[Vo]:2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium @ MIT
As someone who thoroughly enjoyed the last Cold Fusion Colloquium held at MIT, I was wondering if all the speakers listed for the 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium coming up in Augst have confirmed? Does anyone know?
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Ethanol or any other biofuel such as methanol (which has more energy density than ethanol) should be made from a denser feedstock than corn, such as switchgrass. Corn is being used to make ethanol mainly because there are so many corn farmers in the U.S. and it is readily available as a feedstock and the techniques for turning corn into ethanol have been well research and developed. Like any other business, corn/ethanol is driven by political and monetary pressures. If we were really running out of oil and needed every spare acre for biofuels to run our economy (or if we wanted to act ethically to ensure that food did not become too expensive and cause even more starvation), we'd be growing switchgrass instead of corn and turning it into a denser hydrocarbon fuel such as methanol to maximize the distance per gallon and forcing a significant increase in fuel economy for our transporation needs. Peak oil is likely coming later this decade or early next (everyone should look into this, because peak oil will have a profound impact on our modern world), so we'd better figure out an alternative fuel stock that doesn't have the side effect of causing foodstuffs to become too expensive and we'd better start implementing the high efficiency transporation technologies on a large scale that are emerging right now, such as hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids. - Original Message - From: Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel A while back I posed the question if burning corn, or any other food crop is immoral. Check this out: http://tinyurl.com/24gqmk Here we see immediate results of corn crops being diverted to make ethanol fuel and its effect on the ice cream business. Now obviously, no one is going to starve to death from lack of ice cream. But this same problem has arisen in China in a shortage of pigs. They actually have national pig reserve, similar to our nattion petroleum reserve. These are essentially the first two symptoms of what could be a disastrous diversion of corn to make ethanol for fuel, with third world populations suffering the most. While no one questions the necessity of finding alternatives to petroleum, I think it incumbent on thinking people to point out that pursuing inefficient methods such as this are merely diverting us from finding real solutions to the problem. In this case, this whole enterprise is just a government subsidy to Archer Daniels Midland and their cohorts. They lobbied hard for this in the congress. This is just another feel-good useless program to make it appear that someone is doing something. Personally, I feel that the so-called hydrogen economy is another policy wonk's solution to a problem better solved by other methods. I went to the L.A. Auto Show a few months ago, where BMW was displaying its hydrogen powered vehicle. Some fellow was touting this as the next wonderful thing, explaining that only water vapor was coming out of the exhaust. Keep in mind, this guy was not just a car show barker; he was a BMW engineer. I asked him where he thought the hydrogen came from. Like most people suffering under the same delusion, he informed me that the hydrogen was made from water. When I told him that virtually all the commercial hydrogen on earth was reformed from natural gas and that the other byproduct was the much vilified carbon dioxide, he was rendered temporarily speechless. My point is this. If a person who is heavily involved in creating the hydrogen economy doesn't know this, how can any intelligent decisions be made about it? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Hybrid Car Idea
I had an idea for a hybrid car today. How about putting one of those comact wind turbines on the roof of a car, not the big ones with blades, the one with a rotating wind turbine that looks like a cone. Then as the car moves along it can generate electricity from the wind to charge the batteries. I know it would not be a net energy generator or anything like that, but it could extend battery range pretty significantly. Has anyone tried this?
Re: Betteries
- Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 2:15 AM Subject: Re: Betteries At 09:21 pm 12/05/2006 -0500, you wrote: It's a bet, a gamble as is all stock. Somebody will put up 2 mil to learn if a prototype can be built. If it is built, some more mney will be needed to learn if it works. Then some more money will be needed to see it it will hold up in service, then more money needed to sell liscenses and finally more money needed to make money. Everything screams the idea is great. .If it is for real, the Koreans will be making a knockoff in China before the poor Finn get started. Thats the way business works in the real world. I have a rubber band motor that will be a winner.. Lets see... Frost and Sullivan may be the people to contact. They are hand holders for a fee. Richard I must admit - I'm more than a bit suspicious of consultants like Frost and Sullivan, too. Pilkington Brothers got no less than four sets of consultants to approve their launch of Glass-Reinforced Cement. I said PB were mad and that GRC would fail when the strain capacity ran out at 5 years. Somewhat to my surprise and enormous schadenfreude GRC failed right on time. 8-) Frank Expert testimony can not be relied on. There are way too many examples of expert testimony being fraudulent due to monetary or other interests to rely on such proofs, unless the proof is overwhelming and verified in many quarters. Certainly one expert claiming a technology works as promised is not suitable verification. Seen any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq lately? The experts told us they were there, and the nation went to war over it, but amazingly all those experts were dead wrong. I'll have to read up on this company and technology. The claims of capacity are so great, that a natural amount of skepticism is very warranted. If they can produce such an aluminum battery, I would assume that it would not be very expensive, since aluminum is rather cheap. We'll see if anything comes of this.
Re: Betteries
Here's the run down on Betteries and Europositron. This below index has all the relevant links. There is quite a lot on the Internet about this company and technology. The company was founded in 1989. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Europositron_Rechargeable_Aluminum_Batteries
Betteries
Sounds interesting. But is there any proof that this is anything except a European a stock scam? Right on their front page they are asking people to buy shares. I would be very skeptical of fantastic claims like these, especially when they are clearly promoting stock sales. Having a 500 miles per charge aluminum battery would be great. But are these people playing straight? If it sounds too good to be true, then .. Stock scams usually rotate into hot sectors. Back in the 1990s most scams were internet companies. After 9/11 a lot of scams were homeland security related. Now with energy making headlines, get ready for an old stock market scam, wildly exaggerated or blatantly fraudulent energy claims. Energy is one of the favorites of scamsters, because the implications for a new energy device that takes the world by storm are enormous.
Re: Betteries
20% efficient is fine if it gets 500 miles per charge. The problem with this battery claim is that it is so much better than current technology, about 2 to 4 times better, that you have to be suspicious of such a fantastic claim. I was also suspicious of the fact that they are openly selling stock on their website (red flag). I'll have to read up on this new battery claim. I reserve judgement. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: RE: Betteries Sounds interesting. But is there any proof that this is anything except a European a stock scam? Right on their front page they are asking people to buy shares. I would be very skeptical of fantastic claims like these, especially when they are clearly promoting stock sales. Having a 500 miles per charge aluminum battery would be great. But are these people playing straight? If it sounds too good to be true, then . I think the fine printon this battery tells you that it may be only 20+% efficient, unless they've improved it. Maybethe waste heat could go to agreenhouse or something.
unsubscribe
Ball Lightning Created In Israeli Lab
Great balls of lightning 9 February 2006 If you have ever seen a mysterious ball of lightning chasing a cow or flying through your window during a thunderstorm, take comfort from the fact that you have witnessed a very rare phenomenon. Indeed, ball lightning -- a slow-moving ball of light that is occasionally seen at ground level during storms -- has puzzled scientists for centuries. Now, however, researchers in Israel have built a system that can create lightning balls in the lab. The work may not only help us to understand ball lightning but could even lead to practical applications that make use of these artificial balls (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 045002). Ball lightning is thought to be a ball of plasma that is formed when a bolt of lightning hits the ground and creates a molten "hot spot". The ball can typically measure 30 centimetres across and can last for a few seconds. Although they are generally created during thunderstorms, Eli Jerby and Vladimir Dikhtyar from Tel Aviv University in Israel have now been able to make lightning balls in the lab using a "microwave drill". The device consists of the magnetron from a 600-watt domestic microwave oven and concentrates its power into a volume of just one cubic centimetre. The researchers inject the microwaves though a pointed rod into a solid substrate made from glass, silicon, germanium, alumina or other ceramics. The energy from the microwaves then produces a molten hot spot in the substrate. What the scientists then do is pull the microwave drill out of the solid, which drags the molten hot spot and creates a hot drop. The drop then becomes a floating fireball that measures about 3 centimetres across and lasts for some tens of milliseconds (see figure). "The fireball looks like a hot jellyfish, quivering and buoyant in the air," says Jerby. Although the composition of the laboratory fireballs still need to be verified, they seem to contain components of the substrate material in various phases, such as ions, neutral atoms and larger macroscopic particles. This is similar to natural lightning balls, which are thought to contain vaporized mineral grains from the soil that have been kicked into the atmosphere by a lightning strike. Moreover, the lab-produced fireballs appear to combine plasma and chemical oxidation and burning processes. Again, this is similar to naturally produced balls in which the vaporised sand grains are thought to react with oxygen in the air and burn to release light. "Our ability to generate such fireballs in a simple systematic manner may lead to techniques for synthesizing fireballs from solid materials," explains Jerby. He even hopes that the lab-generated fireballs could be used in practical applications such as coating, deposition, combustion and energy production. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/6/1
Re: Microwave Drill was : Ball Lightning Created In Israeli Lab
Yes, that is exactly why I posted this ball lightning story on Vortex. It does have implications for fields such as cold fusion and ZPE. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: Vortex Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Microwave Drill was : Ball Lightning Created In Israeli Lab Here is the site on the "microwave drill," mentioned i the story One wonders how a loaded-metal-matrix would respond to the microwave drill? http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~jerby/microwave_drill/index.html
Re: iESi Photoshop miracles
Looks like a scam. Superimposed. It's easy to doctor photos. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: iESi Photoshop miracles http://iesiusa.com/images/Image_photogallery.gif Maybe I'm just a suspicious rat-ba_tard, but I checked this with a New Energy Times reader / graphics artist and we notice the following things: -The sign appears to be tilting out from the top - never seen such signs. -There are shadows on the top surface of the characters as well as on the lower and right wall surface. -The vertical shadow to the right of the i should not be parallel to the i as it appears, if the sign truly is tilted out. -The shadows on the lower and right wall surface are soft, as you'd get on a cloudy day, other shadows are hard. -The green portion of the i is off-axis from the base of the character. This would be stupid to intentionally do. Comments V?
Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered
Those statement by the head of Exxon are a complete joke. Brazil has already proven that a large country can operate without foreign oil and other countries will soon follow such as Sweden and Iceland. The only thing stopping us from kicking our foreign oil habit is a lack of proper will and necessity. We have more than enough tools to dramtically reduce our oil consumption, if implemented sensibly. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:43 PM Subject: Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered People unfamiliar with plug-in hybrid technology may not realize the full impact of the program I described. See: http://www.calcars.org/ To make a long story short, after 20 years of development, these cars would probably get on the order of 200 to 1000 mpg. That is to say, miles per gallon of gasoline, plus a great deal of electricity, of course. Fortunately, in the US electricity is not generated with oil. During the 20-year span of this project we could build enough new, non-polluting electric power generation capacity to meet the needs of these cars. Today's automobiles get ~20 mpg. So if nearly every automobile and long-haul truck was a plug in hybrid, we would consume somewhere between 2% to 10% of what we consume today. U.S. production of oil is falling rapidly and irrevocably because we passed the height of Hubbard's curve in 1975, but even with this decrease we could easily meet the demand for 10% of today's consumption. Bear in mind also that if we began this project, the US would not be the only country rapidly converting to plug-in hybrids. Japan Europe and China would follow suit, because if they did not, GM and Ford would soon put their automobile manufacturers out of business. So after 20 years not only would US consumption fall by a factor of 10 or more, so would consumption nearly everywhere else in the world. This would bankrupt OPEC and Al Qaeda. Needless to say, plug-in hybrids are not the only way we could save oil and other sources of energy. There are many other technologies waiting in the wings. The cost, as I said, would be negative. As one expert put it, when describing the benefits of compact fluorescent lights, this is not a free lunch: it is a lunch you are paid to eat. Not only does the improved hardware save energy, the hardware itself costs less over the lifetime of the product. This is usually the case with well-engineered, advanced technology. Any U.S. president or automobile CEO could have begun this project any time in the last 100 years, as I said. Certainly anytime since 1970. There is simply no excuse for continued energy shortages, high prices, pollution, wars for oil, and the Marshall Plan for for terrorists and dictators. These things are caused by stupidity, greed, bad management and -- in the face of terrorism -- energy policy that is tantamount to treason. (These policies have been endorsed by both parties and the last six presidents, but I still think they are close to treason.) Myriad technical solutions to these problems have been available all along, in plain sight. These solutions are nowhere near as good as cold fusion, and they are at least a thousand times more expensive than cold fusion, but they could easily have ameliorated the problems. - Jed
Another Startling Announcement From BYU
Has BYU prof found AIDS cure?Compound could be long-sought breakthrough Researchers, including a BYU scientist, believe they have found a new compound that could finally kill the HIV/AIDS virus, not just slow it down as current treatments do. And, unlike the expensive, drug cocktails 25 years of research have produced for those with the deadly virus, the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV. Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system. Under a study sponsored by Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, Savage and his colleagues developed and synthesized the compound for Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine. In his Nashville, Tenn., laboratories, Derya Unutmaz, an associate professor of Microbiology and Immunology, tested several CSAs for their ability to kill HIV. While issuing a cautious caveat about his early results, Unutmaz acknowledged Monday that CSAs could be the breakthrough HIV/AIDS researchers have sought for so long. "We received these agents [from BYU] in early October and our initial results began to culminate by November 2005. We have since reproduced all our results many times," he said. "We have some preliminary but very exciting results [but] we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype." What studies to date show is a compound that attacks HIV at its molecular membrane level, disrupting the virus from interacting with their primary targets, the "T-helper" class white blood cells that comprise and direct the human immune system. Further, CSAs appear to be deadly to all known strains of HIV. That would be a welcome development for the estimated 40.3 million people now living with HIV/AIDS globally, including nearly 5 million newly infected in the past year alone. "We have devoted considerable resources to understand the mechanism of these compounds. We think this knowledge will enable us in collaboration with Dr. Savage to design even better compounds," Unutmaz said. In addition to being a potential checkmate to HIV, the compounds show indications of being just as effective against other diseases plaguing humankind - among them influenza, possibly even the dread bird flu, along with smallpox and herpes. Savage said he and his BYU research team had been studying CSAs for eight years, noting the compounds' value against microbial and bacteria infections. It was only a year ago they saw that CSAs killed viruses, too. "They kill viruses very effectively and in a way paralleling our own, natural defenses," Savage said, noting that beyond the obvious use as a weapon against the AIDS pandemic, CSAs could help many others with non-HIV immune deficiencies. Further, the compounds appear to have few limits on how they are delivered to patients. Although early indications are for application of CSAs with an ointment or cream, pills or injections may also be developed - if the compound gets to market. BYU and Vanderbilt have jointly filed a patent on CSA technology, which has been licensed exclusively to Ceragenix. Ceragenix CEO and Chairman Steven Porter said only further research will tell, but he was optimistic about the application of CSAs in the war on HIV/AIDS. There are indications that it could help battle antibiotic- and antiviral-resistance strains of disease as they manifest themselves. "We are encouraged . . . that CSAs may provide a completely unique family of anti-infectives, potentially active against a wide range of viral, fungal and bacterial targets, including those resistant to current therapies," he said. Assuming continued positive test results in animal and eventual human trials, Porter estimates it could be three to seven years before the compound is available by prescription. That transition could be accelerated, however, if the Food and Drug Administration should decide to fast-track the drug. That day is still a long way off, though. First, researchers plan to publish their results in scientific journals, seeking peer review and independent confirmation of their findings. Assuming no flaws are found, several rounds of testing would follow. Most of the nation's leading AIDS experts were attending the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Denver on Monday. The event's policies prohibits on-site news conferences or releases during the conference, and efforts to reach scientists there were not successful. Of the few AIDS research luminaries reached, all said they preferred not to comment on the Vanderbilt tests until full results are published. [EMAIL PROTECTED] l Paul Savage and his Brigham Young University research team have invented CSA-54, a
Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered On Feb 8, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: These things are caused by stupidity, greed, bad management and -- in the face of terrorism -- energy policy that is tantamount to treason. (These policies have been endorsed by both parties and the last six presidents, but I still think they are close to treason.) Myriad technical solutions to these problems have been available all along, in plain sight. You certainly have a good point there. Moving forward requires a substantial attitude change, the good old American can do attitude. This can do attitude is the opposite of that demonstrated by Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill. A united political position that we have to break our addiction to foreign oil should go a long way toward the needed attitude change. A fully united position is not there yet, but with Bush's State of the Union address, the possibility of such a united front seems to be there for the first time. If driving big gas guzzlers is clearly unpatriotic, then most people won't do it. The rest can be handled by energy taxes collected to build a new energy infrastructure. The entire nation was mobilized in a few years to fight World War 2. It won't take that kind of full mobilization effort to achieve energy independence if we really get motivated and united. All part of the ongoing propaganda campaign by big oil to keep all competitors from challenging their dominance. If the leaders of Exxon Mobil are on board with the prevailing opinion that we can kick our foreign oil habit, then the debate is over. They want to keep hope alive for their dirty and dying industry. Thankfully for us, oil will eventually go the way of the eight track tape and we will move on to a cleaner more sustainable energy regime with or without the Exxon Mobil's of the world.
