On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Leading scam hypothesis does assume that Giuseppe Levi is a scammer and he is as bad as Rossi. So you are saying Levi wants to destroy his own reputation for no reason, for no possible benefit. There may be benefit, and he has retained plausible deniability, so the risk is small. That is true. The risk for Levi is negligible and he can always claim ignorance. Levi has very steady job at university and his pay roll is determined solely by his Ph.D level education and his work experience measured in years. If there are any deviations, Levi can just ask the Union lawyer to clear things up. His academic credentials are not based on how nice person he is but how peer review panels are rating his published articles: http://scholar.google.fi/citations?hl=enuser=vEZM3BQJview_op=list_workspagesize=100 So If Levi is making few dozens of kiloeuros extra money with Rossi with very little efforts, his involvement is more than justified. If I were in Levi's shoes, I would without any doubt help Rossi as much I dare. After all this is not an academic scam, because academic world does not take commercial level cold fusion anyway seriously! ―Jouni
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: In fact an independent test has been carried out. This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial relationship between Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist in all ecat tests, cannot be considered as independent entity. Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been arranged independent test. My personal opinion is that that Levi must be also key player in ecat scam. If Levi is honest, I do not think that it is possible for Rossi to fool him so many times and Levi not requiring more careful measurements. And since there is no radiation, I do not see that it is plausible have claimed levels of excess heat. Also Rossi lost his final bits of credibility forever when he childishly threatened Wikipedia with lawsuit. Only lunatics behave such a way and this is very common pattern for conspiratorial trolls to react when forum moderators do not listen them. ―Jouni
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat Presenting skepticism is very healthy. However convincing proof, if that is desired, is just that ecat is made to do real work while it is completely unplugged. Simplest real work could be heating a pool of water. Even short heat after death event is convincing if hidden power sources are carefully searched. But Rossi has refused to unplug the device after December 2010 test that was conducted by Levi privately (IIRC). December 2010 test is still the most convincing test, but it again does require that Levi is genuinely independent scientist and he is not paid by Rossi. ―Jouni
On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: if the people doing the test have any doubt about that, they can bring a portable generator. Portable generator is also fine and even better, because it leaves very little room for tricks and doubt. But after 10 or so demonstrations we have had only one portable generator and that also was brought by Rossi. ―Jouni
On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific and compelling evidence. I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk. It is not a problem. Both Levi and Rossi are public figures. E.g. Obama does not sue you if you are accusing him a liar from false basis or that you think that Obama has secretly visited Mars in 1980's. For me the evidence is overwhelming against Rossi and if Rossi is a scammer, this makes also Levi as a partner. Note that this does not imply that Rossi and Levi are doing something that is criminal ― they are just making money! Note also that evidence is only for me overwhelming. This means that my opinion is strong. However I do not claim that I have positive evidence for the fraud. It is just that my hunch is pointing towards scam. ―Jouni
On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I think this leading scam hypothesis is far, far removed from reality. How much money you are willing to bet? A couple hundred bucks maybe? ―Jouni
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Round trip to Mars would push radiation safety limits. Astronauts could easily soak up their lifetime allowance That is true. But also Mars voyage might reduce the cancer risk of smokers, because smokers are forced to quit smoking. Also cancer risk is small compared to the risk that something critical goes wrong. How big does the reactor need to be to get to push the Mars rocket to its destination in just a few weeks? Some calculations does require 200 MW reactor in order to get into Mars less than one month. ―Jouni
On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. That is very healthy attitude. Many people often forget how easy it is to create illusions and how hard it is expose them if the illusionist is let to pull the strings. There is very often the situation, that not enough independent data available, but opinions must be based on a hunch. What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires. Therefore most of the skeptics were just wrong, because they criticized Rossi's demos on a base of steam quality. This kind of self-assured but false debunking was very annoying. ―Jouni
