap water www.runyourscarwithwater.com. It uses the car battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Are these the same people who sold George W. Bush on the hydrogen car in 2003? Predictably, the focus on energy has even brought cold fusion back, with physicist Yoshiaki Arata at Osaka University claiming to have the first real demonstration of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann fizzle. Even the hydrino is back. * * * * I wonder where the good doctor gets his information. He seems so knowledgeable about these matters. ;-) Actually, I learn a lot from Dr. Park. I feel like I'm getting a better understanding of the paradigms that motivate his opinions. Let it be a lesson to me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What are the best papers on cold fusion and their web links?
Jeff, I suggest you get a copy of my book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction available from World Scientific. I spent 6 months providing an answer to your question, which is not worth repeating. Ed Jeff Driscoll wrote: What are the best papers in cold fusion and what are the web links to them? Preferably web links that won't change over long periods time. Base it on the reputation of the researcher (even if that is subjective) and the quality of the work. I've listed one below. Can people find others that they think are good and briefly summarize the paper? I'd like to see responses to this email have a lot of good information as opposed to short, unhelpful comments. Here is one of my choices: Anomalous heat from atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate. Robert Shaubach at Thermacore wrote this paper sometime in the early 1990's. In it, 6 meters of nickel tubing is wound into a coil, pressurized with 1030 psi of hydrogen, submerged in a solution of 0.6 M potassium carbonate and heated to steady state with 35 watts. They measure 50 watts of excess heat over 5 hours and they only measure 3 watts of excess heat using sodium carbonate as the liquid surrounding the nickel tube. http://www.hydrino.org/Labs/Anomalous-Heat-from-Atomic-Hydrogen.pdf What happened with this experiment? Is Shaubach still doing this type of research?
Re: [Vo]:Hokkaido Shimbun reports on Mizuno hydrocarbon experiments
Jones Beene wrote: --- Ed Excellent point. ... when interpreting the work of Arata, you need to separate what he claims from what is known about palladium The extra hydrogen is absorbed to the surface and is present as spill-over hydrogen attached to the ZrO2. The issue is, Does palladium or the ZrO2 contain the NAE? Hopefully, for ultimate commercialization, it is the zircon, due to much lower cost. I have a feeling that you are probably looking into this already. Yes, you bet. However, the Pd is required to make the spill-over D available. In fact, this might be the only role Pd has, a role other metals can fill as well. Ed Jones
[Vo]:irrational thinking
If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html The neocons once again are revealing their shallow thinking in an effort to protect Israel from threats based on paranoia. While this is not science, every person in the world will suffer if such policies are implemented or if Iran is attacked in any way. Prepare if you can. Ed
Re: [Vo]:PhysOrg discussion of Arata
Jed, these comments are a gold mine of issues that we need to address in our description of the experiment. This provides an incentive to expand the description. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: With comments by the usual suspects: http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
Harry Veeder wrote: On 23/6/2008 8:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons suggest Why attack Iran's nuclear facilities when striking their oil infrastructure would be much more effective in the scope of a US-led preventive war? Sure, oil prices might skyrocket and the world economy might collapse. But, hey, that's the price you pay for security ...'' which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power, which leads to more Israeli paranoia...which leads to more war talk, which gives the Iranians another reason to develop nuclear power... Thus we see the wisdom of the Christian advice to turn the other cheek in contrast to the Jewish approach of taking an eye for an eye. Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
The plot thickens. Apparently, the inmates are getting desperate to do their worst before Bush et al. leave office. After that, the adults take over and perhaps things might calm down. I would think all Jews should fear the consequences of what would follow an attack on Iran. People, no matter what they think about God's gift of Israel or a future threat by Iran, will be very unhappy when gas goes to $6/gal in the US and the price of food follows. Such people are not going to be happy with what the Jews have done once the smoke clears even though the blame should fall on a few crazy people in Israel. Ed Israeli Warns: War Party In Last-Gasp Push For Iran Attack as found in Lyndon Larouche PAC web article JUNE 20, (LPAC)--A senior Israeli source warned yesterday, in discussions with Executive Intelligence Review, that an intense policy brawl has erupted in Israel, over the issue of Israeli preventive strikes against Hezbollah, and bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites, including the enrichment facility at Natanz. The source reported that the Cheney circles in Washington have been putting tremendous pressure on the fragile Olmert government in Tel Aviv, to carry out preventive strikes against sites in Iran, and against the Hezbollah security infrastructure in southern Lebanon. These pressures come at the same time that progress has been made on a number of key peace negotiating fronts, involving Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria. The source, a U.S.