Re: Wind Projects
I just ran the numbers. Installed wind power in the U.S. increased by 36% last year. That's the biggest increase ever as far as I can tell. 2,420 MW in 2005 up to 9,145 MW. It just goes to show that wind is now competitive. To put things in perspective, Europe has about 41,000 MW of installed wind capacity, or 4 times the U.S. Just goes to show how much more we could expand our wind installations. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:35 AM Subject: Wind Projects Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Shell Oil says NO Peak
We hear peak oil and anti-peak oil stories all of the time. However, there's really only one true indicator regarding the scarcity of oil, price. Sure, short term supply distruptions have caused the price of oil to spike from time to time, but those spikes were always followed by quick retreats. So far, the recent runup in oil prices over the past two years has been sustained and generally demonstrates a trend higher. Seems to be telling us something more is going on than short term supply distruptions are responsible. If it's just a short term supply problem, oil should recede to $30 a barrel or so. I think we might reach peak oil production, just due to overwhelming demand in coming years. In other words perhaps the actual amount of oil production possible has not reached a true peak, but demand will grow so rapidly that it simply outstrips the capacity to supply the growing demand and therefore the price of oil spirals higher. I just wonder where all the additional supply capacity is going to come from to satisfy the increasing demand for oil? The world consumes around 84 Million Barrels per day, where is all the extra supply going to actually come from when the world needs 120 Million Barrels per day in twenty years? Tar sands in Alberta are suppossed to triple their capacity to 3 Million Barrels per day in a few years, it's not coming from there. I don't see it happening. I think a more likely scenario would be that the price of oil products gets so expensive that it triggers efficiency gains such as hydrogen boosters for diesel engines (being sold in Canada now) and massive rampups of hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, as consumers look for relief, thus cutting demand. Something has to give. One thing about peak oil, Shell was one of the countries that overstated their oil reserves by 20% and had to restate them, so don't take their word too seriously. Also, many OPEC countries have overstated their oil reserves because it boosts their quotas. Kuwaitt has been reported in two news stories in recent months to have overstated their oil reserves by a whopping 50% and it is generally acknowledged that their main field has peaked out. Mexico is also approaching peak. The jury is out, but the evidence is starting to build up that a real oil peak is coming soon. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Shell Oil says NO Peak www.worldnetdaily.com/biznetdaily/
Re: Wind Projects
I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S. could provide all of its electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar. It's really just a matter of economics and will. The scales are tipping in favor of renewables nowadays with grid-power going up in price fairly rapidly and renewables becoming more competitve each year. A utility in my home state just announced a whopping 50% increase in their rates to cover the surge in natural gas generating costs. How much longer can these sorts of price increases continue before people just start looking at alternatives more seriously? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Wind Projects On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Map of wind projects: http://www.awea.org/projects/index.html TOTAL INSTALLED U.S. WIND ENERGY CAPACITY: 9,149 MW as of Dec 31, 2005 I see Alaska is shown with only 1 installed wind project. I assume they don't count windmills below some capacity. Alaska has a colossal wind potential, but it is very hard to get to and tap. It is located at the top of mountain ridges. Horace Heffner
Re: Shell Oil says NO Peak
It does look like Shell's replacement capacity has peaked... There was also some disappointment over Shell's weak performance upstream where it only managed to replace 60% to 70% of the oil it pumped with new additions to reserves. This is well below the 100% rate needed to stop an oil firm's asset base from shrinking. Peter Hitchens, oil analyst at Teather Greenwood, said: Shell has had another poor performance with the drill bit. And the analyst didn't fancy the group's chances of turning this situation round any time soon, adding: (The target) would require the group becoming one of the best explorers among the integrated oil companies, rather than one of the worst. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Shell Oil says NO Peak www.worldnetdaily.com/biznetdaily/
Re: Energy
The one oil statistic that really counts is price. As long as the price of crude keeps going up, we can reasonably assume that oil is growing more scarce in the real world. I know there are other variables that affect the oil market on a weekly basis, such as supply disruptions, but as long as the overall trend is up, which it has been for at least two years, it means the supply/demand ratio is tightening. Just last year a lotofthe oil "experts" weresaying oil would soon return tothe $30 range, not. There's more going on in this market than just short term supplyproblems. I noticed the usual suspects from the American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute were all over the media over the past few days commenting on the President's new alternative energy initiative announced during the State of the Union. Saying that if alternative energy could compete in the marketplace it would not need subsidies. Amazing how these lords of pure market capitalism conveniently overlook the incredible competitive market advantage oil has received due to an activist American government that has spent the past eight decades subsidizing the oil trade in one way or another.Be it building the massive federal highway infrastructure that provides oil an automobilemarket in which to sell oil,or massive tax credits and below market value royalty payments for oil exploration on government land, or the military protection oil has enjoyed for so many years (including coups such as the Shah of Iran and the invasion of Iraq), which has now ballooned to over $100 Billion per year in military spending for oil protection missions of one kind or another(we might as well change the name of the military to the Petroleum Protection Service). If oil had to pay for that service, we would be paying at least $1.00 more per gallon at the pump. I wonder what that would do for oil's competitiveness? Exactly why I can't take clowns like the American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute seriously, they are not honest defenders of free markets, they are little more than whores for the status quo. A good book to write would be one that chronicles oil's relationship to the American lifestyle. That would be an interesting read, virtually mirroring American history over the past century. - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:01 PM Subject: Energy Hi Vorts, Another site if you missed it before. Some statistics shown are vald http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Richard
Re: Wind power stats for 2005
Jed, Interesting, but doesn't an average nuke plant put out about 1,000 MW? The ones in my part of the country put out 1,000 MW. John C. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: Wind power stats for 2005 See: http://www.awea.org/news/US_Wind_Industry_Ends_Most_Productive_Year_012406.html New installations: 2,500 MW (nameplate) Note by Jed: This is roughly as much actual capacity as one average US nuclear power plant Cumulative existing installed wind power: 9,149 MW (nameplate) (About 3.5 nukes) QUOTE: AWEA estimates that an installed capacity of 9,149 MW of wind power will save over half a billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/day) in 2006, alleviating a portion of the supply pressure that is now facing the natural gas industry and is driving prices upward. The U.S. currently burns about 13 Bcf/day for electricity generation, which means during 2006, wind power will be reducing natural gas use for power generation by approximately 5%. That is significant. - Jed
Re: Biofuels could replace 30% of fuel needs
It comes down to this. We've got the tools to solve our energy problems, now we just need the resolve to do the same, which will mainly be driven by the price of oil. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:50 PM Subject: Biofuels could replace 30% of fuel needs www.physorg.com/news10434.html The idea that this could be accomplished in only 5 to 10 years is wonderful. There may be a lot more hope out there than we think.
Using Waste Heat
There are a number of companies working on ways to use waste heat from both power generation and industrial processes to generate power. Some of these schemes propose to increase gas and coal generating efficiencies above 50%, from current efficiencies around 35%. These technologies run waste heat through a secondary generation loop using lower boiling point liquids to drive trubines to generate electricity. Ramping up this technology and using it with new ethanol plants would reduce our need for new power plants of all kinds.
Re: Using Waste Heat
Here is an Internet resource pagethat I created that creafocuses on Advanced Power Generation schemes, mainly using waste heat to run a secondary power generation loop, thus increasing electricaloutput and efficiency. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Advanced_Power_Generation - Original Message - From: John Coviello To: Vortex Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Using Waste Heat There are a number of companies working on ways to use waste heat from both power generation and industrial processes to generate power. Some of these schemes propose to increase gas and coal generating efficiencies above 50%, from current efficiencies around 35%. These technologies run waste heat through a secondary generation loop using lower boiling point liquids to drive trubines to generate electricity. Ramping up this technology and using it with new ethanol plants would reduce our need for new power plants of all kinds.
Re: iesi
Nicely done Steve. I like the levelheaded approach towards iESi. Very informative. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:27 AM Subject: iesi http://diyduediligence.blogspot.com
Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base? John Steck wrote: $36.13 billion total profit for 2005, highest of all time second highest of all time? Exxon again with $25.3 billion in 2004. Kenneth Deffeyes pointed out that part of the reason oil companies are making record profits is because they are not investing in new refineries, tankers and other capital equipment. They are not investing because they know there is no more oil in the ground, so there is no point to expanding production capacity. In fact, in 20 years they will not even need present capacity. In other words, they are dismantling their own industry by attrition. Why build a new sawmill when you are on the verge of cutting down the last tree? Good point Jed. Probably one of the most obvious signs that peak oil is near, when the oil industry stops investing in expanded infrastructure and does not increase exploration dramatically in the face of a much higher price environment for their product. Why not? Because they probably know better than anyone that there is no future for oil. It could unravel even faster than many expect, because once oil reaches a certain price threshold, it will price itself right out of the marketplace and alternatives will fill the void. It's a good idea to read between the lines of all the conflicting stories surrounding peak oil and look at underlying indicators, such as rising oil prices (no better indication of the scarcity of a commodity than the price people are willing to pay for it), and as you pointed out the lack of investment in new and expanded infrastructure to process oil, it tells you something about what they are thinking.
Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
Title: Message The way I see it, our dependence on oil is the product of one of the most far flung social engineering projects ever undertaken. From dismantling trolley lines in the early 20th Century to ensuring auto efficiency standards do not put too much pressure on the demand side of oil, to providing $10Billions of federal monies each year to protect oil supplies overseasmilitarily,the federal government has engineered our dependence on oil and has put alternative energy technologies and transportation modes at a marketplace disadvantage. If there was enough need for new refining facilities, they would get built. We are now building LNG facilities, we have continued to build power plants all over the place. New refiniers aren't being built because the industry either doesn't want them to put more supplies on the market and depress pricesor more likely they don't see a return on investment for a product that will price itself out of the market within a decade or two. From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base? Are Big-Oil Conspiracies off base? YES! If any of you really think that oil companies are outrageously profitable, YOU ARE FREE TO BUY THEIR STOCK and share in the profits accordingly. I don't, because I find them too risky. Since 1977, government tax revenues on oil have been twice what oil company profits have been. If every successful company becomes a target for Congressional Thieves, then let's steal some of that $25-40 billion that Microsoft is holding - or tax the unwarranted rise in Google stock value. Better yet, the recentrise in your home's value is clearly a "windfall" - let's have a special tax on that. Oil is extremely risky since, if you invest enormous amounts of money and work to develop fields, some third world dictator will nationalize the property or demand new concessions, destroying your intended projections. Or your best workers get kidnapped by local insurgents -Or you can't find any skilled petroleum engineers that aren't ready for retirement.- Or you put $60 a barrel oil in storage while the Saudis decide to move the price down to $40 a barrel.( all real, reported issues) And refineries? A refinery is almost impossible to build due to NIMBYism. Barron's ran an article on this months ago. If we aren't careful, NIMBYism will kill off windmills, too. Oil has been cheap for a long time, particularily because the swing producers, the Saudis, have kept it that way to prevent alternative development and the US public has little stomach for sacrifice.
Using Sound Waves To Induce Nuclear Fusion
Another bubble/sonofusion replication. I am surprised nobody posted this already. Using Sound Waves To Induce Nuclear Fusion With No External Neutron Source A team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has used sound waves to induce nuclear fusion without the need for an external neutron source, according to a paper in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters. The results address one of the most prominent questions raised after publication of the team's earlier results in 2004, suggesting that "sonofusion" may be a viable approach to producing neutrons for a variety of applications. By bombarding a special mixture of acetone and benzene with oscillating sound waves, the researchers caused bubbles in the mixture to expand and then violently collapse. This technique, which has been dubbed "sonofusion," produces a shock wave that has the potential to fuse nuclei together, according to the team. The telltale sign that fusion has occurred is the production of neutrons. Earlier experiments were criticized because the researchers used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, and some have suggested that the neutrons detected as evidence of fusion might have been left over from this external source. "To address the concern about the use of an external neutron source, we found a different way to run the experiment," says Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E. Hood Professor of Engineering at Rensselaer and coauthor of the paper. "The main difference here is that we are not using an external neutron source to kick the whole thing off." In the new setup, the researchers dissolved natural uranium in the solution, which produces bubbles through radioactive decay. "This completely obviates the need to use an external neutron source, resolving any lingering confusion associated with the possible influence of external neutrons," says Robert Block, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer and also an author of the paper. The experiment was specifically designed to address a fundamental research question, not to make a device that would be capable of producing energy, Block says. At this stage the new device uses much more energy than it releases, but it could prove to be an inexpensive and portable source of neutrons for sensing and imaging applications. To verify the presence of fusion, the researchers used three independent neutron detectors and one gamma ray detector. All four detectors produced the same results: a statistically significant increase in the amount of nuclear emissions due to sonofusion when compared to background levels. As a cross-check, the experiments were repeated with the detectors at twice the original distance from the device, where the amount of neutrons decreased by a factor of about four. These results are in keeping with what would be predicted by the "inverse square law," which provides further evidence that fusion neutrons were in fact produced inside the device, according to the researchers. The sonofusion debate began in 2002 when the team published a paper in Science indicating that they had detected neutron emissions from the implosion of cavitation bubbles of deuterated-acetone vapor. These data were questioned because it was suggested that the researchers used inadequate instrumentation, so the team replicated the experiment with an upgraded instrumentation system that allowed data acquisition over a much longer time. This led to a 2004 paper published in Physical Review E, which was subsequently criticized because the researchers still used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, leading to the current paper in Physical Review Letters. The latest experiment was conducted at Purdue University. At Rensselaer and in Russia, Lahey and Robert I. Nigmatulin performed the theoretical analysis of the bubble dynamics and predicted the shock-induced pressures, temperatures, and densities in the imploding bubbles. Block helped to design, set up, and calibrate a state-of-the-art neutron and gamma ray detection system for the new experiments. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060130155542.htm
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack Jones Beene wrote: John Coviello wrote: H.V: Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so quickly and cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require alternative explanations.. Yes...if the buildings had been designed to be demolished. You switched me with John Coviello. ;-) Yes, but of course it does not *have to be* part of the design, necessarily, but it would be interesting to hear if it was indeed part of it. That may end up being a red herring - and there are too many of those floating around - such that it becomes a big distraction away from the ONE salient fact mentioned by Harry and many others. Steve Jones, a t least in this endeavor, is a giant leap more diligent (and brave) then people are giving him credit for. In the end this was almost a free fall - such as happens in controlled demolition and that cannot be presumed to be the result of pure coincidence, since no other building of this type has EVER gone down from fire, or in a similar fashion. But two other points - one scientific validate that suspicion. A documentary on TV said the WTC twin towers were designed differently from other tall steel boxes. The outer walls formed a square tube-like structure. It may be no other buildings quite like the twin towers has ever suffered a fire. The statement above applies only to WTC-1 and WTC-2, both of which were hit by planes and obviously suffered some structural damage (even if there are questions about if the fires were actually hot enough to melt steel and cause the buildings to fall). However, the statement above does not apply to WTC-7, which was not hit by any planes, was not designed differently from other tall steel boxes (it was just a regular building), and did not have raging fires (even though fire has never brought down a steel framed building anyway). So, what caused WTC-7 to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11/01 remains a myster, and I believe it is fair to entertain alternative explanations. SNIP
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? I don't see any need for any conspiracy to kill off electric cars at all. The range is awful, they take time to recharge, the battery life sucks and they are small - especially when compared to the profitable SUV's that US manufacturers produce. They suck. It's a chicken and egg thing. Sure, there isn't much demand for electric vehicles at the moment. But that is mainly because the auto companies have no interest in developing them or marketing them. People just don't know about EVs and their advantages, especially for people who don't drive very far. I'm sure with gasoline prices more than double from where they stood when the EV as introduced in 1997, a lot more people would be interested in EVs that cost only 1/4 to operate than petrol cars. The auto companies certainly aren't showing any interest in developing EVs. Sure there are range limitations and other issues. But how they going to improve the technology when no development effort is put into improving it? A natural step towards EVs would be plug-in hybrids. There is no reason why plug-in hybrids couldn't be used to provide short driving ranges on electricity and longer driving ranges on gasoline. As battery technology improves, such as longer life and faster charge lithium-ion batteries, plug-in hybrids can slowly by shifted more towards batteries and less towards petroleum. I think the disinterest is a natural business inclination by auto/oil companies not to invest in and promote technologies that would hurt them in the long run. They know the sucessful introduction of plug-in hybrids and EVs would hurt their industries terribly. A lot less cars would require maintence and spare parts and perhaps would last longer with electric engines. Oil would esstentially cease to be used for automotive purposes, and would become a niche commodity used for lubricants and petrochemicals.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? In summary, there are too many sinister explanations for things that are easily explained by pedestrian economics. Alternative energy has never gotten mainstream because businesses know that their plans could collapse anytime the Saudis ( the swing producers) OPEN UP A VALVE and pump $20 a barrel oil. ..but that may soon change ( Thank God) That day is changing very quickly as we speak. Many oil analysts said oil was heading quickly back to $35 a barrel last year. They couldn't have been more wrong. The fact is oil demand is oustripping supply and the easiest way to see that reality is the fact that the price of a barrel of oil keeps rising: pedestrian economics. Supply/Demand. I agree that alternative energy has been hurt by cheap oil and the government's efforts to keep oil cheap and plentiful by protecting the oil trade militarily has helped skew the markets in oil's favor and hurt alternative energy. That is not pedestrian economics, that is called government meddling and social engineering. Well, now even the government can't keep the price of oil down where they and industry want's it, so people are going to start taking alternative more seriously. I'm sure many people who drive around town would love to have the option of doing so for 1/4 the cost in an electric vehicle (EV) if only that option were available.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. The lack of a Really Good Battery killed electric cars and no conspiracy is necessary. Find a miracle battery - and , yes, YOU WILL KILL THE OIL COMPANIES. That miracle battery is on it's way finally! Lithium ion batteries have sufficient power densities to deliver 300 mile per charge and can actually recharge in 5 to 10 minutes. You know what that means? People can pull in and recharge their EVs on the go, just like filling up the old gas tank. That day is coming and it will kill oil when people realize how cheap electricity is in comparisson. When the EV-1 was introduced in 1997, wholesale gasoline was trading at 50 cents a gallon, retailing for around $1.00. Now, wholesale gasoline is trading at $1.80 a gallon, retailing for around $2.30. See: http://charts3.barchart.com/chart.asp?vol=Yjav=advgrid=Ydivd=Yorg=stksym=HUH6data=Hcode=BSTKevnt=adv Oh yes, economics are on the side of development of better EVs, if only there were auto companies willing to show the way. Japan probably hasn't led the way to EVs because electricity costs about 3 to 4 times as much as electricity in the U.S., around 28 cents per kWH in Japan. That gives the Japanese no incentive to develop an EV. A small indy American autocompany will probably bring the first commercially available generation of EVs to market, especially if gasoline keeps getting more expensive.
Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
ExxonMobil just reported record quarterly profits, over $10 Billion just this quarter. Has there ever been a business in the history of mankind that has even come close to the profits that the oil business has enjoyed, especially in recent years? Does anyone really need a further explanationfor why the U.S. government lavishes the oil industry with approximately $100 Billion in military protection each year and gives energy conservation and alternative energy so little attention and funding? Oil is king of theeconomic world.The U.S. government knows the deal with peak oil, probably better thananyone. It is the main reason we are in Iraq at the moment. Oil plays thecentral role of our foreign policy, especially since Communism fell. Remember how Dick Chenney said in 2001 that energy efficiency did notmatter? I just saw him last week explaining on network television that the reason our economy is not in recession due to the current high oil prices isbecause we use oil twice as efficiently as we did in 1980 when we had a serious economic recession due to oil. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Slick Dick!For those out there who belittle big oil conspiracy theories as poppycock, I suggest you investigate the diamond trade. Diamonds would be essentially worthless if they were allowed to trade freely. I was surprised to learn this myself a few years ago. Yes, there is actually an international cartel that tightly controls the diamond supply to ensure that diamonds remain a valuable commodity. A company called DeBeers actually has warehouses full of diamonds in Europe, keeping millions of stones off the market, to ensure they remain scarce and valuable. 60 Minutes did a story on this fact a few years ago. Not only do they keep diamonds embargoed, they also are heavily involved in the mining trade and control the production side as well.Well, if such far flung efforts have been carried out successfully fordecades to ensure diamonds remain valuable, why is it so hard to believe that there are also powerful forces that manipulate energy markets. Energy is the most valuable commodity known to man at the moment, and oil is the prime energy commodity. Their is ample reason to manipulate the price of oil. I believe we see this manipulation every year as the U.S. government routinely spends $100 Billion or more to ensure the free flow of oil, also ensuring huge profits for the ExxonMobils of the world, and having the side-effect of retarding alternative energy competitiors who have to compete against a subsidized commodity like oil.
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:38 PM Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack RC Macaulay writes: With all debris removed from the WT site, no proof of anything remains. That's incorrect. Thousands of tons were put aside for the investigation, and have been preserved. Samples of the damaged steel and other materials have been extensively tested by many independent labs. If there had anything like what Jones suggested, hundreds of experts would have spotted it easily, and it would have been impossible to keep secret. Jones also denounced cold fusion in this newspaper article. This is the first time I have seen an attack on cold fusion and breathed a sigh of relief. I would not want the field to be associated with -- or endorsed by -- nutcakes who think the Towers were destroyed with explosives. - Jed Actually, the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11/01 does require further examination, for one simple reason, steel framed building had never previously or since collapsed due to fire. A building in Madrid, Spain burned for 30 hours in 2005, a raging inferno that engulfed the entire building and it still stood at the end of it all. Some will argue that WTC-1 and 2 were hit with planes, thus that contributed to their collapse. Perhaps, but WTC-7 was not hit with any plane and it only had two minor fires, there is no logical reason for why WTC-7 collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11/01. I would think that an unprecedented building failure like the WTC on 9/11/01 would result in an extrodinary investigation by government and building engineers to determine why and how the buildings failed. But that investigation seems muted and underwhelming to say the least (I believe most of the steel from the WTC was actually promptly shipped off the Asia and melted). I think it is fair to entertain alternative explanations, because the official explanation for the WTC collapses just doesn't add up. Even on the day of 9/11/01 I remember reports saying that it appears as if there had been a detonation of some sort when the buildings came down. Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so quickly and cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require alternative explanations, IMO.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Very interesting. Too bad there is no trailer available on the site (link is dead). There is definitely a conspiracy of some sort surrounding the silent dismissal of the EV. I mean, who wouldn't want a car that costs 1/4 the cost of driving a petroleum powered vehicle and is less costly to maintain as well? People loved their EVs and GM just crushed them anyway. The oil/auto industries, which surely are in collusion at some level, know the EV is the one technology that could kill the whole oil gravy train in short order. I think that is why they are literally giving EVs the cold shoulder. Plug-in hybrids are the first step to full EVs, and even those are getting no support from the auto industry. Plug-in hybrids will reduce oil consumption by 50% to 80%, EVs will once fully implemented reduce oil consumption by 100%. The oil/auto industries know this, is it really suprising that they are crushing EVs instead of developing them? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:00 PM Subject: Who Killed the EV? Soon to a DVD near you: http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ and the Sundance Festival. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: iesi
Interesting Steve. Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading your report in March on iESi. - Original Message - From: Steve Krivit To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:07 PM Subject: iesi New Energy Timestm (preliminary) Special Report on Innovative Energy Solutions Inc. (iESi) Jan. 22, 2006
Altered method extends bubble-fusion claim
Altered method extends bubble-fusion claim Peter Weiss A technique that some scientists claim generates thermonuclear fusion in a benchtop apparatus works even without its controversial neutron trigger. So say the researchers who, since 2002, have reported that nuclear-fusion reactions can occur in a vat of chilled solvent agitated by ultrasound (SN: 3/6/04, p. 149: Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040306/fob5.asp). If this method of sparking fusion proves to be valid—a big if, critics insist—it could lead to a remarkably simple, cheap, inexhaustible power source. Fusion reactions take place in the vat because clusters of bubbles form and then violently collapse, explains nuclear engineer and team leader Rusi P. Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. A neutron or another energetic particle triggers a bubble to form in a low-pressure trough of the ultrasound waves, he says. Then, high pressure from the wave crushes the orb to an enormous density and temperature that fuse some atomic nuclei of the bubble's gas. Taleyarkhan and his colleagues have measured neutron emissions as a sign of fusion reactions. Because the group had used neutron pulses to trigger the process, other researchers have been skeptical of its neutron readings. In an upcoming Physical Review Letters, Taleyarkhan's team presents evidence of fusion in bubbles initiated by a uranium-based trigger that emits alpha particles instead of neutrons. "We got away from the idea of using neutrons to produce neutrons," Taleyarkhan notes. Nonetheless, the findings still face intense skepticism. Criticisms range from doubts about experimental procedures to quarrels with interpretations of the data. "I simply do not find the results significant and/or believable," comments physicist Dan Shapira of Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory. Critics note that Taleyarkhan's team admits in its report that its experimental outcomes vary greatly, many of them producing no evidence of fusion. Yet to D. Felipe Gaitan of Impulse Devices in Grass Valley, Calif., the uneven outcomes are encouraging. They "could explain our inability, and that of other researchers so far, to replicate [Taleyarkhan's] results consistently," says Gaitan. Impulse Devices plans to commercialize bubble fusion. Lawrence A. Crum of the University of Washington in Seattle says that the new work "increases the credibility" of bubble fusion. But "unless it's reproduced in someone else's lab, I'm not going to believe it," he adds. Taleyarkhan claims that his team's findings were independently verified last year by other Purdue researchers, whom he guided. Other physicists are unconvinced. A welcome consequence of the latest results, Crum adds, is that other researchers should find the uranium-based triggering method easier to reproduce than the neutron one. So, he says, the new work "is an important step toward determining if the results of Rusi's experiments are true." If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for publication in Science News, send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Please include your name and location. To subscribe to Science News (print), go to https://www.kable.com/pub/scnw/ subServices.asp. To sign up for the free weekly e-LETTER from Science News, go to http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/subscribe_form.asp. References: Shapiro, D., and M. Saltmarsh. 2002. Nuclear fusion in collapsing bubbles—is it there? An attempt to repeat the observation of nuclear emissions from sonoluminescence. Physical Review Letters 89(Sept. 2):104302. Abstract available at http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/e104302. Taleyarkhan, R.P., et al. In press. Nuclear emissions during self-nucleated acoustic cavitation. Physical Review Letters. Taleyarkhan, R.P., et al. 2004. Additional evidence of nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation. Physical Review E 69():036109. Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.036109. Taleyarkhan, R.P., et al. 2002. Evidence for nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation. Science 295(March 8):1868-1873. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5561/1868. Xu, Y., and A. Butt. 2005. Confirmatory experiments for nuclear emissions during acoustic cavitation. Nuclear Engineering and Design 235:1317-1324. Further Readings: Weiss, P. 2005. Brutal bubbles: Collapsing orbs rip apart atoms. Science News 167(March 5):147. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050305/fob1.asp. __. 2004. Bubble fusion: Once-maligned claim rebounds. Science News 165(March 6):149. Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040306/fob5.asp. __. 2002. Violent chemistry saps sonobubble energy. Science News 162(Aug. 24):125. Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020824/note15.asp. __. 2002. Star in a jar? Hints of
Re: Gaia Scientist: DO PANIC
- Original Message - From: Rhong Dhong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Gaia Scientist: DO PANIC --- John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Global Warming Has Arrived. Get used to it and sell any property that you own in flood prone areas. That reminds me of something I have wondered about. I live in a town on the South shore of Lake Ontario. If global warming results in a rise in sea-level, will the raging waters travel down the St. Lawrence Seaway, and raise the level of Lake Ontario and flood me out? Or is there a stopper somewhere along the way? There is a BIG stopper protecting Lake Ontario and Toronto from global warming, called Niagra Falls. Water won't run up the falls backwards. I guess Toronto might be threatened if glacial melt and more rain caused by global warming raise the lake level, but I have no idea if a significant rise in Lake Ontario's level is possible from runoff.
Re: Gaia Scientist: DO PANIC
We're about to experience a natural feed back loop that will accelerate concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. A natural feed back loop is basically when a natural process reaches a critical threshold and feeds on itself and spins out of control. Kind of like when watching a summertime shower explode into a massive thunderstorm, you are witnessing a natural feed back loop in which the atmosphere starts feeding on available heat and moisture and forms clouds, which causes more heat and moisture to be drawn into the clouds, causing them to grow and draw in even more heat and moisture, causing them to eventually explode into what we all know as a violent summertime thunderstorm. There are indications that CO2 levels are also experiencing a natural feed back loop. As global warming defrosts the permafrost and melts the glaciers they release CO2 that has bound up in these formations for millions of years, thus increasing CO2 levels and causing more heating and more subsequent melting of permafrost and glaciers, thus releasing even more CO2, causing more global warming, etc. CO2 levels are increasing more rapidly in recent years. We might be on the cusp of an exponential increase in CO2 levels and subsequently much higher global temperatures. Which will, by the way, cause even more and stronger thunderstorms and hurricanes. Not only has the past year been extraordinary for its super hurricanes, but thunderstorm and tornado activity has been unusually frequent and severe as well. This past November 2005 was more like a Spring month for tornados in the Mid West and Southern U.S. with record numbers of tornados. Global Warming Has Arrived. Get used to it and sell any property that you own in flood prone areas. - Original Message - From: Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Gaia Scientist: DO PANIC A few thoughts occur to me on this. 1. I have heard many ultraenvironmentalists sending out this line of reasoning over the years, and have heard them say that they are absolutely sure we are in serious trouble, and that it is all man's fault. Many say they would be their life on it, 100% certainty. Why then, does no one ever want to take me up on my wager? The Wager: A. If it turns out that we are truly doomed from what we have been/are doing re: CO2 emissions, then the ultraenvironmentalists win the wager, and we all die by default. B. If it turns out that we are not doomed, that the whole situation was overblown and used as a nice moneymaker and powergatherer by some, and that the warming (if any in the long run) does not cause serious damage at all, or worse, we end up in an ice age that might have been technologically preventable, then those who were the most vocal and public sources of restrictions on technological societies and industrialization must report for termination within 1 year's time. This will in turn, help them win one point: with less mouths to feed, we will have more to go around to those who are left. Quite logical I think. C. If it turns out that we are in big trouble, but stave it off by massive cutbacks on XYZ, then we all win by default. Am I really being serious? No. But it is telling that people who are so certain, will not take up the wager. Then, by definition, they must not have been completely certain. 2. CO2 is the big target at the moment. When we switch to hydrogen-fired cars, how long do you bet it will take before there is a big green push to limit H2O vapor emissions? 3. Horace mentioned Iran and possible nuclear war. As an American, I propose that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, that we do not intervene, and that we allow them to develop the warheads themselves, the delivery systems, and ultimately to use them against whoever they wish. Then after someone gets a second sunrise, we can safely say Yes, it indeed appears that Iran had Weapons of Mass Destruction. /Sarcasm 4. WILL WORK FOR LAND/PRESSURE DOME ON MOON. Or Mars. Even Titan would be pretty nice. 5. Why aren't the ultraenvironmentalists pushing for LENR/CANR like mad? 6. I do not trust big oil, nor do I trust big green. Both are liars, and will do anything to get their respective ways. Mark my words, things are not as they seem. 7. And no, before it is suggested, I am neither Republican, nor do I like Bush. I am independant, vote for who I think is the least detrimental, and hope for the day when we really do all live together in peace. All the best, --Kyle
Univ of NC and NM Profs Endorse BlackLight Power
Interestingly, the usually indifferent environmental community is actually actively investigating BlackLight Power to see if they can solve our energy problems and pollution problems as well. Also professors from Univ of NC and NM have examined and endorsed Randy Mill's discovery. I don't know, but this seems to be gaining traction.Quantum leap in physics?Monday, January 02, 2006 By ELIZABETH LANDAU SNIP"It makes nuclear energy obsolete, oil-power cars obsolete, solar and wind energy irrelevant," said Kurt Davies, research director at Greenpeace. "We need a miracle to solve global warming. I cross my fingers and hope that BlackLight is part of that solution." Though Greenpeace does not receive money from BlackLight, the two organizations share a "philosophical partnership," Davies said. In May, Greenpeace invited researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville to check out BlackLight and make independent assessments of the technology. After a week of calculation and experimentation, UNC environmental studies Professor Rick Maas and physics Professor Randy Booker reportedly are convinced of BlackLight's potential. The researchers examined and played with water lasers, kilns, calorimeters and other gadgets and agreed that in each set-up, it seemed that hydrogen collapsed into hydrinos, creating energy. "The experiments really speak for themselves; it's overwhelming that they give off excess energy," Booker said. "I saw it with my own eyes and my own calculations." Though Booker said he continues to keep an open mind and maintains skepticism, he hasn't found "any major boo-boos," and said BlackLight could be a big breakthrough as a non-polluting, renewable energy source. Mills inspired Jonathan Phillips, national lab professor at the University of New Mexico, to undertake his own experiments using the hydrino-generating principles, and Phillips said he found the same results. "It's a done deal. It's a superior theory by far," he said. http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1136192775314670.xmlcoll=5thispage=1
BlackLight Power's Quantum leap in physics?
Quantum leap in physics? Monday, January 02, 2006 By ELIZABETH LANDAU EAST WINDSOR - Traversing the long, sterile white corridors of BlackLight Power's offices here, technicians in lab coats and safety goggles are hard at work on what they believe is a scientific revolution. They meticulously examine tubes of gray powder, generate purple plasma in a tube and measure the temperature changes in large water baths. In warehouse-like rooms, each filled with various gadgets and experiments, a controversial new form of energy sizzles. According to BlackLight's founder, a cheap, non-polluting energy is generated 1,000 times more efficiently than conventional power sources. However, there is considerable skepticism in the scientific community, and to many, BlackLight's claims defy the laws of physics. Within months, company officials say, they will offer critical information and possibly even a prototype of an energy generating device that functions according to the principles that BlackLight's founder, Randell Mills, says he has discovered. With enough financial and marketing support, the energy could be available for use worldwide in just a few years, BlackLight researchers say. Park read Mills' 900-page tome explaining his "hydrino" generation theory and was not impressed. "A lot of it has just been lifted from standard textbooks, but twisted to make his point," said Park, who wrote about BlackLight in his 2000 book, "Voodoo Science." "It is impossible for their (BlackLight's) quantum mechanics to be right." According to standard quantum mechanics, in a hydrogen atom there is one proton (positive charge) and one orbiting electron (negative charge) that are separated by a fixed distance between the electron and the atom's nucleus. But BlackLight's Mills contends that by exciting hydrogen gas with a catalyst gas, the electron actually moves closer to the proton, creating a previously unrecognized state of hydrogen dubbed a "hydrino." This hydrino formation releases up to 1,000 times as much energy as ordinary hydrogen combustion, Mills said. Mills recognizes that skepticism abounds, but stands firmly behind his theory. "People get very defensive because they've set up a belief system," Mills said. "They say they're standing on shoulders of the great minds. Well, they're going to be standing in the unemployment lines wishing they'd studied engineering." Unlike some scientists viewed as cranks, Mills is not some spiky-haired guy in a T-shirt operating out of his garage. The confident, 6-foot 5-inch scientist studied electrical engineering at MIT and earned a medical degree from Harvard. The company has already raised $40 million, he said, and operates on about 53,000 square feet in the former Lockheed-Martin assembly plant. Mills got the idea for the BlackLight process when he was working on a project at MIT on free-electron lasers, in which individual electrons emit laser light. He decided to apply Maxwell's Equations (on electric and magnetic fields) to the level of the atom and found that he could get all of the fundamental properties of the atom to work out. The novel application predicts a new form of energy, he said. The technology is also environment-friendly, Mills says, since it does not release air pollutants or radioactive waste. Instead, BlackLight scientists say, the chemical process releases new hydrino-based "hydride compounds" that could have commercial applications. "This technology could eliminate gasoline altogether," said Mills of his radical theory. "I think it will have extraordinary impact." But if BlackLight is for real, a century of scientific achievement - not to mention every accredited chemistry textbook worldwide - is fiction. BlackLight's energy production relies on Mills' unconventional theory of atoms, one that fundamentally contradicts standard quantum mechanics. "Quantum mechanics has duped the world that there is . . . all this strange stuff that has never been verified," Mills said. "It turns out you can solve enormously complex problems by treating electrons differently." One of BlackLight's most outspoken critics has been Robert Park, director of public information for the American Physical Society. "It makes nuclear energy obsolete, oil-power cars obsolete, solar and wind energy irrelevant," said Kurt Davies, research director at Greenpeace. "We need a miracle to solve global warming. I cross my fingers and hope that BlackLight is part of that solution." Though Greenpeace does not receive money from BlackLight, the two organizations share a "philosophical partnership," Davies said. In May, Greenpeace invited researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville to check out BlackLight and make independent assessments of the technology. After a week of calculation and experimentation, UNC environmental studies Professor Rick Maas and physics Professor Randy Booker reportedly are
Re: EarthTech's (Scott Little's) magic touch
- Original Message - From: Taylor J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:37 AM Subject: EarthTech's (Scott Little's) magic touch Horace Heffner wrote on 1-9-06: Well, it *is* true that Scott Little gained a reputation on vortex for a psychic ability to suppress cold fusion. You know, a negative telekinetic quantum observation thingy. 8^) OTOH, Scott's excellence in calorimetry may be the reason for all the negative results ... Hi All, I place most of the blame for Scott's inabilty to reproduce BLP's results on BLP's refusal to cooperte with Scott, whose experimental work is the gold standard, as far as I'm concerned. However, on 19 Apr, 1998, I engaged in the following correspondence: ``Subject: Re: BLP (Black Light Power) Run #14 Scott Little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: ::: Jack Smith asked about Run #14 ::: We never saw a peep of excess heat ::: and they never even lifted a finger to assist us. ... Hi Scott, BlackLight Power is probably so far ahead that they see no need to make any concessions; but there may be alternative approaches which they have not thought of. Regardless of the risks and benefits involved, their decision is unfortunate. The other issue which you raise deserves some discussion: We never saw a peep ... Some time ago you shared a Scientific American Frontiers program with a young lady [Emily Rosa] whose science project examined whether or not touch therapists could tell which of their hands her hand was hovering over. Their detection rate was no better than chance. Recently, her work was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The touch therapist success rate was only 44%, a slight but interesting negative correlation. Consider another experiment in which the effect of fertilizer brand on petunia growth is to be determined: Soil, seeds, and fertilizer are added to each pot, BUT NO WATER. At the end of a month, it is concluded that fertilizer brand has no effect on petunia growth. How is the no effect result of the touch therapist experiment similar to that of the petunia experiment? Suppose the touch therapists are used in an experiment to determine whether or not humans can give blood to each other. In this case, a few drops of blood from the experimenter are mixed with a sample of blood from each therapist. Using a magnifying glass, no clumping of the blood (which would be disastrous in someone's veins) is observed (the experimenter is blood type O- ). It is concluded that anyone can give blood to anyone. - Ridiculous? Just as people have different blood types, they may have different fields or auras. [A touch therapist would not have detected the the presence of someone who does not generate ANY field. At least one other person besides Emily should have hovered her hand over the hands of the touch therapists. By the way, for me the field concept is just a calculational convenience -- I prefer a mental model for force transmission that relies on particle interactions.] The petunia experiment is even more complicated if the effect of each fertilizer brand is optimized with a different amount of water. The BLP situation is several orders of magnitude more complex than the other experiments mentioned here, and no effect should be perceived as only the result in the specific experiments conducted so far.'' Jack Smith You do have to wonder if BLP really has anything behind all the hype? I mean, they've been working on their hydrino technology for well over a decade now, and is there really any evidence that it is a new and revolutionary energy source? What exactly is holding them up from revealing their technology to the world? Seems like typical alt.energy footdragging that ends with nothing of substance.