On May 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: And in more complex systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs Does this apply to items of current interest? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How the world becomes lockstep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I Nice videos. I recommend to read Steven Strogatz's book Sync. There are more examples on synchronization: Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order http://www.amazon.com/Sync-Emerging-Science-Spontaneous-ebook/dp/B002RI9XBU/ref=tmm_kin_title_0/184-4128830-1234214 ―Jouni
On 26 May 2013 16:18, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure IF this made the V-list: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says Not very accurately written article, but the choice of photo and the caption in particular was very sharp. The basic problem with ecat really is that it was never unplugged, but there was always that small control power required for ecat operation. So they never unplugged ecat in heat after death experiments or in these hot cat demos. Rossi even said in October 6th demo that it would be dangerous to disconnect ecat during heat after death. Next time when there is Rossi-demo, someone should bring their own generator that supplies genuine AC input power. —Jouni
I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough that he receives enough capital for adequate living standards. There are plenty other similar hoaxes such as BLP, Steorn and Inteligentry who are running extended hoaxes. Although Inteligentry's tale is probably finished due to FBI raid. It must be understood that these inventions are the most important inventions in the history of industrial age. Therefore they are just too valuable to be kept hidden for decades. Rossi has been around already 6 years and he is doing still rather well financially. As successful and practical cold fusion would be pushing World civilization immediately into level 1.0 at kardashev scale, Rossi has delayed this transformation already six years due to his greed. Of course Rossi is not the greediest person who have ever lived, but he is just doing something that is profitable enough for extended periods of time. Soon Rossi is ready to retire due to age. If Rossi would go public with his device, Oil price would go down 75 % in just few months, because the average production cost of oil is $25 per barrel. This would be the first global effect and they are certainly not small, if e-cat's impact is measured in dollars. ―Jouni On May 22, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of my hoax theories? Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?
On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a gem. Indeed. This paper proves that Mr. Krivit's criticism on bad calorimetry was utterly false but Rossi has a method to import excess electricity into device that does not register on measurements. I.e. he has hidden wires. Rossi just keeps getting COP 6 with all his devices. I think that this is the most telling fact. In earlier demonstrations having steam there was a good distraction, but this demo tells directly that it is about falsified electricity readings. I think that this is the reason, why science does not approve black box demonstrations. They are too easy to counterfeit! It is just required one David Copperfield for designing the good illusion. ―Jouni
On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the application frequently sucks! Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other times. I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. ―Jouni
On Apr 28, 2013, at 5:55 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it is reasonable to call this kind of fusion clean in relation to fission, but the label makes it easy to lose sight of the fact that it is not all that clean. Hot Fusion (if it is even possible in practice, it is very possibly just a pipe dream) is only cleaner than light water fission reactors. It is not cleaner than thorium fission nukes or other 4th gen nukes. In fact the production of radioactive waste in 4th gen fission plants could be negative, because they can burn also fission waste from light water reactors. Too bad, that advanced fission is very well explored and it is not economically feasible and as electricity generation cost is getting down due to renewables, it will be even less feasible in the future. However Fusion is even less economical than 4th gen fission. There is just no room in the near future grid for nuclear power. Too bad for the nukes that battery technology and solar panels are getting exponentially cheaper, because there are no moving parts. By 2017–2020 electric vehicles are cheaper than ICE vehicles. By 2017–2020 utility solar power is cheaper than coal power. By 2013 rooftop solar (with 100 % on-site electricity consumption) is cheaper than grid electricity. —Jouni