-based Israeli with strong ties to the present Olmert government, reported that top officials of the Israeli Defense Force, including the current Chief of the General Staff, Gen. Gabriel Ashkenazi, strongly oppose both of the military schemes. At a recent security cabinet meeting, the source reported, Gen. Ashkenazi bluntly warned of the dire consequences for Israel of strikes against either Hezbollah or Iran's nuclear facilities, calling such schemes madness. Nevertheless, hardliners in Israel, including Likud Party chairman and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Olmert's current deputy prime minister, are pressing for Israeli military strikes against Iran. The source reported that when Prime Minister Olmert was recently in Washington to address the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention, he met privately with Bush and Cheney, and came under intense personal pressure from the Vice President to take action against Iran. He claimed that Israeli pilots are now covertly training on state-of-the-art U.S. fighter jets at locations in the Nevada desert, in preparation for an Israeli bombing of Natanz and other Iranian sites. Today, the New York Times reported that, in early June, Israel conducted large-scale military exercises, involving more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, as well as helicopters, over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. The exercise covered a distance of 900 miles, which is also the distance between Israel and the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran. The day after the exercises were completed, Mofaz gave an interview to the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, warning that if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack... Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable. In response to the New York Times report of the Israeli Air Force maneuvers, and the threats from Mofaz, Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, on June 20, warned against the use of force against Iran, and chastised both the United States and Israel for ``matter-of-factly” claiming that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon, when no evidence exists that their nuclear energy program is aimed at building a bomb. While some U.S. military analysts have insisted that Israel does not have the capability of destroying the Natanz facility, unless they use nuclear weapons, a recent report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a rightwing Zionist Lobby think tank, claimed that it didn't matter whether a bombing attack succeeded or failed. The effect, either way, of an Israeli or American attack on Natanz and other sites, would be to deter Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Senior retired U.S. military officers, contacted by EIR and asked to comment on the WINEP report, denounced it as extremely dangerous. Harry Veeder wrote: On 23/6/2008 12:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: On 23/6/2008 8:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Now Mohamed ElBaradei follows in the footsteps of Admiral Fallon. Jack Smith Ed Storms wrote on 6-20-08: ``If you would like to understand the irrational thinking that drives the policy with respect to Iran and Israel, read this article.'' http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-neocons-sa.html ``NEWS ARTICLE from The Los Angeles Times, 6-19-08, IRAN: Stop nukes by bombing oil wells, neocons
Re: [Vo]:irrational thinking
Thanks for the offer, Richard, but it seems to me San Francisco does not have any adults to spare. :-) In any case, the adult population of Washington has been kept low thanks to Bush. Obama might import a few he knows. Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, I have looked but I am having a difficult time identifying adults in Washington. Perhaps after the election some can be imported from the political pool of the city of San Franscisco. Richard Ed Storms wrote. The plot thickens. Apparently, the inmates are getting desperate to do their worst before Bush et al. leave office. After that, the adults take over and perhaps things might calm down.
Re: [VO]: Biomass/ Ethanol economics
I suggest we have three separate issues here. 1. Cost of oil that is used to make gasoline. 2. Cost of gasoline. 3. How much oil is used in the US for transportation. Each of these issues have a different solution and consequence. As Terry pointed out and I have seen also, use of gasoline in the US is going down as people try to protect their own personal livelihood. This change will help individuals. However, the cost of oil and the resulting gasoline depends on many interrelated forces, speculation being only one of them. As long as people believe that the price of oil will go up, they will buy futures, thereby causing the price to go up. This is a natural and essential feature of the futures market, the purpose of which is to shift the risk from the producer to the speculator. The expectation is being driven by the demand from China and India, by the fact that production has peaked, and the insane policy of the US in the Middle East. No amount of jawboning by politicians will change these factors. The US had a chance several years ago when the Energy Bill was passed to reduce our use of oil. Now we are paying the expected and predicted consequences. At some point in the future, the speculators will sense that the world-wide demand is going down and reverse their positions. At that point, the price will drop for awhile. Meanwhile, the US will shift more to hybrids and other methods to save energy and the Chinese with shift from bicycles to SUVs. As a result, the price will go up again. So, I suggest you protect yourself as best you can because the situation will get much worse before it gets better for awhile. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: Well, if you believe Congressman Matheson, his new bill will drop the sales price of gas to $2.00. http://www.kcpw.org/article/6217 I have noticed a significant improvement in traffic in my commute. Papers in Atlanta say that, overall, ridership of transit has increased 10%. I can verify a 7% increase on MARTA alone. I have also noticed fewer trucks and SUVs are on the road. I can usually see traffic ahead of me from my Scion xB. This was not the case when most vehicles were trucks and SUVs. If these trends continue, there will be a noticable impact on gas demand. My 400 mile weekly commute only takes me 10 gallons; but, my neighbor's Tahoe consumes 40 gallons over the same distance. His purchase of a Prius would have significantly higher impact on demand than my purchase of the same. It happened before due to the oil embargo of the 70s. The cartels suffered a financial backlash as consumers did not consume. Hopefully, this time it will be permanent. No, I really don't think you should make that investment, Richard. Terry On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:15 AM, R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Vorts, I am trying to reconcile the economics of building a sophisicated chemical processing plant with a 25 M/G/Y capacity of gasoline at $ 2.00 gallon cost of production with the world I live in. Richard http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20828/?nlid=1112