Nature: Desktop fusion is back on the table
Desktop fusion is back on the table Physicist claims to have definitive data, but can they be replicated? Mark Peplow Imploding bubbles, caught on film emitting light. Are they emitting energy too?© D. Flannigan and K.S. Suslick, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Can the popping of tiny bubbles trigger nuclear fusion, a potential source of almost unlimited energy? This controversial idea is back on the table, because its main proponent has new results that, he claims, will silence critics. But others say that the latest experiment simply comes with its own set of problems.The idea is simple enough. Blast a liquid with waves of ultrasound and tiny bubbles of gas are created, which release a burst of heat and light when they implode. The core of the bubble reaches 15,000 °C, hot enough to wrench molecules apart. Physicists have even suggested that the intense conditions of this sonoluminescence could fuse atomic nuclei together, in the same process that keeps our Sun running.Physicist Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, published the first evidence1 of this 'sonofusion' in 2002; he has been dogged by sceptics ever since. The underlying physics behind the idea is valid, says Ken Suslick. An expert in sonoluminescence at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Suslick tried and failed to replicate Taleyarkhan's first results. If the bubbles' collapse is sufficiently intense, it should indeed be able to crush atoms together. Taleyarkhan just hasn't done enough to prove it, says Suslick.Needle in a haystackTaleyarkhan's first experiments were conducted while he was based at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. His idea was to use liquid acetone in which hydrogen atoms had been replaced by their heavier brethren, deuterium. When deuterium nuclei fuse together, they emit a characteristic burst of neutrons. But critics pointed out that Taleyarkhan was using an external source of neutrons to 'seed' the bubbles, and that these were swamping his measurements of neutrons produced by the fusion reaction itself."This time round there are no external neutrons," he explains. Instead, his team loaded a mixture of deuterated acetone and benzene with a uranium salt. As the uranium undergoes radioactive decay it releases alpha particles, which can also seed bubble formation, says Taleyarkhan."In this experiment we use three independent neutron detectors and a gamma-ray detector," he adds. The results from the four instruments prove that fusion is happening inside his experiment, asserts Taleyarkhan.Although uranium can release neutrons during fission reactions, Taleyarkhan rules them out because the neutrons he finds bear the energetic hallmark of having come from the fusion of two deuterium nuclei2.Taleyarkhan's test reactor still puts out a lot less energy than it takes in, making it impractical for generating power. "We have a way to go before we break even," he admits. But in the meantime, he adds, it could be a cheap source of neutrons for analysing the structure of materials. The results are to be published in Physical Review Letters in a few weeks' time.Unreliable sourcesThere is one big problem, however: the experiment doesn't always work, and the group is not sure why. Seth Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has also tried to verify some of Taleyarkhan's experiments, notes that the paper does not reveal how many failed runs were required before the team saw a trace of fusion neutrons. "As a paper it doesn't convince me," says Putterman.Putterman notes that the team did not continuously monitor background neutron levels. Although the neutron count doubles at some points in the experiments, Putterman says that neutrons produced in random showers of cosmic rays, rather than fusion events, could be responsible. But Taleyarkhan points out that the neutron count was smaller in detectors further from the reaction chamber.To prove that the neutrons are coming from fusion as bubbles burst, Putterman and Suslick suggest that the team closely monitor exactly when the neutrons appear. The current experiment simply counts up the number of neutrons detected over minutes, so correlations with bubble bursts cannot be seen. "The key to improving the signal is timing," says Putterman.Finding proofAnother obvious way to confirm that fusion is happening would be to look for tritium, a heavier isotope of hydrogen produced by fusion reactions. Tritium leaves a telltale signature of high-energy electrons when it decays and Taleyarkhan claimed to see this in similar previous experiments1,3. But in the current tests, tritium's signature is overwhelmed by ?-decay from the uranium, making it impossible to spot.Given that Suslick and
Desktop fusion is back on the table
Desktop fusion is back on the table Physicist claims to have definitive data, but can they be replicated? Mark Peplow Can the popping of tiny bubbles trigger nuclear fusion, a potential source of almost unlimited energy? This controversial idea is back on the table, because its main proponent has new results that, he claims, will silence critics. But others say that the latest experiment simply comes with its own set of problems. The idea is simple enough. Blast a liquid with waves of ultrasound and tiny bubbles of gas are created, which release a burst of heat and light when they implode. The core of the bubble reaches 15,000 °C, hot enough to wrench molecules apart. Physicists have even suggested that the intense conditions of this sonoluminescence could fuse atomic nuclei together, in the same process that keeps our Sun running. Physicist Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, published the first evidence1 of this 'sonofusion' in 2002; he has been dogged by sceptics ever since. The underlying physics behind the idea is valid, says Ken Suslick. An expert in sonoluminescence at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Suslick tried and failed to replicate Taleyarkhan's first results. If the bubbles' collapse is sufficiently intense, it should indeed be able to crush atoms together. Taleyarkhan just hasn't done enough to prove it, says Suslick. Needle in a haystack Taleyarkhan's first experiments were conducted while he was based at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. His idea was to use liquid acetone in which hydrogen atoms had been replaced by their heavier brethren, deuterium. When deuterium nuclei fuse together, they emit a characteristic burst of neutrons. But critics pointed out that Taleyarkhan was using an external source of neutrons to 'seed' the bubbles, and that these were swamping his measurements of neutrons produced by the fusion reaction itself. This time round there are no external neutrons, he explains. Instead, his team loaded a mixture of deuterated acetone and benzene with a uranium salt. As the uranium undergoes radioactive decay it releases alpha particles, which can also seed bubble formation, says Taleyarkhan. In this experiment we use three independent neutron detectors and a gamma-ray detector, he adds. The results from the four instruments prove that fusion is happening inside his experiment, asserts Taleyarkhan. Although uranium can release neutrons during fission reactions, Taleyarkhan rules them out because the neutrons he finds bear the energetic hallmark of having come from the fusion of two deuterium nuclei2. Taleyarkhan's test reactor still puts out a lot less energy than it takes in, making it impractical for generating power. We have a way to go before we break even, he admits. But in the meantime, he adds, it could be a cheap source of neutrons for analysing the structure of materials. The results are to be published in Physical Review Letters in a few weeks' time. Unreliable sources There is one big problem, however: the experiment doesn't always work, and the group is not sure why. Seth Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has also tried to verify some of Taleyarkhan's experiments, notes that the paper does not reveal how many failed runs were required before the team saw a trace of fusion neutrons. As a paper it doesn't convince me, says Putterman. Putterman notes that the team did not continuously monitor background neutron levels. Although the neutron count doubles at some points in the experiments, Putterman says that neutrons produced in random showers of cosmic rays, rather than fusion events, could be responsible. But Taleyarkhan points out that the neutron count was smaller in detectors further from the reaction chamber. To prove that the neutrons are coming from fusion as bubbles burst, Putterman and Suslick suggest that the team closely monitor exactly when the neutrons appear. The current experiment simply counts up the number of neutrons detected over minutes, so correlations with bubble bursts cannot be seen. The key to improving the signal is timing, says Putterman. Finding proof Another obvious way to confirm that fusion is happening would be to look for tritium, a heavier isotope of hydrogen produced by fusion reactions. Tritium leaves a telltale signature of high-energy electrons when it decays and Taleyarkhan claimed to see this in similar previous experiments1,3. But in the current tests, tritium's signature is overwhelmed by ?-decay from the uranium, making it impossible to spot. Given that Suslick and Putterman have both investigated Taleyarkhan's past claims, they think it odd that they were not consulted by the editors of Physical Review Letters about the paper. There are other people who are very knowledgeable about this, comments Martin Blume, editor-in-chief of the American
Re: Please protest
I think it's worth a protest for the simple reason that it will make the newspaper aware that there actually is interest in cold fusion out there. It might even lead to a follow-up article. Actually, the mainstream press has been rather quiet about cold fusion recently. 2004 was a banner year for cold fusion coverage in the mainstream media with coverage from the New York Times to Nature, in the wake of the DOE report. 2005 was kind of quiet. 2006? - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Please protest Horace Heffner wrote: What email address to use? There are a number of them http:// www.washpost.com/news_ed/news/contact_news.shtml. Are you suggesting letters to the editor for publishing? Goodness, there are a lot of addresses. Not sure. I send something yesterday to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but in the letters section they say you should write to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . and include your name and address. - Jed
Re: Wanted: CEO Cold Fusion Company
What does D2Fusion have to do with Salt Lake City? I don't see the connection. Sounds more like an Internet scam, somebody just using keywords like cold fusion and Salt Lake City to see if they find any takers. This is not how professional recruiting is done, especially on the CEO level. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Wanted: CEO Cold Fusion Company Two things make it believable: 1) The fact that Solar Energy Limited, owners of D2Fusion are in Vancouver, and 2) The bit about needing people who can sell nanotechnology to the oil industry. Sounds like a real recruiter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fascinating request. I hope it IS legitimate. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
D2Fusion Website Being Updated
D2fusion is finally upgrading their website: http://www.D2fusion.com. Some signs of life from this fledgling cold fusion enterprise. Also, their parent company Solar Ltd. has seen some action in its stock SLRE the last few days. Perhaps something is brewing out inCalifornia?
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95 John Coviello wrote: My greatest fear vis a vis cold fusion is that it will die when the researchers all die. That's not going to happen Jed. If cold fusion is indeed a real and viable scientific discovery, the death of researchers will not end its development. Perhaps their deaths will slow cold fusion research down, but if something is real in nature it will eventually be developed by someone. The only way cold fusion will totally die is if it has been an artifact all along, gross experimental error, noise. How do you know that? People often say things like: Science always works in the end; valuable data is never truly lost. In other fields, valuable data and important techniques are lost all the time. - Jed You make a valid point Jed. What you say is indeed true in some other fields. But cold fusion, if it is indeed real beyond any doubts, will prevail. Especially now in 2005/2006, there are just too many people following cold fusion these days for it to die an unnatural death. The U.S. DOE just reviewed cold fusion a few years ago. The governments of Japan and Italy are investigating cold fusion to remediate nuclear waste. Technologies that are near death don't receive that kind of official attention. Also, because oil is nearing peak production and the price of oil appears to have started a sustain rise higher, there will be a real need for alternative energy technologies in coming decades, so the pressure will be on to find alternatives, one of which is cold fusion. Actually, I would propose that cold fusion might die from another cause of death, irrelevency. For one thing cold fusion might be provable beyond a doubt in coming years, but it might not be scalable to be useful in energy production and might just remain a useless laboratory curiosity for decades that may or may not one day be applied to some useful purpose. For two, back when cold fusion was originally discovered in 1989, the options for alternative energy were rather limited (mainly by price, but also by a lack of workable technologies). All that has changed in 2005/2006. Mainstream alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar have dropped significantly in price and have grown more efficient. Other alternatives are making gains such as fuel cells, waste-to-energy, wave/tidal power, etc. When the world needs to shift to new energy sources as fossil fuels dwindel in coming decades, they might not be looking for cold fusion or some exotic form of energy when proven mainstream alternative energy technologies are suitable to fill the gap. Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. But as we know, the auto companies are dragging their feet on implementing such cost saving technologies as plug-in hybrid cars, so what hope does a truly revolutionary technology like cold fusion have in this world? Let's face it our government and corporate leaders make their decisions based on the bottom line. Other considerations such as the public good, environment, cost savings, safety all take a back seat to profits.
Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset
It appears that the inclusion of cold fusion as a featured article is entirely meaningless. So, it is featured on one prominent page (one that I have never visited over the time I've used Wikipedia), along with a lot of other articles. If people are looking for cold fusion information, they'll do a search for it and find it regardless of whether or not is has featured status. Seems like the skeptics are just making an issue out of nothing. I do think the Wikipedia article is one of the best resouces for cold fusion information, especially the links it provides. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidate s -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured, however. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 3:27 PM Subject: Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95 In reply to John Coviello's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:58:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. Make that 0.4 cents / week of heavy water. :) (Based on $400/L heavy water, which with the availability of cheap energy and the increase in combined desalination/deuterium plants will probably drop considerably). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Well that's even better then. I currently spend about $120 per month on gasoline (it was around $180 per month after the hurricanes this summer). If I could reduce that cost to 2 cents per month using cold fusion, you bet I would and so would everyone else. Economics drives most innovations.
Entergetics Technologies Website
Does anyone have thethe Israeli startup company Entergetics Technologies' website?
Re: First Publicly Traded Cold Fusion Company
Does anyone know of any other publicly-traded company or subsidiary besides D2Fusion that exists which is exclusively geared toward RD or commercialization of cold fusion? http://www.d2fusion.com/ I visited the above website, AFAIK, they have yet to demonstrate any usable energy. I found another website of an Israeli startup company, very little energy, but 100% reproducable, which is good. I agree that the d2fusion.com website is short on details, but perhaps that is on purpose, why give all their secrets away. They don't do a very good job keeping their news current. The public press releases from their parent company are rarely reflected on the d2fusion.com website in a timely manner, if ever. Is the Israeli startup company Entergetics Technologies? I tried to track down their website a few months ago without success. If you could forward their website address, that would be great, I could add it to the write up I did on cold fusion commercial developments at: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion#Ongoing_developments Solar LTD/D2Fusion (Symbol: SLRE) is currently the only way to buy stock in a company that is publicly pursuing cold fusion. The stock is now around 55 cents per share and was around $1.40 per share a few months ago. Obviously, if Solar LTD/D2Fusion actually made an announcement about a cold fusion device ready for the consumer market the stock would trade much higher. A speculative stock if there ever was one, caution is advised. But if they are serious about their intentions to market cold fusion it could take a wild ride higher at some point in the future.
'Free' Energy from the Environment?
Vortexians, I have no idea if this is feasible. It strikes as one of those too good to be true kindof things. So obvious that you have to wonder if it works why didn't someone think ofit already?!? But the company promoting this idea (http://www.magcap.com/about.php)has supposedly been around since 1969 and is a defense contractor, so theydo not appear to be some fly-by-night outfit. Is this just crackpot nonsense or has the answer to our energy problems been under our noses all along??? One thing is for sure, it is amazing just how important a role energy plays in our society. Decades of social engineering have ensured that we are dependent on fossil fuels and now we even fightwars over energy resources. A change to a far cheaper, more abundant and much less polluting energy source would dramatically improve our quality of life (and decrease the fossil fuel industry's profits dramatically, which is why they are not pursuing such an enlightened path). John C MagCap Engineering, LLC Announces 'Free' Unlimited Energy Source Developed That Draws Power from the Environment MagCap Engineering, LLC Announces 'Free' Unlimited Energy Source Developed That Draws Power from the Environment CANTON, Mass., Dec. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- An alternative electric power generating system that draws energy from a seemingly unlikely yet abundant, eminently renewable and virtually free power source has been submitted for patenting by MagCap Engineering, LLC, Canton, Mass., in collaboration with Gordon W. Wadle, an inventor from Thomson, Ill.Wadle has invented a way to capture the energy generated by a living non- animal organism -- such as a tree. Chris Lagadinos, president of MagCap, developed circuitry that converts this natural energy source into useable DC power capable of sustaining a continuous current to charge and maintain a battery at full charge."As unbelievable as it sounds, we've been able to demonstrate the feasibility of generating electricity in this manner," said Wadle. "While the development is in its infancy, it has the potential to provide an unlimited supply of constant, clean energy without relying on fossil fuels, a power generating plant complex or an elaborate transmission network."The developers now intend to establish a collaborative agreement with a company, academic institution or potential investors who can help finance the additional research and development necessary to take the invention to the next level -- a practical, commercially viable power generating system.Wadle likened the invention to the Discovery of electricity over 200 years ago when charged particles were harnessed to create an electric current. "Now we've learned that there is an immense, inexhaustible source of energy literally all around us that can be harnessed and converted into usable electric power," he said.Ultimately, it should prove to be more practical than solar energy or wind power, and certainly more affordable than fuel cells, he added.Wadle said he got the original idea of harnessing a tree for electrical energy from studying lightening, more than 50 percent of which originates from the ground. This prompted him to develop the theories resulting in a method to access this power source. Lagadinos then designed circuitry that filtered and amplified these energy emanations, creating a useable power source.Basically, the existing system includes a metal rod embedded in the tree, a grounding rod driven into the ground, and the connecting circuitry, which filters and boosts the power output sufficient to charge a battery. In its current experimental configuration, the demonstration system produces 2.1 volts, enough to continuously maintain a full charge in a nickel cadmium battery attached to an LED light."Think of the environment as a battery, in this case," said Lagadinos, "with the tree as the positive pole and the grounding rod as the negative."Near term -- within the next six months or so -- and with additional research and development, Lagadinos said the system could be enhanced enough to generate 12 volts and one amp of power, "a desirable power level that could be used to power just about anything," he said.http://www.automotive.com/features/90/auto-news/17333/index.html
Re: 'Free' Energy from the Environment?