I think that money in North Korea is slightly different thing compared on what we have used to. This does not however make this topic any less depressing. Interesting thing that I learned today was that Costa Rica abolished their military altogether in 1948 and they have had plenty of resources to be spent on education and wellbeing. Costa Rica is now the happiest nation in the world! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces ―Jouni On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: NHK reported the other day that the money North Korea has spent on its rocked and nuclear bomb tests in the last few years has been enough to buy enough corn to feed the entire population for three years. Elsewhere I read that North Korea's GDP is $40 billion. Samsung's annual sales are $220 billion, a factor 5.5 times larger. Imagine Samsung trying to develop missiles and nuclear weapons. South Korea's GDP is $1.1 trillion. - Jed
On Mar 30, 2013, at 12:16 AM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: The full dynamic range of the eye is 1:100 which requres encoding of 20 bits per color or 60 bits per pixel, and the static range is 1:1 representable with 14 or 42 bits. Such pixels would be a much better choise compared top increasing the megapixel to absurd levels. My camera has 41 megapixel sensor and it does splendid work. In camera technology the megapixel count does not matter itself, but how large is the sensor. And indeed this 41 Mpix sensor is the largest of its class and thus the performance is best of its class. Because the individual pixels cannot get any smaller, then the actual sensor must be made larger to fit 41 Mpix. Therefore we need 100 megapixel camera sensors, because they collect light from large area and as a bonus they leave a lot of room for zooming in good lighting conditions. Perhaps you did not realize that in digital photography, the megapixel counting is not about making higher quality raw pictures but it is left there for zooming and cropping purposes and for low light performance and for noise cancellation. What if you retrospectively want to zoom into small detail of the picture, e.g. to identify what was that bird that was captured in the background? However, why we must mimic eye? Why not just increase the color channels? Birds have four color channels. Why not use six or more color channels in digital cameras? —Jouni
On 30 March 2013 19:46, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a photography expert retired from the NSA who made conventional film cameras with gigantic resolution, which he used to make landscape photos. He would blow them up to wall sized murals and every inch showed astounding detail. It took him days to take a shot sometimes because he had to wait for good weather. I don't recall his name. Yep, and then he bought Nokia's Pureview smartphone, with gigantic 41 MPix sensor and was amazed what he can do with 41 megapixels. He appeared on Nokia's commercial promotion video. I too do not remember his name. 41 Mpix sensors are amazing in good lighting conditions. —Jouni
Thanks for sharing this, German electricity production is very interesting topic, because it is sort of a sneak peak into the near future of energy. Having such a detailed graphs around is very nice. See especially page 16 graph. it is very interesting to see how well wind and solar are actually complementing each other. —Jouni On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A good set of slides: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2012.pdf
Model S won again one car prize. This time it was an international green car prize, not much competition there! The Jury commented: The Tesla Model S has wowed the world's press, and for good reason: It's a car from a startup maker that actually competes on its merits with vehicles from established global players. The Model S is fast and stylish, its high-end models offer more range than any other electric car, and thus far, it appears to be well-built and selling well. Now that it's in volume production, it can be argued that it is already the world's most alluring green car that's also practical and desirable. There have only been two pure electric cars with a sensible range, and both have been made by Tesla. Its Roadster would go at least 180 miles and the Model S a lot further than that. It also seats up to seven, is almost supercar swift, swoopily styled and recharge time apart and absurd width apart as practical as a family sedan. It's not cheap, but certainly isn't expensive for what it does. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/and-now-there-is-one-tesla-model-s-declared-2013-world-green-car-200452081.html —Jouni On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Tesla S, at its present rate of sales (500/week) is outpacing the Volt... despite its higher price and the lame story from the NY Times ... http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/28/tesla-500-model-s-cars-per-week-expandin g-in-us-canada-europe/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Fe ed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29 This is remarkable in many ways. The Tesla S is not only a faster, larger and better made vehicle than the Volt, the cost gap between the two is dropping. As one observers to recent comparative testing between sez: At the end of the day, it's like comparing Claire Danes [or a great Dane] with a Shih Tzu - they're both mammals but that's about it... http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-s-vs-chevy-volt-drag-race/ Go Elon, go ... winmail.dat