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
We have seen this approach many times in the past. When this government is given two choices, it will always pick the least intelligent one. Hopefully, the next administration will reverse these decisions. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: I'm hopefully not given to apoplexy, but this just about did it for me: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html? _r=2oref=sloginoref=slogin http://tinyurl.com/4bo5b5 Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. How asinine can government be. Let's see, on one hand we have a few hundred square miles of desert, on the other we have survival ... hm ... yep, we need a two year study to weigh that one. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Every normal person is in favor of protecting the environment, Mike. Its the way it is done or the hypocrisy shown by the administration that is so stupid. For example, drilling in the coastal waters or in Alaska is all right even though the harm to the environment is obvious. But, covering areas that are unused and out of sight by equipment that will eventually be removed has to be debated. Meanwhile, it is ok to rape the land in Canada for oil shale while we are encouraged to use more oil. Even the ethanol idea was a cruel hoax that is now too expensive to continue because energy is too expensive to be used to raise corn for that purpose. Given the basic approach this administration has shown, it is easy to think that protecting the environment is simply a fig leaf for killing the competition to oil. Ed Mike Carrell wrote: No need for apoplexy, don't blame the administrators, they did not make the rules and Congress and the greens had only the best of intentions when lobbying for the protection of the land and all the green and creepy things thereon. When your are promoting a technology that may lead to covering square miles of land in our thirst for energy, it is well take a look at the environmental consequences of doing so. *Not* doing so got us where we are. The informaltion about Nanosolar with printed PV with 14% efficiency looks most interesting, but you need to deploy a few square miles to find the 'gotchas' through wind, sand and rain. Meanwhile watch Blacklight Power over the next few years. Utility-scale reactors are on their ajenda. Hydrogen from water. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell Storms describe Arata paper
A universal way of critiquing in science is recognized by most scientists, which was followed in this case. Arata was given a chance to respond, as he would be given by any journal when a paper critical of a person's work is submitted. We can not know why he did not respond and it does not matter. Hopefully, he will supply the missing information in the future now that the need has been made clear. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: On 11/7/2008 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: I should also ask, have you submitted this to one of the journals in which Arata has published his papers? Nope. The only thing we did was send it to Arata a couple of weeks ago, in case he wanted to comment. He did not respond. We sent a copy to Takahashi as well, but he had nothing to say either. - Jed Is Arata's lack of responsiveness a result of cultural differences or personal differences? In other words, is there a Japanese way of criticising? Harry
Re: [Vo]:new blog post
To anyone who is interested. In quoting me, as below, Steve once again uses a communication sent to him in private to make a point that is a distortion of the intent. I did not and would not discourage anyone from reporting all of the key facts of LENR research. My intent was to suggest caution in how reporting is done because what he thinks are facts are not always actual facts. A willingness to examine information from several viewpoints is required rather than an one-sided view based on incomplete understanding. I encourage reporting about the field, which most of the time Steve does very well. My comments were directed to those times when his reporting was not so good. In this case, the context was about his reports that involved revealing personal information about people in the field, not about scientific fact. Quote from recent blog: For example, LENR researcher Ed Storms, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, recently discouraged me from reporting all of the key facts of LENR research. He wrote this to me in an e-mail recently: “You need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well-accepted that a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem.” On the other hand, I fully agree with Steve that papers and talks about the subject be of the highest quality. The field no longer needs to accept every strange idea or sloppy experiment in an effort not to reject a potential breakthrough. We now know enough to judge what is good and what is likely to be wrong. Of course, a difference of opinion will always exist in such judgments, which should be settled by rational discussion between knowledgeable people, not by general criticism in a blog. Ed Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/blog/