Here's the official press release regarding this free energy concept. They have applied for a patent. http://www.magcap.com/pdf/press_release.pdf
Re: BlackLightPower Hydrinos In The News
The link to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html Notice the brief mention of Cold Fusion. - Original Message - From: John Coviello To: Vortex Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: BlackLightPower Hydrinos In The News Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head· Scientist says device disproves quantum theory· Opponents claim idea is result of wrong maths Alok Jha, science correspondentFriday November 4, 2005The GuardianIt seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.The problem is that according to the rules of quantum mechanics, the physics that governs the behaviour of atoms, the idea is theoretically impossible. "Physicists are quite conservative. It's not easy to convince them to change a theory that is accepted for 50 to 60 years. I don't think [Mills's] theory should be supported," said Jan Naudts, a theoretical physicist at the University of Antwerp.What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy.This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to get any closer.According to Dr Mills, there can be only one explanation: quantum mechanics must be wrong. "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use."Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."Dr Mills's idea goes against almost a century of thinking. When scientists developed the theory of quantum mechanics they described a world where measuring the exact position or energy of a particle was impossible and where the laws of classical physics had no effect. The theory has been hailed as one of the 20th century's greatest achievements.But it is an achievement Dr Mills thinks is flawed. He turned back to earlier classical physics to develop a theory which, unlike quantum mechanics, allows an electron to move much closer to the proton at the heart of a hydrogen atom and, in doing so, release the substantial amounts of energy he seeks to exploit. Dr Mills's theory, known as classical quantum mechanics and published in the journal Physics Essays in 2003, has been criticised most publicly by Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency. In a damning critique published recently in the New Journal of Physics, he argued that Dr Mills's theory was the result of mathematical mistakes.Dr Mills argues that there are plenty of flaws in Dr Rathke's critique. "His paper's riddled with mistakes. We've had other physicists contact him and say thi
A123 Systems Releases New Lithium-ion Battery
A123Systems releases new Lithium-ion battery Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:42 PM Utilizing nanoscale electrode technology, the battery lasts 10x as long, has 5X power gain, charges 90% capacity in five minutes. First batteries will be sold to Black Decker for their DeWALT brand chordless tools.WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, USA -- A123Systems, developer of a new generation of Lithium-ion batteries, Wednesday unveiled its technology and announced that it is delivering batteries with unprecedented power, safety, and life as compared to conventional Lithium technology. A123Systems’ first battery is now in production and being delivered to the Black Decker Corporation (NYSE: BDK). It will be first utilized by the corporation’s DeWALT brand, a leading manufacturer of power tools.Advanced PerformanceA123Systems’ battery technology delivers up to 10X longer life, 5X power gains and dramatically faster charge time over conventional high power battery technology, as validated by independent testing at Motorola and government research labs. A123Systems’ batteries use proprietary nanoscale electrode technology built on research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and exclusively licensed from MIT. “A123's revolutionary technology will enable manufacturers to improve the performance and form factor of existing high-power portable devices and to transform products currently dependent on power cords and sockets into a new class of portable devices,” said David Vieau, CEO and president of A123Systems. “We expect that our technology will have the same impact on high-power products as the introduction of first generation Lithium-ion technology had on the development and commercialization of consumer electronics in the 1990s.”A123Systems’ initial family of batteries is targeted at applications that require high power, high levels of safety, and longer life. These include power tools, advanced medical devices, hybrid electric vehicles, mobility products such as electric scooters, robotics, and consumer electronics. High Power. A123Systems’ first product packs up to five times the power density of current rechargeable, high power batteries. In addition, the battery has the ability to recharge to 90% of its capacity in five minutes. http://www.opensourceenergy.org/C17/News%20Viewer/default.aspx?ID=1041Electric cars anyone? 5X power density and 90% recharge in 5 minutes. We were just discussing this on Vortex a few months ago, a Japanese car maker who was working on a 5 minute rechargable battery. This will bring electric vehicles into the mainstream. With power densities and recharge rates like these, electric vehicles with considerable range and flexibility will bea reality in a few years.
Deriving Power from Atmospheric Pressure Differences
Deriving Power from Atmospheric Pressure Differences over Geographically-Spaced SitesNew method of power generation will harness the difference in atmospheric pressure between locations 100 to 200 miles apart, with reliability comparable to coal, nuclear, gas, and hydro, but at a cost substantially lower, and with no pollution."This is the first alternative energy technology to come along that has a reliability factor adequate to actually serve as a 'core' generating technology, and not just as a back up or supplement to the grid." -- John R. Crocker, COOCold Energy, LLC, Oct. 26, 2005by Sterling D. AllanOpen Source Energy News -- ExclusiveDiagram from Mamo's patent illustrating three conduits over vast distances. In practice, the distances could be much shorter.Pipes would convey the air which would travel at supersonic speeds.Patent 6,696,766 AbstractA system for the generation of energy based upon the differences in the atmospheric pressure at geographically spaced apart sites, referred herein as the "Atmospheric Cold Megawatt" energy producing system of the invention (hereinafter "ACM") comprises at least one long conduit, in the order of many miles long, preferably of at least two portions of different internal areas capable of conducting significant amounts of air there through. In operation the air flow in the conduit will accelerate to a high velocity wind without the consumption of any materials and without the use of any mechanical moving parts. A power converter, such as a wind turbine, in the conduit converts the high wind velocity generated by even minute pressure differences into energy of any desired type such as electricity. The opposite open ends of the conduit are located at geographically spaced sites preferably selected on the basis of historical information indicating an historical useful difference in barometric pressure. A plurality of conduits each having open ends in different geographically spaced sites may be interconnected to maximize the existing pressure differences that will assure higher and more consistent levels of energy production.Anyone who has seen a weather report has seen maps with high pressure systems on one part of the map, marked by a large, bold H; and a low pressure system on another part of the map, marked with a large, bold L. And there are the isobars – those wavy white lines that lie across the space between the two different pressure zones, indicating wind that flows naturally from the one to the other.Just think if you could run a pipe between the high and the low area and spin a turbine from the flow of air between the two locations.Unique Design Gains High-Grade PatentThat is what Cold Energy, LLC, is setting forth to do, and they have a "no prior art" patent to support them.Rarely is a "no prior art" patent awarded. Most are "me-too" designs, which don’t really have much that is new to offer, just a tweaking of earlier work.However, the late Anthony C. Mamo, co-founder of Cold Energy, LLC, and recipient of 124 high tech patents, was granted such a patent for his Atmospheric Cold Megawatts (ACM)™ system for generating energy from differences in atmospheric pressure.I was able to interview John R. Crocker, Chief Operations Officer and Managing Partner of Cold Energy, as he sat in a coffee shop in Fort Lauderdale, grabbing a meal. Ironically, the power is knocked out in his home from Hurricane Wilma.The scientific modeling Cold Energy has done predicts that this approach of tapping atmospheric pressure differences can yield copious amounts of energy. The effect is not just from weather differences, but can be seen in elevation differences as well -- like water running down hill.What about cost?Crocker said that a ACM plant could be built for about as much as it costs to build a coal plant of the same output capacity, but that the maintenance and operational costs would be far less -- and the fuel cost would be zero, including all associated costs pertaining to fuel: transport, storage, and other overhead -- all zero. And, there would be no pollution from an ACM plant. Whereas coal plant-generated electricity usually runs at around 4.5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, the ACM plant would run at less than a penny per kilowatt-hour.With two to three decades of data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) at their disposal, the company has ran analyses over a number of different locations, and with the help of interns hopes to have modeling for two to three locations for most countries of the world soon. "In reviewing that data, we have been pleasantly surprised at how many areas have a consistently adequate atmospheric pressure gradient between two or three places," said Crocker.Generating a Mighty WindFor example, studying five years of atmospheric readings from Flagstaff and Tucson, Arizona, with an elevation difference of 3,700 feet, separated by 250 miles, they found the
Re: Jed Predicting a gradual extinction of Cold Fusion?
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is pretty stark the way they portrayed you. Do you really think ICCF-12 will be the last? I doubt that. When that reporter contacted me, around August 25, I had just heard from the ICCF-12 secretary who was panicked because only 18 people had registered, and we need at least a hundred to keep the hotel reservation. (I do not know whether 100 have registered yet.) Fewer people show up at each ICCF conference. They are always the same people. Most of them are not doing active research anymore, and they present only a rehash of their previous work. Most of the ones who do not show up are incapacitated by old age, or dead. I had no idea that the situation was that dire for the ICCFs. I hope there were some late participants planning on coming to this year's ICCF in Japan. What was the high water mark for the ICCF conferences? Well, one thing is for sure, cold fusion is getting a lot more mainstream press coverage in this decade than last decade. I mean, just about every major publication has done some sort of story about cold fusion in recent years from Science to the New York Times. I believe the interest is there or these stories would not appear. All the ICCFs need is some decent developments, like commercialization, and they'll be turning people away from the upcomming conferences. I am personally more optomistic about cold fusion than I was a decade ago. I almost lost interst completely in cold fusion during the late 1990s, as developments were sporadic. Now, we've got the U.S. Navy having revealed a decade of cold fusion research in 2002 with positive conclusions and a luke warm review from the U.S. DOE in 2004 and serious commercialization development efforts underway finally from a number of teams (at least the ones we know about). I feel momentum in cold fusion, momentum that will not be stopped until cold fusion enters the mainstream either through undeniable experimental results or commercialization. Especially now with fossil fuels getting more expensive, people will be receptive to cold fusion commercialization.
Compact Flourecent Lighting Big In Italy
I just returned from Italy and can report that compact fluorescent lighting has caught on in a big way there. It is so ubiquitous that I didn't even notice it at first. A lot of restaurants and hotels are using compact fluorescent lighting throughout. The compact fluorescent lights were available in all stores. Gasoline was selling for between $1.25 and $1.50 a litter. Which works out to $5.50 to $7.00 a gallon after the conversions from liters to gallons and from Euros to Dollars are made.
Re: Rita
Thanks for the inside info. Rita is now the third strongest hurricane ever recorded with an enormous 70 mile wide eye. It does seem like forcasters are starting to shift the track towards Galveston/Houston within 48 hours. Look at the satelite pics, the storm has already started recurving northward. If Rita really socks Texas City and Houston where 25% of our gasoline is refined, then gasoline will go haywire. - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Rita Houston corporate limits allow the city to claim they are the 4th largest city in the USA. The "metro" area is ranked down as shown by Jone' chart. Two of our companies are located in the NASA Clear Lake area on Galvaston Bay. WE closed them down and evacuated at noon.I live100 miles NW toward Austin. Two of our family are still inside the beltway and expected to arrive here near midnight tonight. There is NO bottled water or ice anywhere in the region at present. Long lines at the remaining gas stations that have fuel. There is an estimated 2 and 1/2 million people moving out of the Houston-Galveston zone at the present time. Adding to the storm surge problem, severe land subsidence caused by ground water pumping . Some area have subsided as much as 14 ft over 50 year period of time andthis pose a real threat to the Nasa area. Of greatet concern is the projected location the storm will pass over the coast ( just south of Galveston). The potential for storm surge and tornados are greatest on the northeast quadrant of the eye. I have been through hurricanes on the coast for 78 years. The bad one in my lifetime was in 1943. 143 mph at the Ellington Field weather station. Folks ! The Houston-Galveston areacannot take the full brunt of a storm like Rita. The fallout would make Katrina pale in comparison. Should the storm sustain its fury, look for major gasoline shortages. This does NOT include the double whammy to the offshore oil and gas production. Katrina did some damage BUT Rita is passing right through the chain of offshore platforms at full fury. Any major disruption to the gas pipeline network will play havoc with winter gas supplies because so much of the nation's natural gas supply is now produced offshore in the gulf of Mexico. Even 100 miles inland we are anticipating wind gust over 100 mph plus tornados. Fortunately, our state has one of the best response programs ever as demonstrated by the Katrina organized response. Richard
Re: toyota going total hybrid
Toyota has also announced that they are working to cut the hybrid premium (around $3,000 for a Prius) in half. I think with gasoline prices rising in coming years, every car model will have hybrid option by 2015. Don't listen to the rhetoric about oil prices, just watch the price, oil is a very fluid market, the price tells us how available it really is. - Original Message - From: Alex Caliostro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: toyota going total hybrid September 14, 2005 Toyota Says It Plans Eventually to Offer an All-Hybrid Fleet By BLOOMBERG NEWS FRANKFURT, Sept. 13 (Bloomberg News) - The Toyota Motor Corporation said this week that all its vehicles would eventually be run by hybrid gasoline-electric motors, as record fuel prices curb demand for conventional automobiles. In the future, the cars you see from Toyota will be 100 percent hybrid, Kazuo Okamoto, executive vice president, told reporters in Frankfurt Monday, without giving a specific timetable. Toyota, Japan's biggest carmaker and second to General Motors worldwide, is aiming to make as many as 400,000 gasoline-electric vehicles in 2006, including Prius cars, Camry sedans, Highlander sport utility vehicles and Coaster buses, Katsuaki Watanabe, president of Toyota, said at an investor conference in New York Monday. That would be 60 percent more than 2005's objective, he added. Toyota has sold 425,000 gasoline-electric cars since 1997 and is trying to profit from its lead over General Motors and Ford Motor. Mr. Watanabe said he aimed to cut production costs and halve the $5,000 price premium on such vehicles, without giving details. Toyota has been the leader of the pack in environmental technology, and they will probably continue to be, said Norihito Kanai, an analyst at Meiji Dresdner Asset Management in Tokyo. Many of its rivals were at first not so aggressive in hybrids, but now we see everyone joining. Hybrid vehicles combine a gasoline engine with a battery pack that is recharged through braking. Electricity powers the vehicle at low speeds, enabling the Prius to go up to 55 miles on a gallon of gasoline, double the mileage of an automobile that runs on a conventional engine. A Prius hybrid carries a sticker price of $20,875 in California. The cost of those components makes hybrids $3,000 to $5,000 more expensive than gasoline-engine autos, according to automakers and analysts. Mr. Watanabe told investors he could not give a time frame for halving the price premium. Nihon Keizai reported on its Web site Tuesday that he gave a target of 2010. Fujio Cho, Mr. Watanabe's predecessor, previously set a goal of selling 300,000 hybrids annually worldwide by the end of 2005, and last year he pushed back the date to 2006. Jim Press, Toyota's United States sales chief, said a shortage of batteries and other parts would probably hold back production. The company is planning to sell 240,000 to 250,000 hybrids this year and a million a year by 2010. We believe that in 10 years the world will be filled with hybrids, Mr. Okamoto said. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/automobiles/14toyota.html _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org Edmund Storms wrote: In addition, if [Swartz] knows of any paper that is not on the site, which he thinks should be, he only needs to send a copy to Jed. Actually, Swartz tried to send me a paper on a CD-ROM, but I could not read it. I have had difficulty reading CD ROMs from other people too, including Storms. (Perhaps because that computer was defective. It died a couple months ago.) Anyway, Swartz and others should please send papers by e-mail, or, if the paper is too large (over 10 MB), upload them to a web site. If you do not have a web site, I can set up an anomalous FTP section of LENR-CANR, or find some other way to let you upload directly. Papers seem to be getting longer with more graphics, so this is becoming a problem. I encourage authors to include graphics and photos, by the way. Also, readers enjoy the Experiments section, so you should send separate photos of equipment. - Jed There you go Dr. Swartz, no more excuses. Send Jed your ICCF-10 paper and he'll publish it. It would be convient to be able to download the Swartz ICCF-10 paper from lenr-canr.org. A simple question to Dr. Swarts, is this paper that you have repeatedly requested to be published by Jed on lenr-canr.org avaiabble on your own website? If not, why not? That would be a simple way to publish it to the world, and then Jed could easily download it and publish it with your permission.