this is nice, I have waited this long time and data is finally here. Planck satellite data can make cosmology finally a real empirical science, not just playground for speculators. My predictions are that the flat geometry is confirmed and there are no positive evidences for inflation hypothesis, because it is a wrong hypothesis. Inflation, if it happened at all, cannot explain the flatness of the universe, but we need better models of cosmos. Universe must be gravitationally balanced, that is only thing that can explain flatness of the universe. This is my own prediction and this prediction differs wildly from mainstream interpretation of cosmos. —Jouni On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21828202 The first fractions of a second after the Big Bang cheers: Axil
There is no doubt about big bang cosmology. We know with very good accuracy that the universe is exactly 13.772 ± 0.059 gigayears old. For example the dating of second generation star HD 140283 supports well this age estimate. There are several other dating methods also. The problem is that standard model of cosmology does not tell what is the driving force behind the expansion. In the context of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation theory, big bang was impossibility, because the cosmos must be fine tuned with accuracy that is beyond anything reasonable. Therefore we know with 100 % certainty that standard model of cosmology must be false, because it is logically inconsistent and requires *ad hoc* explanations such as inflation hypothesis what is bad science. My conclusion is that because it is logically impossible that gravity is the driving force of the expansion, therefore universe as a whole must be gravitationally balanced, similarly that atoms are electromagnetically balanced. We can have balanced cosmos if gravity does not have net influence at much larger scales than super clusters. If we select proper geometry for the universe, we can have cosmos that is gravitationally balanced and the expansion does not depend on the energy density of universe. If cosmos is gravitationally balanced, then we do see universe as a whole as flat. If we do not like tweaking the geometry, other possibility is that antimatter has antigravitational effect and thus there is equal amount of gravity and antigravity charges in the cosmos. Problem is of course that we do not have detected large amounts of antimatter. Perhaps antimatter is dark! —Jouni On 19 March 2013 20:03, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: So far the microwave background is still best explained by standard cosomology. That doesn't mean big bang cosmology is right (since a flat universe obviously counts against it). The claim to fame of big bang cosomology is still the cosmic microwave background. No other cosmology predicted it. harry
I agree that renewable subsidies should be decreased as their cost is getting down. Roof-top solar can already almost do well without subsidies, because household battery storage and EV technology is evolving rapidly and retail price of consumer electricity is high. Wind needs some support, because offshore wind is still expensive. External costs for offshore wind are so low that it must be pursued at large scale although it might not be competitive with coal power. Also wind at free electricity markets is problematic, because electricity spot price is at lowest when there is high winds and highest when there is no wind. This equation makes offshore wind impossible investment without properly sized FIT. Problem with carbon tax is that it will cause problems for industry. Especially coal intensive steel industry is suffering from carbon tax. It is better to make tax payers pay, because industry needs cheap electricity most. Therefore positive clean energy subsidies are always better than negative carbon tax incentives. And I would include also natural gas as clean energy. Energy subsidies are effectively money transfers from service sector to energy intensive industry. This should be good thing because in modern economy service and finance sectors tend to be too big in relation to manufacturing sector. Only manufacturing is producing real economic growth where as service and finance sectors are only redistributing existing money, therefore energy subsidies are the best way to make economy more healthy and growth oriented. I think that this is the real reason behind why western world is in economic troubles. There is just too much money at service and finance sectors compared to manufacturing sector that is producing real wealth. —Jouni On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me they could fix this by tweaking the tax rates. Lower the subsidies for wind and solar a little. Increase the carbon tax. The net expense to the taxpayers is zero but natural gas comes out better than coal and little closer to wind and solar. - Jed
I think that only way to make natural gas competitive, is to start fracking in Europe. In France Poland and Ukraine, there is good fracking reserves for natural gas, but this comes with high environmental cost. Situation is indeed grim for natural gas, because gas price is rising and it is mostly based on imports what are expensive for economy as a whole. Also renewables are shaving the peak demand and therefore are making adjustable power production unprofitable. Even brand new natural gas power stations are in danger to be shut down, because demand for adjustable power is plummeting due to renewables. Wind and solar are correlating too well with peak demand. Also modern coal plants are fully adjustable and natural gas cannot compete with them at diminishing peak demand markets. —Jouni Sent from my iPad On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: As noted here several times, coal is actually increasing in Europe. They should do something about that. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/what-do-struggling-gas-fired-plants-mean-for-renewables QUOTE: The idling of power stations built to last a generation is holding back Europe’s consumption of the fuel. The region’s demand will drop 3.5 percent to 550 billion cubic meters in 2015 from 2010 levels, according to International Energy Agency forecasts. Russia’s Gazprom lost its position as Europe’s largest gas supplier to Norway last year as shipments slid, Societe Generale SA said. “The switch from gas to coal in Europe is a very serious retrograde step from a climate change perspective,” Dieter Helm, an energy policy professor at the University of Oxford, said by e-mail. “In Germany it is worse — building new coal power stations which will be locked in for decades.” - Jed
On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is a shame that wind seems to be hurting nuclear power more than it is hurting coal. Yes this is the real reason, why Germany is getting rid of Nuclear by 2022. As nuclear power is unadjustable, it leads into oversupply of electricity when solar and wind conditions are both favorable and demand for electricity is low. It is quite common misunderstanding that Greenpeace would be the reason why Germany is getting rid of nukes, but if you think even two seconds it, you realize that there must be economic reasons why Germany is getting rid of nukes. There is just no room for idealism at energy markets, because it is about big money! When the second unsubsidized solar boom starts in Europe, especially France will be in problems with its high share of unadjustable nuclear. Latest price update from Australia is that 5 kW roof-top solar with 10 kWh battery storage cost just around $130 per MWh. This is significantly cheaper than grid electricity for households in Australia. Solar panels should get cheaper around 30 % and batteries 8 % in 2013. In 2012 module price of solar fell 50 %. —Jouni
Nice article! I wonder when we can read similar article on Rossi Co. —Jouni On Mar 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: The Securities and Exchange commission charges: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp22639.pdf . . . have engaged in an olnlong fraudulent investment scheme that has defrauded at least 98 people nationwide out of at least $1.4 million. and about 17 pages worth.
Here is an interesting new study on using Moore's Law to predict technological evolution. The Moore's effect is surprisingly good at predicting and especially it does apply well on predicting the price evolution of solar electricity. How to predict the progress of technology MIT researcher finds Moore’s Law and Wright’s Law best predict how technology improves. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/how-to-predict-the-progress-of-technology-0306.html Here are two very good and up to date graphs on price evolution of solar in Germany during the recent years: PV-Preisindex (2009-2013) http://solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/PV-Preisindex-Photovoltaikumfrage.de-photovoltaik-guide.de-Januar-2013.jpg German Industrial Roof-to Grid Parity at 100% on-site self-consumption at the time of generation http://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/sites/default/files/imagecache/biggest/domain-6080/kuvat/grid.parity.png —Jouni
This is nicely done short video that illustrates quite well what people would like from the society. I would recommend to use two minutes on it, because it is interesting on sociological point of view. Viral Video Shows the Extent of U.S. Wealth Inequality http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/ —Jouni
On Mar 4, 2013, at 7:27 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Yes inequality of wealth will always be with us. As Vortex L is a science forum, then scientifically speaking what level of inequality would be preferred? Sociological and economical aspects are good to be considered. Inequality is not something that is discretely on/off but it is matter of degree and lots of grey shades. Platon was an advocate of inequality, because he thought that richest people should earn five times as much as common people. Is this good level of inequality? —Jouni
That was a good article! What bothers me most is that physicists often argues against MOND, because it is not comprehensive enough and must thus be discarded. I think that this is wrong approach, because what if physics is inherently dirty? That there are no elegant and universal theories? MOND explains well rotational curves of galaxies and is now shown that it is also predictive theory. But what if MOND fails in explaining the origins of Galaxies and we need different theories to explain those events? After all these events happened yet again at different cosmic scale that requires different theories. I have put my money on that there will be no dark matter that explains the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies. —Jouni On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We don't need no steenkin' dark matter: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