Re: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org
- Original Message - From: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:04 PM Subject: Re: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org At 11:42 AM 9/17/2005, John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There you go Dr. Swartz, no more excuses. Send Jed your ICCF-10 paper and he'll publish it. It would be convient to be able to download the Swartz ICCF-10 paper from lenr-canr.org. A simple question to Dr. Swarts, is this paper that you have repeatedly requested to be published by Jed on lenr-canr.org avaiabble on your own website? If not, why not? That would be a simple way to publish it to the world, and then Jed could easily download it and publish it with your permission. Also, the charge of censorship, which Swartz is obsessed with, is getting very old. Both Jed and I have told Swartz that anything he submits to the website will be placed on the website. We have no reason to censor his work. In addition, if he knows of any paper that is not on the site, which he thinks should be, he only needs to send a copy to Jed. Ed John, Thank you for your interest and misconceptions. It is a pain to respond to this nonsense again, but so be it. First, as in the past, any serious scientist/researcher/student on vortex who wants a copy of our papers need only send me an email. Many are available on pdf, and for the next week or so I will accommodate these requests (as before). Second, the issue was censorship by Ed Storms, which has been proven -- even corroborated by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, by Prof. Peter Hagelstein, by several of those censored who contacted me by email, and even by Jed Rothwell who corroborated such in private email to me lament that he [Jed] did not have control over Edmund. We previously sent copies of our papers to Jed and Ed [in hand, by CD-ROM, by email, etc.] and in the end, until a certain historian was contacted about 2 years later, Edmund Storms censored EVEN THEIR titles. Nota bene: Even the titles of our 3 papers at ICCF-10. And we were not alone, by the way. Third, incredibly, thereafter, Mr. Rothwell demanded to be able to EDIT them. Jed was given PDF files which he could not edit, and to this day, he has insisted that they be in ASCII so that he may edit them. That is, and was, not acceptable. His computer programming background is irrelevant. Over the years, Jed has made serious errors in his reports and translations, at least twice confusing 'anode' and 'cathode' and more. Although YOU and others may not take accuracy seriously, I (and we) do. Of course I take accuracy very seriously. Why wouldn't I? What is the point of publishing inaccurate information? I've read your complaints about Jed not publishing your ICCF-10 paper on lenr-canr.org for well over one year now on Vortex. I think it is fair to ask Jed that the original PDF (unedited) version of the paper be published on his website. I believe that almost always Jed just publishes the papers on his website as they are given to him. The editing happens when a paper is from a foreign source and difficult to understand and Jed edits them to make them easier to read, with the author's permission of course. It is well past time to put up or give up regarding publishing your paper online. Just send Jed the PDF version of your ICCF-10 paper today and give him permission to post it, and if Jed follows through the controversy will be over forever, problem solved. Jed, should be fair and accept Mitchell's paper as is and just publish it. To make it easier, perhaps upload the paper to the server on your website and give Jed the URL (even if you don't want to make it public). This controversy can be solved very easily by just a few simple steps. The last thing this field needs is senseless infighting. This infighting is not helpful to our mutual goals of seeing cold fusion recognized and developed for commercial purposes.
Re: Bearden
Title: Bearden Weather modification and control might seem really outlandish. But, we could be nearing the point where where weather modification and control could be possible. We do have a black budget infested government with plenty of spare cash and research space to pursue concepts like weather modification and control. Has anyone heard of the HAARP program in Alaska? That is an effort to control the ionosphere and related natural phenomenon with high frequency radio waves. Would it really be impossible to use this sort of technology for weather modification and control? No. Perhaps not a perfect science at the moment, but if you could engineer a minor storm into a major hurricane and generally control its movement within the confines of upper air steering patterns (such as using your technology to enhance a High pressure system to steer the storm in a desired direction), then you'd have serious power at you disposal. You'd have the power to enhance or destroy a storm like Katrina, or direct it towards or away from land masses. Katrina is going to cost an astounding $200 Billion. That's a huge tool for blackmail. I'm not saying weather modification and control are a reality in 2005, I have no evidence to support that conclusion, but it iscertainly not beyond the scope of possibilities in this modern era. One disturbing thing to consider is the fact that the HAARP program is now controlled by the Bush Family controlled Caryle Group corporation. That is a scary thought. HAARP could potentially be used for many sinister purposes including massive mind control and altering the natural environment. - Original Message - From: thomas malloy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:03 AM Subject: Bearden Vortexians; Correct me if I'm wrong but; AFAIK, Tom Bearden has yet to demonstrate a working machine. As for modifying the weather, IMHO, that's right out of the conspiracy theory fever swamp. Subject: FWD: About Thomas Bearden and Hurricane Katrina, et. al.Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:20 -0700Status: NormalFrom: Patrick Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]Save AddressThanks Janet!Subject: Thomas Bearden...Those of us who attended the New Energy Conferences held in Colorado in the early 90's had the good fortuneof hearing Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (retd) speak. Here is some of the latest from his website.Janet LeeLt. Col Thomas E. Bearden (retd). http://www.cheniere.org/toc.htmlPhD, MS (nuclear engineering), BS (mathematics - minor electronic engineering)Co-inventor - the 2002 Motionless Electromagnetic Generator - a replicated overunity EM generatorListed in Marquis' Who'sWho in America, 2004Here is the latest update from Tom Bearden on hurricane Katrina. He feels we are now into the kind of scalar electromagnetic war he has been warning about for years. This is from the correspondence section http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/index.html Tom Bearden. referring to the work ... US Patent awarded March 26, 2002. Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues. .. http://www.cheniere.org/ Source of foregoing quote by Tom Bearden: For specific (but not all) analytical details, see book by Tom Bearden, "Fer de Lance" (updated 2nd edition 2002), http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s64.htmPlease see the paper on my website listing more than a dozen of the known terrible falsities in the CEM/EE model, at link http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc . Another related paper is at http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/why%20Van%20Flandern%20waterfall%20analogy3.doc .E.g., in 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already highly-curtailed Maxwell-Heaviside equations. He thereby ARTIBRARILY discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, including those that freely take their excess energy from the vacuum, just to get simpler equations easier to algebraically solve. So he restricted our electrical power systems to only that class of systems that self-destroy their own energy extraction from the vacuum, faster than they power their loads. These STUPID symmetrized Lorentz equations are still being taught to all our electrical engineers as "gospel" and untouchable.
Re: Joel Barker
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:05 PM Subject: Joel Barker Google Alerts tells me that someone named Joe Barker has been promoting cold fusion power -- presumably our CF, not the programming language, and that he made statements about it at the recent SIMposium 2005 program in Boston. I have never heard of Barker, or the SIMposium (Boston I know about), but anyway, I looked him up and sent him a friendly message. It looks like Joe Barker is just using cold fusion (the energy technology) in the abstract during his presentation. He holds it out there as an example of a technology that could be a cure-all for future problems. He's certainly not promoting cold fusion or talking about the science behind it. It is interesting that he uses cold fusion as an example of a technology that could have a major impact on society to solve problems. A good indication of how people perceive cold fusion. It is funny how cold fusion pops up in the oddest places. It's definitely part of our culture in an obscure way.
Re: CF Suppression?
From: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold fusion is now at the engineering stage, well beyond the basic research stage. And as such, several devices and modifications of cold fusion can, and will be, patented. What is even more interesting is that in the years 2003 through 2005, the Patent Office frequently has cited the ramblings of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms on vortex (along with the plethora of usual anti-cold fusion suspects) to block American cold fusion patents applications. You can't seriously think that the patent office is blocking cold fusion patents because of anything said on Vortex by Jed and Ed? They've been blocking cold fusion patents for over 16 years now, well before this forum existed. Somebody has to get a European patent or Asian patent and market a cold fusion device. This controversy could end quickly if that happens.
Re: CF Suppression?
- Original Message - From: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: CF Suppression? At 06:41 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote: From: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold fusion is now at the engineering stage, well beyond the basic research stage. And as such, several devices and modifications of cold fusion can, and will be, patented. What is even more interesting is that in the years 2003 through 2005, the Patent Office frequently has cited the ramblings of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms on vortex (along with the plethora of usual anti-cold fusion suspects) to block American cold fusion patents applications. You can't seriously think that the patent office is blocking cold fusion patents because of anything said on Vortex by Jed and Ed? They've been blocking cold fusion patents for over 16 years now, well before this forum existed. Somebody has to get a European patent or Asian patent and market a cold fusion device. This controversy could end quickly if that happens. John: I said cited which has a clear meaning. In fact, by relying on such cherry pickings and the rants of the other 'usual suspects', it also demonstrates that the Patent Office has deliberately ignored open demonstrations of cold fusion by Prof. John Dash, by Dennis Cravens, and by my group, JET Thermal Products, which demonstrate conclusively that they have no foundation for their egregious behavior. In all due respect, that definitely seems like the onus is on the Patent Office not Jed or Ed (in other words it's the Patent Office's problem). Jed and Ed are doing their best to promote their views on cold fusion. If the Patent Office choses to focus on their views to justify their policies and ignore other evidence, such as actual demonstrations of cold fusion, it seems as if it's the Patent Office who isn't doing their job properly and burying their heads in the sand. The question is: Is this deliberate (i.e. suppression)? Anyone who thinks cold fusion suppression is too far out to even consider. Remember the people who control our government are the same band of Robber Barrons who have taken our nation into a very questionable war in the Middle East for oil These people will stop at nothing to protect their pet industry, the most profitable industry in human history, the oil industry. If they're willing to drag the nation into war and kill thousands for oil, what makes anyone actually think they wouldn't also use the Patent Office as a convient blocking mechanism to keep cold fusion from progession too quickly? It is up to cold fusion proponents to make an overwhelming case of cold fusion that can no longer be ignored.
Re: CF Suppression?
The whole issue of suppression would be put to rest if someone actually built a commercial cold fusion technology. How can you suppress something that is being sold at WalMart? I think it's a matter of cold fusion being a laboratory curiosity at the moment, a rather abstract one at that to most people, about as interesting as molecular biology or particle physics. Even if cold fusion can be observed at minute levels, as many of us in this forum believe it can, it makes no difference to the general public or most of the government for that matter. I'd chalk it up to more or less government incompetence and disinterest, with a sprinkle of suppression thrown in. Certainly the U.S. government hasn't been promoting cold fusion research or developments (as we all know they have closed the patent office to cold fusion and haven't provided an official avenue for funding), so we can't say they are promoting cold fusion in any way. We know they have some interest in cold fusion because the U.S. Navy has been researching cold fusion and there have been questions raised about national security and cold fusion. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someday it is revealed that there has been a black budget cold fusion project of some sort in the U.S. Government. In fact, that is highly likely as these energy barons and national security parnoidiacs certainly would want to see what cold fusion is really about for their own purposes. I'd say, that the U.S. government's disinterest in cold fusion is part of a broader policy of promoting the interests of big oil over all other competing energy technologies. We could almost as easily argue that the government is suppressing electric vehicles that could essentially put big oil out of business, as they show no interest in developing electric vehicles either. It will be up to the private sector and more likely enthusiasts and concerned citizens to bring cold fusion and electric vehicles to the market. David and Goliath. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:21 PM Subject: Re: CF Suppression? I find myself more in sympathy with Ed's skeptical point of view on the matter of whether the government has actively conspired to suppress CF knowledge as compared to tantalizing questions of inconsistencies suggested by the esteemed Mr. Beene. Granted, I could be wrong. Maybe there really is a conspiracy or two lurking behind the walls, but my gut feeling says no. I've spent a considerable amount of time smoozing with all sorts of folks who hang out in the highly contentious UFO community. Over there, a new conspiracy seems to be born every other day. Without fail most of the UFO related conspiracies have one thing in common: The Government doesn't want us to know what's really going on. You know, Dogs and Cat's marrying each other, which, in turn, would cause society to unravel at the seams. I can only suggest that it is important not to underestimate the power of IGNORANCE, and its partner DENIAL, to act as the proxy behind what is perceived as conspiracies to suppress information attributed to the government. This is not to say nor do I mean imply that the government is not above suppressing information it deems as not suitable for public consumption, particularly if it is considered an issue of national security or an embarrassment. (Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.) A good example of someone who obviously has stumbled across some truly extraordinary physical effects, see the Hutchison effect. There are some updated files out at American Antigravity. See: http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/214/1/Hutchison-Materials-Effects-Photos or http://tinyurl.com/8cjla There are new downloadable photos in ZIP format showing bizarre effects done to solid metal bars produced in Hutchison's lab. How could the government not be aware of what Hutchison has managed to do to solid metal. However, due to Hutchison's apparent lack of being able to follow anything close to what might be considered a linear scientific approach he has no idea how to reproduce his unique effects on a consistent basis. I'm sure this is precisely how the government would like to keep things, too. I understand he has had on occasion government personnel dropping by to observe the effects, and then they go away. I doubt Hutchison has received any support and/or encouragement from government sources to continue his research. Whenever possible it's best to simply ignore the troublesome individual rather than risking the possibility of making him disappear and all the unwanted questions and publicity that might generate. Meanwhile, since his results remain spurious (just like! many original CF claims) most scientists will never take Hutchison Effect seriously, leaving the government free to discreetly tinker away in their
Re: Bassage et al. achieve 110 mpg in a Prius
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Bassage et al. achieve 110 mpg in a Prius The Prius test drive we discussed the other day is complete. The team achieved 110 mpg with an unmodified car. Remarkable! See: http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/a/100mpgrecord.htm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05220/550484.stm 1,397 miles, 12.78 gallons, 47 hours . . . wait a second . . . That's 109.3 mpg. Average speed 30 mph. That's what I figured. It seems to be most efficient at that speed. - Jed Nicely done Jed! More proof we can solve our energy problems.
Re: OFF TOPIC Snide comments about hurricane Katrina
This horrific and largely preventable tragedy in New Orleans and surrounding areas should be a wake up call to all Americans that we need to change the course our nation is on. Because it's obviously the wrong course when something like this happens. We've neglected our country for far too long and this is the unfortunate fruit that is born of this neglect. Sure, we can't prevent hurricanes, but we surely can prepare for them and prepare to deal with the aftermath. Our preparedness and response was utterly inept. No reason to snipe about who's to blame at this point, we need to focus on ensuring nothing like this ever happens again. - Original Message - From: Jeff and Dorothy Kooistra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:51 PM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC Snide comments about hurricane Katrina My apologies to our Republican friends reading this forum, but I cannot resist posting two quotes here. And my apologies to our Democrat friends reading this forum, but... The Democrat Mayor of New Orleans left the buses parked rather than using them, as was the plan, to evacuate those who needed it. The Democrat governor of LA refused to put through the proper authorizations for the Feds to act. Today, the Mayor and the Gov cannot decide whther or not they are or are not going to force people to leave N.O. And so on... That having been said, the blame game is useless--I wouldn't bother with it except that the afore-mentioned governor and mayor were the first to scream that the Feds should have acted more swiftly, when it was their own incompetence that resulted in the vast bulk of needless death. Also, I really don't think the Democrat/Republican aspect is relevant--the Gov. and the Mayor screwed up big time--they could have done that as Republicans, too. It is not at all clear that the Feds made any major mistakes--they were, however, hopelessly under-equipped for this sort of disaster--FEMA does not have it's own fire department, nor its own police department--it is supposed to help MANAGE and coordinate available assets when asked by locals. It cannot send in the national guard, nor can it call on the military to go in. Granted, there are additional episodes of incompetence spread throughout FEMA--one does not discover who isn't going to be up to the job of managing a disaster until one has a disaster to manage. Almost all of the early criticism as been misplaced against the Federal government, but if criticism is to be leveled, it should start at the local level with the performance of those closest to the scene with the most immediate responsibility. In short, if Kerry were president, this scenario would have played out pretty much exactly as it already has, except the carping and bitching would be coming out of othe! r mouths. And that having been said, I will temper it with this--it is hard to govern a bunch of intractable, stubborn Americans who steadfastly resist doing what they're told to do, even when it is for their own good. If the mayor had sent the buses, would people have boarded them to leave, or would they have decided to ride it out anyeway? I don't know. For all I know, the mayor's inaction may not have resulted in a single additional death. Now is the time for partisans to shut up and start helping with the bailing, on both sides. Heads will eventually roll, and they should roll--but today is not the day to swing the axe. FEMA director Mike Brown was employed from 1991 to 2000 as the chief rules enforcer for the Arabian Horse Association. On Thursday he expressed surprise and consternation when told by a reporter that 15,000 people were stranded at the New Orleans convention center. Kate Hale, the former Miami-Dade emergency management director, said of Mr. Brown: He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm. As it turns out, the local officials didn't want aid to be sent in, even though the Red Cross was right there waiting to go, because they didn't want the convention center nor the Superdome to become a magnet for more people to head to--they wanted them to leave the city instead. It is very hard to blame Mike Brown for the sin of a local governnment that told everyone to go to a place where they were not going to have adequate food or sanitation if the power went out. Yesterday the Daily Show yesterday played a comment made by the Presdent's mother, Barbara Bush, during a radio broadcast. She described the people in the Texas Astrodome: . . . and so many of the people in the arenas here, you know, are underprivileged anyway. This is working out well for them. Now that WAS funny. Jeffery D. Kooistra
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
SNIP I cannot understand this anti-technology, Luddite point of view. Jed, I totally agree. A generation ago, the business establishment was calling environmentalists luddites for suppossedly opposing technological progress (I think they were just advocating an alternative approach). But strangely, this whole luddite term has gone full circle and now it is the American business establishment that can rightly be accussed of being luddites for standing in the way of technological progress that might reorder the hydrcarbon society and affect their profits. Businesses are more interested in just existing and protecting markets than solving problems or advancing to new technologies that might enhance life for everyone. This struggle to implement alternative energy technologies that are growing increasingly practicle is an excellent example of this luddite resistence in our modern era. It is very fortunate that in other countries, government and industry still plan and build for the future. On NHK (Japan national TV) yesterday they showed a prototype electric automobile being developed at breakneck speed by the power companies, Toyota and the government. It is based on the newest batteries. The range is 200 km, and it recharges in 10 to 15 minutes. It will go on sale next year, and it should be available in the U.S. in three years, just about the time the first serious U.S. hybrids hit the road, I suppose. It is obviously lead to plug-in hybrids as well. Thanks for the info. Sounds very interesting. We'll have to follow the developments. We're not far off from the point where electric could replace gasoline as the most versatile and least expensive option for automobiles. If recharge times in the 10 to 15 minute range can be achieved by the Japanese, that is a huge step forward. The range issues will quickly be worked out. Recharge time is really the limiting factor for electric vehicles at this point (6 hours in a long time and impracticle for highway driving). Electric makes sense for many reasons: - Electric propulsion costs only about one-tenth of gasoline propulsion at the moment (you can travel the same distance for 1/10th the cost using electric, perhaps more with gas prices at $3.00+). - Electric engines are simpler and cheaper to maintain than petrol engines. - Pollution can be controlled at the point of electrical production and more easily controlled (ultimately we'd like to see that point of production be a renewable energy source like cold fusion). - Switching to an electric vehicle energy distribution system would be rather easy. The infrastructure is already in place. Building charging stations isn't too complicated. Certainly the electric infrastructure would have to be modernized, made more efficient and enhanced to handle the heavier load from electric cars, but those changes are long overdue anyway.
Re: Alleviating Energy Costs
For anyone interested in aGeothermal Heat Pump, a system required for an average sized American home cost about $18,000 right now. Prices are expected to slowly fall as more people get into the business and supplies become more available. Some states offer incentives. My state offers about $1,800 in incentives, which is a little more than the sales taxes involved in the purchase of a geothermalheat pump system. Heat pumps concentrate the natural heating or cooling (depending on season) of the earth (usually around 58 F constant) using an electric heat exchanger. The heat exchangers are quite efficient and geothermalheat pump systems are known to produce heat at rates that are approximately 50% to 70% more efficient than a traditional natural gas or oil heating system. So, the cost savings can be rather significant, and help pay for the system over a period of time,when one converts to a geothermalheat pump system for their heating and cooling needs. If you really want to go green, you can produce the electricity needed to run your geothermalheat pump system via solar or other renewable means, and then you're really cutting yourself out of the hydrocarbon economy. - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: Alleviating Energy Costs Govt. poop. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=geo_heat.pr_crit_geo_heat_pumps "Geothermal Heat Pump: A geothermal heat pump model uses the thermal energy of the ground or groundwater as the heat source and heat sink for residential space heating and/or cooling. It may provide both space heating and cooling, cooling only or heating only functions. A geothermal heat pump model consists of one or more factory-made assemblies that normally include an indoor conditioning coil with air moving means, compressor(s) and refrigerant to fluid heat exchanger(s). In addition, some or all of the domestic water heating shall be provided through the use of a desuperheater, integrated demand water heater or a separately installed compressor that provides demand water heating. The geothermal heat pump includes all the equipment and connections from the point at which the ground heat exchanger enters the house, except for indoor equipment that was installed by someone not representing the manufacturer or manufacturer's representative, such as the g! round heat exchanger installer." Frederick
Re: How $1 trillion could eliminate oil
I have no doubts anymore that we now have the technology to eliminate most of our use of oil. From wind to solar to geothermal to waste to energy to advanced batteries. We could do it over a period of a decade or less with the proper investments. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:05 AM Subject: How $1 trillion could eliminate oil I wrote: For $1 trillion we could end the use of oil completely. We could replace it with something like wind-power generated hydrogen . . . Of course that is a very rough approximation, but I think it is correct to within 20%. It is not difficult to make a very rough estimate. $1 trillion equals $3,300 per person or about $10,000 per household. Taking into account all forms of energy used by corporations farmers and at home, the average household consumes about 3 kW continuously, I think. $10,000 would buy you 1 kW of nuclear power plus 2 kW of wind power, which would be more than enough to replace the energy used for transportation, even if we used hydrogen generated at home, with plug-in hybrids. (That is inefficient and expensive but it would not require much of a distribution network.) Actually I think $10,000 would be enough to eliminate 80% of oil and 80% of coal as well. Natural gas still abundant and it does not generate as much carbon dioxide so I would reduce it by, say, 20%. This would be done over 20 years. The $1 trillion would only be the cost of converting to new energy systems; we would also have to spend whatever we plan spend on fuel and new automobiles during this period anyway. When we finished, we would still spend almost as much for energy on a daily basis as we do now. In practical terms, here is approximately how I would divvy up the money per household: $4,000 for a plug-in hybrid cars. That is to say, $4,000 more than the family would spend for conventional cars. I am assuming that in 10 years nearly all cars will have to be replaced anyway, so the family would have to buy two cars in 20 years. The first plug-in hybrid car would cost ~$3,000 more than a conventional car, in the second one only $1,000 more. As I said earlier, for the average commuter a plug in hybrid car would reduce the use of gasoline by 90%. Delivery trucks and long-haul trucks would be a problem, and aircraft would still consume petroleum. $2,000 for conservation: improved insulation, compact fluorescent lights, better refrigerators, and so on. This would greatly reduce the need for additional generator capacity. We would still need additional generator capacity for the plug-in hybrids, but not as much. $4,000 for additional generator capacity, split between wind and nuclear power. Wind would be ideal for recharging automobiles at night with power supplies that could be controlled by the electric power companies remotely via the Internet, as we discussed here earlier. Nuclear power would be needed in places which do not have much wind, and during periods when the wind is not blowing much. About half of our electricity now comes from coal. I hope this can be reduced to 10%. As I said, this estimate might be off by 20%; it might take an extra $2000 per household (1 kW of wind capacity). On the other hand it might be substantially cheaper because this plan would call for roughly 200 new nuclear power plants, and I think the cost of nuclear power would fall substantially if we build that many plants. Nuclear power now cost roughly $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity; it might fall to $2,000 or $3,000. Uranium fuel is very cheap and abundant. Cleaning up spent fuel is reasonably cheap, but of course it is a huge political problem. Generally speaking, conventional alternative energy cannot compete with fossil fuel for two reasons: 1. Fossil fuel benefits from enormous subsidies, both direct and hidden. Hidden subsidies include the cost of war to secure oil supplies ($1 trillion), and the death of 20,000 people a year from coal pollution. 2. The startup costs for alternative energy tend to be higher, although the incremental fuel costs thereafter are lower for things like wind and nuclear power. The $1 trillion I am discussing here would only be used for the startup costs, not for ongoing costs such as fuel and maintenance. The most extreme example of high startup costs followed by low operating costs would be for space-based solar power. The initial startup cost would be astronomical. A small space elevator costs $6 billion and I suppose an industrial scale one would cost $200 billion or more. However, once the system is in place you can add another square kilometer of photovoltaic collection panels and microwave transmitters very cheaply. A space-based collector would be in sunlight nearly all the time. Transmission back to earth would be about 80% efficient, so overall this would be about 5 times more
Re: Gas vs. Electric Heating
Electric heat has never been competitve in most of the country. You rarely see electric heat in the NorthEastern U.S. because electricity is expensive here, well above 10 cents per kWh in most places. I pay 15 cents per kWh for electricity including about 2.5 cents for green power, but even without that extra green charge, I would still be paying 12.5 cents per kWh. Hardly worth going electric for heat unless absolutely necessary, for example when oil runs out and there are no alternatives. A better use of electricity to heat a home would be to install a geothermal heat pump and run that off electric. Geothermal heat pump heaters are 50-70% more efficient than gas or oil heaters and would use less electricity than straight electric heat. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:01 PM Subject: Gas vs. Electric Heating Today, I am paying $1.10 per therm for natural gas. This amounts to about 3.75 cents per kWh. I have an older furnace whose efficiency is around 80% increasing the heating cost to 4.7 cents per kWh. Add in the cost of the blower electricity and the gas service charge, and I'm paying over a nickel per kWh to heat my house. Electric space heaters are 100% efficient. I presently pay about 10 cents per kWh for e-. Rumors abound that natural gas costs will soar this winter. If gas doubles, it's cheaper to use electricity assuming that price remains the same.
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:28 PM Subject: Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta Kyle wrote.. I am a full timeClass A mechanic in the nearly jobless Buffalo New York area, bringing homea little over $12,000/yr. That, to say the least, sucks. Especially here .. Kyle , 12k is below the welfare rate. You would be better off moving back to ole Miss and get a job rebuilding gambling casinos where you can ride a bike to work. Richard --- Not a bad idea. The cost of living in Miss. is about half of New York and there will be a lot of work available rebuilding the Gulf Coast. I read that there is an accute shortage of construction workers along the Florida Gulf Coast that is hampering rebuiling efforts. Anyone who knows a trade that involvesrebuilding buildings has all the work they want.
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
Gasoline has settled at around $3.00/gallon + or - 20 cents in New Jersey. A rule of thumb I heard was that gasoline retails for about 60 cents above wholesale. Wholesale prices are around $2.40 today on the NYMEX, so $3.00 is about right. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta All is quiet in Atlanta today. I see no gas lines. The price settled at $3.15 per gallon, after the governor declared a gasoline price state of emergency yesterday evening. I do not understand why people were in such a tizzy. - Jed
Re: Civilization's thin vaneer
From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:46 PM Subject: Civilization's thin vaneer Watching the unrestrained looting via TV in New Orleans can give one an insight why the peopleneed the right to keep and bare arms. In times of great calamities, people show their base instincts were it good or evil. The police cannot cope with mass looting of this scope, just stand by and watch. the animals run wild. After the billions spent on FEMA, on the US Army Corps of Engineers, for flood and levee projects, for disaster planning, the city ceased to function and is underwater for several weeks. No water , no power,no hospitals, no services. As usual, the churches step in to help immediately whileBush decides toends his vacation.. well .. errr.. maybe just one more day and fly back to Washington to take charge. Meanwhile every church has a fellowship hall, food , kitchen, restroom, ready at a moments notice and functioning to serve. Richard This is one natural disaster that our government knew was going to happen sooner or later (like a big earthquake in California). The fact that there are so many problems afterwards, such as looting and even flooding, can partly be blamed on bad planning. This is another reason why the U.S. shouldn't be spending so much money on other countries. If we had spent the last few decades strengthening the levees and putting in modern pumping equipment with backup power, perhaps much of this disaster could have been avoided. How rational is it to rely on pumps that rely on grid power to operate in hurricane conditions? Of course, the power is going to go out in a hurricane and of course the pumps will stop working. Poor planning. They also could have inspected the levees with modern equipment over the yearsand reinforced weakpoints that gave away yesterday or redesigned them to be stronger, even rebuild them altogether and perhaps build tunnels to carry the water away from the city.I know it would have been billions to do, but so what? We just spent $300 Billion +prosecuting a war overseas, we can't spend that sort of money here to make a better country?!? This chaos in New Orleans is partly a testament to our poor planning as a society for an inevitable natural disaster.
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:30 PM Subject: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta a friend of mine with an SUV just called. She went to three gas stations in Atlanta and they were out of gasoline. The fourth one, Citigo, was selling premium gasoline at $3.50 per gallon and they expect the price to rise to $4.00 within a few days. I told her serves you right for driving that big car! It serves the whole damn nation right. I am sorry, but I have zero sympathy for people who drive gas guzzlers. They should have known this was going to happen sooner or later. I expect this is a deliberately induced shortage, and it will be temporary. Atlanta is gasoline pipeline distribution point for most of the East Coast and we have millions of tons of gasoline about 2 miles from where I am sitting, so I think is extremely unlikely there is an actual shortage. But fundamentally there is a worldwide shortage of oil and it will only get worse. My wife is worried there may be riots, but I doubt it. - Jed I heard on CNBC that one of the pipelines to Atlanta is expected to have power by tomorrow evening. Not sure if the gasoline will be flowing, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. I agree, this is just an indication of the energy problems to come. Now we can all see just how quickly a commodity can move up in price when it's in short supply. What will happen when peak oil is reached?
Re: Panic in Atlanta - Strange Commute
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: Panic in Atlanta - Strange Commute Panic sets in in Atlanta. 93 Octane is $3.89 and the lines remind me of the crisis of c. '76. Gas lines are spilling into highways and people are literally fighting. There is no pleasure in vindication. It took me longer to get home than when it snows. BTW, diesel is still $2.60. Yes, diesel here is also not tracking gasoline exactly?!? It's about 40 cents cheaper. Gas prices are all over the map in New Jersey, from $2.50 to $3.40. Just within a few miles you see a variety of prices. I saw a small line at a cheaper station. I hope this wakes people up, but that is doubtful.
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
- Original Message - From: Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, 31 August, 2005 01:30 PM Subject: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta snip I told her serves you right for driving that big car! It serves the whole damn nation right. I am sorry, but I have zero sympathy for people who drive gas guzzlers. They should have known this was going to happen sooner or later. You go too far here. I'm sorry, but I am sure I am not the only one here who is getting a little tired of the holier than thou tirades. You drive a Prius, that's great. Enjoy it. I'm happy for you that you are happy with it. But guess what? Not all of us make as much money as you do. I am a full time Class A mechanic in the nearly jobless Buffalo New York area, bringing home a little over $12,000/yr. That, to say the least, sucks. Especially here in the great state of New York, where everything is illegal, there are cops out to get your money to offset Albany's stupidity and the Erie county budget crisis, etc, where insurance is ridiculously expensive, etc. I barely get by. Most of the people here do. Do I just need to work harder? How? You try lugging around transaxles all day long, for 40-42 hours a week, see if you can work harder! Get it straight, now: I CANNOT AFFORD A GOD DAMNED HYBRID! All I can afford are old, used cars, which are your hated gas guzzlers. I work ~15 miles from home as well, you want me to bike there? In the snow drifts? Not to mention that the buses here are DREADFUL, never on time, and half the time don't stop for you, they just keep going. Wake up, there is nothing else I or a large part of the working class can do about any of this! You want me to drive a ULEV/Hybrid? Then you get someone to sell me one for a price I can afford. And at $12k/yr, it better be damned cheap. If you have no alternative for those of us who work our rear-ends off for so little, then I suggest you kindly lay the hell off. And by the way, as far as SUV's go, I hate the damned things, because they are built like %^$. I work on these things daily, and they are overcomplicated junk. If only I could find a nice, old diesel Dasher..50mpg would be nice. Guy down the street sold his a while back for $1500. If I'd have known, it would be mine now. The Prius is newI am waiting to see what happens when the windings get fried by the salt environment of good old Buffalo. Anyone ever hear the phrase shit happens? That's what this storm is all about. I'll bet dollars to donuts that this has nothing to do with global warming, which whether it is really that big a deal or not, whether we are the root cause or not, is the catch all for every problem in this day and age. People have to blame something, and to feel like it is our fault, and we can do something about it (whether we choose to or not) makes people feel much better than having to say, you know, we can't control everything...there are forces greater than ourselves, and sometimes we just can do NOTHING. I am sorry if this offends my fellow Vortexians, I am not in a good way right now. My hometown is Ocean Springs Mississippi, a 15 minute drive from Biloxi, and my family is there. No communications with them. --Kyle I just want to add that I too do not want to see people hurt by these price increases. I know many people are struggling. What I would like to see is pressure put on Washington to change our energy paradigm so we don't have these gas crises anymore. If Washington and the auto companies had pressure to produce more efficient vehicles, then even those of us, including myself, who buy cars in the used market would have more options to buy more fuel efficient used vehicles. Let's face it, we wouldn't be in the gas shortage pickel we are in today if we as a nation pursued more fuel efficient vehicles since the original gasoline crises in the 1970s. We got lazy as a nation and now everyone is paying the price. That is what I meant about waking up. I know individuals are often limited in their choices by financial considerations. -- John C
Re: NOLA Catch-22
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:53 PM Subject: NOLA Catch-22 Sorry I don't have the refs handy but from what I can determine: 1) The Corps of Engineers say that, with all pumps running (and the levee's patched), they can pump 1 inch out of the NOLA bowl in 44 hours. They say that it will take 9 weeks to take the water out. 2) The power company says that they can restore the grid in 4 to 5 weeks after the water is removed. But, as others have stated, the pumps run on electricity. We will eventually abandon most of New Orleans later this Century. Global warming will ensure that the sea retakes New Orleans either by more power storms or rising sea levels or both. This is the first shot against New Orleans. I guess the city on higher ground will survive, but in the long run the lower lying parts od NOLA will probably be returned to its owner (nature).
Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta
Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Gasoline panic has begun in Atlanta From: Kyle Mcallister From: Jed Rothwell snip I told her serves you right for driving that big car! It serves the whole damn nation right. I am sorry, but I have zero sympathy for people who drive gas guzzlers. They should have known this was going to happen sooner or later. You go too far here. I'm sorry, but I am sure I am not the only one here whois getting a little tired of the holier than thou tirades. ... [snip] FWIW, most vortexians completely understand and sympathize with the fact that low-income individuals families cannot afford to purchase expensive energy efficient hybrids. It is, in fact, one of the vexing problems with the current market of energy efficiency vehicles - they ain't cheap. Ya gott be rich to afford them. I can't afford one either. One of the reasons we agititate for a new energy regime such as cold fusion is out of concern for social justice. For those who are struggling in this world. Taking expensive energy out of the current economic equation would certainly raise everyone's standard of living in many ways. On our way to an exotic energy source like cold fusion or ZPE we can focus on some of the exciting new energy technologies from new solar schemes to highly efficient automobiles to bring about some energy parity. The way gasoline is racing higher this summer should indicate to everyone that gasoline does not have a future as a prime energy source.
Re: New Orleans: 80 percent of the city under water
The latest news is that they are planning on evacuating the entire city of New Orleans. This is the worst thing I've seen in my life in the United States. 1st time martial law has been declared since WW2. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:49 PM Subject: New Orleans: 80 percent of the city under water http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/30/katrina/index.html
Cost of Energy Independence Declaration in 2005!