On 28 February 2013 19:01, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: My confidence level in Rossi has gone from 90% down to less than 5%. I would recommend to drop your confidence level to 0 %. I'm even putting a 10kw of solar panels on my roof-- a technology I had hoped would be made obsolete by LENR. Actually, solar power is from theoretical potential cheaper than cold fusion. That is because there are no moving parts in the solar panels. Also cold fusion / lenr to be cheap, it would require centralized power production but this is no good because transmission costs are far higher than installing roof-top solar. If home grid would go for direct current, there would be no need for inverters and transformers. Just plug in your iPad directly into wall socket! The cost of solar is diminishing exponentially. the average cost reduction of system price of solar has been 22 % ± 4 %-units per year for the last four years and there is absolutely no reasons why this trend should not continue still several years into future. By 2015 solar is globally the cheapest way to generate electricity. And by 2020 solar is cheaper than hypothetical cold fusion. Battery technology is also getting cheaper exponentially and the theoretical potential of nanoscale batteries is just unlimited. On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know many people who have met Rossi. Some have worked with him for weeks, or months, in his lab. I know people who tested his devices independently, in their own labs, when he was not present. Somehow I do not believe your testimony. There is no independent proof that would even suggest that Rossi has anything expect some excess money and plenty of free time. There are however lots of fools! However, as you said that Krivit is somewhat silly. It really does not require a genius in order to be confident that Rossi is bluffing. He is better just to be ignored, because Rossi is not by anymeans dangerous. He does not deserve attention! I think that this is why I am rooting for crowd funding, because science-ignorant venture capitalists are far too easy to fool. Just say, that if you do not invest your money, someone else will! There are far more wisdom in the crowd than in individual investors. —Jouni
James, I think that you should also consider that 2014 Mars comet flyby that is once in hundred million years event especially if it is going to hit the planet. Odd coincidence or is it just about pushing the Earth's space program ahead! If you have not yet read this Landis paper, I would recommend to read it because we must become a multiplanetary species. *Colonization of Venus* (by Geoffrey A. Landis) ABSTRACT: *Although the surface of Venus is an extremely hostile environment, at about 50 kilometers above the surface the atmosphere of Venus is the most earthlike environment (other than Earth itself) in the solar system. It is proposed here that in the near term, human exploration of Venus could take place from aerostat vehicles in the atmosphere, and that in the long term, permanent settlements could be made in the form of cities designed to float at about fifty kilometer altitude in the atmosphere of Venus.* http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668_2003025525.pdf —Jouni
I think that this is just nice to know study, but it does not put fundamental limits for the wind power utilization. First is that with optimal scattering of wind turbines, it is possible get significantly more watts per m². Linear rows are the worst in efficiency, but the science of optimization is evolving rapidly and I doubt that this was considered in this Harvard study. Second argument is that with advanced blades materials, such as carbon fibers and futuristic graphene, it is possible to make rotors up to 250 meters in diameter. This can boost individual wind turbine output up to 20 MW. With 20 MW off-shore wind turbines, the power density can be increased substantially what they modeled on this Harvard study. Wind Turbine Blades Push Size Limits http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/wind-turbine-blades-push-size-limits I would think that more worrisome thing about global scale wind production is how terawatt scale wind power production affects on global climate patterns. Some studies indicate that terawatt scale wind power production may have significant impact on global warming. However I think this as non-issue, because wind power is only good for northern European latitudes, because in the south, solar power with battery storage is the dominant way to produce electricity in near future. The cost of solar is getting exponentially cheaper as the global demand is ramping up to production of solar panels. In 2012 the price of solar systems fell 25 % in Germany and solar is now cheaper than grid electricity for the companies. The system cost of rooftop solar electricity is just 120–140 euros per MWh where as grid electricity costs 110–170 euros per MWh. And this in Germany that is located in latitudes near Alaska and is covered with clouds! And there is absolutely no reasons why the cost of solar would not fall another 25 % in 2013, because we are far from the theoretical