Cost of energy independence declaration in 2005! What is needed?A solar electric system, strong enough to provide electricity needs for a 1,200 sq. ft home using the most modern energy efficient appliances and lighting, figuring a 50% drop in energy consumption over a typical American household with no drop in comfort. A 50% drop or more in energy consumption is very practical in 2005 with off-the-shelf technology from efficient ACs and refrigerators to florescent lighting (an alternative energy enthusiasts will live frugally). Let us assume that upgrading all your appliances will cost $5,000 (not necessary, but it makes achieving energy independence easier). Also assume that your car, either plug-in hybrid or electric will be hooked into your home based solar system for its energy needs. Assume about 140 Kwh of consumption per month for home energy needs after upgrading to more efficient appliances and lighting and perhaps another 80 Kwh per month for automobile transportation needs.A 3 kw solar system for $21,000.00 to provide all the energy needs of 220 Kwh home (a home that didn't invest the $5,000 in energy efficiency would have to install a 5 kw solar system for $35,000.00 (which is why the $5,000 investment in more efficient appliance makes sense). A home-based solar system is another off-the-shelf technology currently available.Energy independent heating/cooling could be attained by either expanding the solar system to 4 kW to provide enough electric for electric heat in the winter or more reliably, by choosing geothermal. We'll assume most people would want to go the geothermal route, as it is much more reliable than the sun in wintertime. A 3 ton geothermal heat pump system would cost $18,000 for a 1,200 sq. ft. house. A geothermal heat pump system is another off-the-shelf technology.A plug-in hybrid running on ethanol for transportation. A modified plug-in Prius would add about $3,000 to the cost of the car. Ethanol is actually cheaper than gasoline now, so that would be a net cost savings overall for the little bit of hydrocarbons you needed to extend your trip. If you work and drive almost exclusively locally, then a full electric could be sufficient for your travel needs. Of course, in either case, the electric would be produced via your solar system independently of the power grid.So, let's add it all up:New energy efficient appliances: $5,000.00A 3 kw Solar System for electric needs: $21,000.00A 3 ton Geothermal Heating/Cooling system: $18,000.00A Plug-In Hybrid: $3,000.00Your full energy independence in 2005 can be achieved for $47,000.00. State and federal tax credits could reduce this cost some more. My state offers a 70% rebate for a solar installation. So, my 3 kw solar system would only cost $6,300. My state also provides a $4,500 rebate for a 3 ton geothermal system, so, going the geothermal route would cost $13,500. This would bring my overall energy independence costs down to $27,800.There you have it, a person living in an energy efficient 1,200 sq. ft. house in New Jersey in 2005 can go 100% energy independent with off-the-shelf technology for $27,800! Now, if we were serious about solving our energy problems, we would, as a society, provide massive subsidies at both the state and federal levels to move people towards energy independence and build demonstration projects to prove it can be done. It's all a matter of putting the pieces together as I demonstrated above.Someone pointed out to me that a cheaper alternative would be to buy green power from one of the many green power suppliers that provide renewable energy delivered from the gridand take it from there with everything else for renewable energy living, thus decreasing your capital costs for a solar system. But I wanted to frame this example as an example of grid-free 100% renewable living. How much it would cost in 2005. Can it be done for a reasonable cost? I say yes! The same cost of a sizable car payment. At my current utility and gasoline costs, it would take 10 years for such a system to pay for itself I guess you would need a new car within that ten year span, but energy prices will also be increasing over this time period (perhaps dramatically), more than offsetting the new plug-in hybrid cost (which could be cheaper and more available when it comes time to replace the car in five years).
Re: Potential Disaster
This looks like a very serious storm. Let's hope the loss of life is a bare minimum. I hope people got out of the way of this storm. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Potential Disaster From: Terry Blanton Let's home engineers are conservative. Hope. Hope. Not 'home'. Jeeze, another freudian.
Re: ICENES 2005
Steve, Any good nuggets from the ICENES conference. Oil looks poised to go over $70 as Katrina is now a monster and is heading for the oil platforms off Louisana. John - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: ICENES 2005 Hi all, Just back from Brussels...everything went great with the presentations from me, McKubre, De Ninno and Frisone. Excellent receptivity from, and dialogue with that community. More details to come in New Energy Times Sept. 10. Steve
Re: ICENES 2005
From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Re: ICENES 2005 John Coviello wrote.. Steve,Any good nuggets from the ICENES conference. Oil looks poised to go over $70 as Katrina is now a monster and is heading for the oil platforms off Louisana. Doubtful that the City of New Orleans can take a direct hit from Katrina if she sustains the wind and tidal forces predicted. The city dike and levee systems cannot cope with a tidal surge of this magnitude. The city is below sea level in places and vulnerablefrom the lake behind the city. Offshore platforms are capable of riding out the winds but oil production will suffer.. too many shutdowns this year and some pipeline damage still being worked out. All spells opportunity for oil futures market speculators. There is no stabilizing influence in the foreseeable future to keep crude prices from their continued rise. This nation will pay a price for failing to have an energy policy in place. The insanity of it all is the potential for a crisis type event that would bring on a knee jerk reaction similar to the Homeland Security plan which is neither for the homeland nor for our security. Inthe movie .. "The Big Country" .. Burl Ives said .. " perhaps there's a side to you I never saw before" to Chuck Conners. So there may be a side to the combo Homeland Security and energy policy that we have never before encountered. Sheer insanity. Richard Well said. This does look like the nightmare scenario for New Orleans. A strong hurricane coming in from the east and south could spell doom. It will be an interesting 48 hours. Oil traders sold off the oil market at the close on Friday, down over $1.00. They thought Katrina would be minor and affect the eastern Gulf, away from the oil platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if oil opens at $68.00 to $70.00 on Monday and moves up from there. Supplies are tight already. If the U.S. brings 100,000s of barrels offline, it's likely to drive up the markets. I know this is short term, but the demand for oil won't let up, it seems as of there is a growing consensus that peak oil is nearing. On a positive note, there isALOT more talk about alternative energy these days. I see exposes on the mainstream news all the time about alt.energy nowadays. Even my local talk-radio station is starting to talk about alt.energy. Joe Schoes are calling in and talking about their alt.energy ideas and the radio host is also talking about it. They seemed focused on using extriment to produce power, not a bad idea really, there are technologies now that can convert extriment into oil and can convert the gases from sewage treatment plants into electricity. We'll solve our energy problems sooner or later. Personally, I'd rather be runing my car on cold fusion than extriment. :-)
Re: Cold Fusion Description
Yes, you can sense that the mainstream has changed their disposition towards cold fusion.nowadays. It's no longer dismissed out of hand or ignored as taboo science. They're still skeptical, often out of pure ignorance, but at least receptive to the idea of cold fusion. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:18 AM Subject: Cold Fusion Description Interesting that attitudes do seem to be achanging: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-cold-fusion.htm
Re: Off topic but important
Bush's poll numbers are below 40% positive in OH and MO. No way the Republicans can win in 2008 without either of those important swing states. - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Off topic but important Edmund Storms wrote: I presume that everyone who reads Vortex values truth and reality. If this is true, I suggest you read what is written at the following link. The question raised by a mother who paid a dear price is being asked by people everywhere. How big a lie must the government tell before honest people object and before the government is replaced? Do you really think that, by telling real whoppers, the government is likely to cause people to doubt them? It doesn't work that way. I mean, really, Ed, haven't you heard of the Big Lie strategy? The bigger the lie, the harder it is for people to believe anybody would dare to say it if it weren't true. As to when the government will be replaced if you mean voted out of office, it'll be in 2008, 2012, or 2016, I'm sure; very unlikely the Reps will stay in office longer than that, just based on historical patterns and how many problems they're building up for themselves. If you mean impeached, the answer's very probably never for this administration. High crimes and misdemeanors about covers what the Prez can be impeached for. Lying to the public almost certainly doesn't qualify. Ed Storms http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082005X.sht
And Then There Were Four
I just updated the Ongoing Commercial Developments section of the peswiki cold fusion summary. I now list four companies as actively pursuing cold fusion commercialization. JET of Wesley, MAis now included (JET should have been included originally as they are one of the longest established companies researching cold fusion). I alsoexpanded the Entergetics write up and included more up to date information on D2Fusion's plans. If anyone can contribute to this section, please either update it yourself or send me an email. Am I missing any companies that are actively pursuing cold fusion commercialization? http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion#Ongoing_developments
Is iESiUSA For Real?
I just tried to look up iESiUSA's patent applications and suppossedly approved patent numbers on the USPTO website. Guess what? Nothing by the name of iESiUSA or any of their provided number can be found in the USPTO database?!? What to think? Not a good sign from a company making extrodinary claims. Look for yourself: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html For the numbers, see: http://www.iesiusa.com/intellectual.html
Re: Solar Announces the Acquisition of D2Fusion Inc.
Great! They closed the deal for D2Fusion. There were some nice little nuggets in that press release. Let's hope they follow through and start making news later this year. Cold fusion is moving from the pure research laboratory to the applied research laboratory. This could snowball into an effort to be first with a commercial cold fusion product, as competition heats up. This would be the fourth cold fusion commercialization effort that is ongoing: For details on ongoing cold fusion commercialization efforts, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Cold_fusion#Ongoing_developments - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: Solar Announces the Acquisition of D2Fusion Inc. FWIW, This just in: Solar Announces the Acquisition of D2Fusion Inc. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_viewnewsId=20050819005367newsLang=en http://tinyurl.com/b7u3n Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Energetics Technologies LENR Patent
I came across a patent for a LENR generator today by the obscure Israelie company Energetics Technologies. The patent application is dated 12 August 2004.Can anyone give me a rundown about this company and how they are approaching cold fusion research? I can't find a website by them. If anyone knows of anEnergetics Technologies website, please let me know. The patent: http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-CIMAGES/view/pct/getbykey5?KEY=05/17918.050224 A low energy nuclear reaction power generator has different cells in which hydrogenous atoms are driven by different methods to increase atom-packing in a lattice and to increase the flux of hydrogenous atoms. An electrolytic cell is provided containing an electrically-conductive electrolyte, a glow discharge cell and a catalyst cell are each provided containing a gas, and a high pressure electrolytic ultrasonic cell is provided including a first section containing a gas and a second section containing an electrolyte, in which is provided an anode-cathode electrode pair. Applied across these electrodes is a train of electrical packets, each comprised of a cluster of pulses. The amplitude and duration of each pulse, the duration of intervals between pulses, and the duration of intervals between successive packets in the train are in a predetermined pattern in accordance with superwaving waves in which each wave is modulated by waves of different frequency.
D2Fusion Has a New Website
Looks like D2Fusion is upgrading their website. They profile their staff and even advertise for jobs. Hopefully we'll be seeing more developments from D2 now that they've been acquired by Solar Energy Limited. http://www.d2fusion.com/index.htm
D2Fusion, Inc. News By Late 2005
Media Primer on "Cold Fusion" News Given the almost unimaginable economic, social and political impacts the commercialization of D2 fusion technologies will have upon our world, journalistic interest in its infancy phase has been understandably quizzical but keen. The following selection of articles illustrate most aspects of the controversy and the so-called "conventional wisdom" today.By late 2005 D2Fusion, Inc. will be making extraordinary news of our own, but in the meantime we recommend the readings below to show how far the field has come in the very recent past. http://www.d2fusion.com/d2fmedia.htm
Re: CNN: Tinkerers fiddle with hybrids to increase efficiency
CNN: Tinkerers fiddle with hybrids to increase efficiency When these people claim to get 250 miles/gal using a modified Prius, what they really mean is that they get 45 miles/gal plus 205 extra miles because they charge the batteries from the electric grid. This is much different from claiming that the Prius can be made more efficient just by adding extra batteries. Using this logic, a pure electric car would get an infinite number of miles/gal. Consequently, the quoted miles/gal actually has no meaning. Regards, Ed Which is essentially correct. A plug-in hybrid electric auto would start to change the whole petroleum/ICE way of looking at personal travel. Travel would start to be calculated is miles per charge, rather than miles per gallon. Does anyone really think the oil industry wants people to starting thinking in these terms? Especially with electric being much cheaper per mile than gasoline with today's prices. Since going all electric doesn't seem too plausible at the moment. Using these plug-in hybrid calculations like 250 Mpg seems like a good way of conveying to the general public the potential of this technology. If someone used a car like a plug-in hybrid every day for a modest commute and errands, and plugged it in overnight, then 250 Mpgs could be a reality. The car would go 250 miles on one gallon of gasoline! What an improvement!
Yet Another Plug-In Article
Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg Sunday August 14, 4:23 am ET By Tim Molloy, Associated Press Writer Engineers Modify Hybrid Cars to Squeeze Extra Energy Out of Them, Boost Gas Mileage Up to 250 CORTE MADERA, Calif. (AP) -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car. Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb -- all for about a quarter. He's part of a small but growing movement. Plug-in hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling. And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too. So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them. They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories, said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy. The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg. The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day, Gremban said. The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference. Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power. Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price. But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids -- and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones. Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message. Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence. Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism. The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us, Gaffney said. DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available. Others are modifying hybrids, too. Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion
500 MW Solar Installation Coming to California
This is an incredible story. Using concentrated solar and the old Stirling Engine, a major Southern California utility just signed on to the biggest solar project in American history, a utility scale installation in the desert of California that will produce 500 MW and potentially 850 MW for around 6 cents perkWH. This will prove we can switch to alternative energy. Steampunk Solar Power August 11, 2005A new agreement was just signed by Southern California Edison to guarantee 20 years' purchase of electricity from a new 4,500 acre solar farm to be built near Victorville, California. The farm will initially be designed to put out 500 megawatts, but can be expanded to 850 megawatts. This will represent the largest solar power facility in the world, and will put out more electricity than all other US solar projects combined. Funny thing, though -- it won't use a single photovoltaic cell.Instead, these solar power generators will use a nearly 200 year old bit of technology: the Stirling Engine.Pretty much every time we post something about solar concentrators or home cogeneration or somesuch, we get a series of comments about the neglected beauty of Stirling Engines. Admittedly, Stirling Engines -- first invented in 1816 by Scottish clergyman Robert Stirling -- are quite elegant. Here's the Wikipedia entry on how they work:The Stirling engine works by the repeated heating and cooling of a sealed amount of working gas, usually air or other gases such as hydrogen or helium. The gas follows the behaviour described by the gas laws which describe how a gas' pressure, temperature and volume are related. When the gas is heated, because it is in a sealed chamber, the pressure rises and this then acts on the power piston to produce a power stroke. When the gas is cooled the pressure drops and this means that less work needs to be done by the piston to recompress the gas on the return stroke, giving a net gain in power available on the shaft. The working gas flows cyclically between the hot and cold heat exchangers. The working gas is sealed within the piston cylinders, so there is no exhaust gas, (other than that incidental to heat production if combustion is used as the heat source). No valves are required, unlike other types of piston engines. [...] The ideal Stirling engine cycle has the same theoretical efficiency as a Carnot heat engine for the same input and output temperatures. The thermodynamic efficiency is higher than steam engines (or even some modern internal combustion and Diesel engines).Stirling Energy Systems has been working on solar power generation units for 20 years, but this is the first serious implementation of the design. The SES website has a particularly useful visualization of how the systems work (screen capture to the left), and it's one of those systems that seems almost too good to be true. If it's so simple, so straightforward, why hasn't it been done before? Parsing through the Stirling Energy Systems website, it seems the answer is cost; until recently, putting together reliable, functional systems able to produce utility-scale amounts of power remained simply too expensive. If all goes well, the 20,000 dish system should be fully online by 2010. However, because of the modular nature of the units, the farm will start generating power as soon as the first unit is plugged into the grid. The cost of the project wasn't mentioned in the stories, but I saw a so-far unconfirmed report that power from this system is expected to run ~$.06/kWh, making it competitive with most other sources.http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003285.html#more
Re: IEEE Article on Plug-In Hybrids
I think the oil companies are terrified of plug-in hybrids. They opposed and defeated a very modest 1 MPG rise in gas mileage standards over a decade for American vehicles on the eve of the Iraq war. They know every 1 MPG of efficiency cuts into their bottom line. The last thing they want is vehicles getting four or five times their current gas mileage and they've set their Public Relations hacks lose against plug-in hybrids. This is the biggest threat to their markets ever. Also, plug-in hybrids are just a step away from full electric cars which would decimate their markets. Don't expect any help from the oil companies. Kudos to the tinkerers for pushing the plug-in issue by proving it can be done in the real world. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:57 AM Subject: RE: IEEE Article on Plug-In Hybrids John Rudiger posted; If a bunch of hobbyists can upgrade a brand new product straight off the production line to the extent they have then in who's best interests were these vehicles designed/produced in the first place? There are several potential explanations, engineers particularly ones who work for a bureaucracy, are conservative. fear of lawsuits, environmental considerations, cost considerations. To put it another way. Why were these vehicles under engineered to todays technical abilities? See above.
Re: ID and scientist fear
I have had some experiences with psychics that were very odd indeed. One picked up on a serious illness I had as a child that required months of hospitalization. She even honed in on the exact amount of months my hospital stay lasted. It was completely out of the blue. She was describing a very defining moment in my life as though she was there when it happen. I left her office with my head spinning?!?. It was the strangest experience of my life. It seeme to confirm to me that there's a lot more to life than meets the eye. I'm not surprised that other societies like Brazil don't regard psychic phenomenon as controversial. Some societies are more in touch with our spiritual selves. I think western societies like American and British are too rational at times and reliant on science to explain everything. There are some ardent skeptics who disavow psychic phenomenon strongly. I wonder how the Russians feel about psychic phenomenon? They seem to have done a lot of psychic experiments over the years. The original shamans were Russian indigenous peoples. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: ID and scientist fear A previous post mentions raises the issue of scientists being 'afraid' of some things. This is a little off topic but I recently attended a small seminar led by Russell Targ - of CIA/Psychic Remote Viewer fame. After witnessing several surprizing demonstrations, you leave with the feeling that, not only is this stuff real, but it's NO BIG DEAL in an emotional sense. He said that he went to a conference in Brazil and the reaction was something like why are you bothering with this? Of course, psychic ability exists, everyone here knows that. He was surprized by the difference in culture, even among the academics. I wonder about UFOs also in regard to this strange real, not real situation. Clearly, there are 'higher-ups' in Europe who think that American denials of UFO's are pure BS. The internal Cometa report in France showed this - with suspicions expressed as to why the US keeps fighting against disclosure. Some EU authorities were angry that US officials could glibly dismiss events like the Belgian Triangle incident in the '80s - in which an enormous black triangle floated thru the night skies, witnessed by countless authoritative people, photographed, tracked on radar, and chased away by NATO interceptors who couldn't catch it. An even goofier situation has prevailed in India in which the India Daily matter of factly discusses their military contacts with an ET UFO base located remotely in the Himilayas! You read the newspaper and it reports cricket scores, stock quotes, the latest business news and an editorial on why they should pressure the US on the subject in a very serious, non sensationalistic way. We live in a very strange world..
Anything New With iESiUSA?
I know it's still a long shot, but some of us are still pinning our hopes on iESiUSA to pull us out of this long cold fusion slump. Any late word on the goings on at iESiUSA? If you can'tdisclose anything at this time, no worries. I'm getting the feeling that 2006 is going to be the year for cold fusion's return. Momentum is building. All we need is a big development from a company like iESiUSA and the debate is over for good.