potential of solar electricity. New breakthrough on advanced prototypes are reported weekly. Latest breakthrough lab prototype was on the utilization of graphene in solar cells: Photoexcitation cascade and multiple hot-carrier generation in graphene http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2564.html —Jouni Ps. thanks Jed for pointing out good argument that domestic cats are killing billions of birds but this is a non-issue, because unlike wind turbines, cats are cute! Only cat haters are using this as an argument against domestic cats. On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: “People have often thought there’s no upper bound for wind power—that it’s one of the most scalable power sources,” says Harvard University applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don’t seem likely to “run out” on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates behind it a wind shadow in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 Watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 Watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power?et_cid=3110245et_rid=523913766linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f02%2frethinking-wind-power
In Germany there will be ca 100 GW solar installed by 2020. This is inevitable, because there just happened the crossover that commercial grid electricity is now more expensive for the companies than producing own rooftop solar electricity. Grid electricity costs for the companies about 110–170 euros per MWh where as rooftop solar electricity costs just 120–140 euros per MWh. The system price of rooftop solar has already fallen to €1520 per kW in January 2013. And as the crossover has now happened, it takes just few years to ramp up the global production of solar cells. This will induce further price cuts. Macquarie says rooftop solar juggernaut is unstoppable http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/macquarie-says-rooftop-solar-juggernaut-is-unstoppable-40618 For households, grid electricity is already so expensive in Germany that the payback time for roof-top solar panels is just 10 years. By 2020 payback time is reduced to five years according to UBS prediction. Also battery technology is getting cheaper very rapidly. Roof-top solar systems with batteries are predicted to be cheaper than solar panels alone by 2015. Wind power is also getting cheaper due to advanced blade materials such as carbon fibers. As carbon fibers are lighter than current blade material of choice fiberglass, this allows higher output of wind turbine. Graphene may be also coming rapidly. And if graphne is only half as good as promised it allows drastic cost reduction of wind turbines. Third piece in the energy puzzle is that half of the cars manufactured in 2020 are electric or plug in hybrids. Probably fully electric mostly. This is because the price of lithium batteries is halved by the 2020. As EVs are ideal companions for renewable solar and wind electricity, there is just no room in the grid for unadjustable new nuclear power and adjustable coal and natural gas must be subsidized so that they provide electricity when there is not enough wind and sun is not shining. There are deep economic reasons behind why Germany is getting rid of nuclear power. It is not just anti-nuclear idealism. —Jouni On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: How about throwing in some predictions on world resource use, nuclear power, wind power, robots, the erosion of funding for HF, or the zombie apocalypse?
It is good to remember that when electric vehicles goes into mainstream — around early 2020's, there will be (wireless) solar/wind charging option in every parking lot. Charging option will be free only when there is oversupply of solar and wind power. —Jouni On 15 February 2013 21:13, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/ There are only a half-dozen of these charging stations in the country, and the closest one for me is almost two hours away... but damn ... these vehicles are lust-worthy.
The bulk of the new 2012 installations happened on Q4. This amounted total of 8380 MW new wind power. This would imply that the capacity factor in 2012 was near 0.3 what is usually rounded up into ⅓. Official: US Wind Power Accounted For 42% Of New Power Capacity In 2012, Beat Natural Gas http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/31/us-wind-power/ Wind power is indeed coming in a gust, and and new wind is already cheaper than new coal power. The price of wind electricity in US is something between $50 to $80 per MWh what is quite competitive. There is still however a problem that when there are high winds, market price for electricity tend to be low due to high output of wind farms. Therefore small tariff would be good idea still to maintain. That decreases the risk of installing new windmills and thus accelerates the installation of new wind farms. There is however interesting to see that battery technology is evolving rapidly and the price point of batteries is nearly competitive. GE just introduced new smart windmills that has also a grid level battery installed, they will to be installed in Netherlands later this year. Rapidly evolving battery technology is also good news for electric cars and EVs could operate as great storage for fluctuating wind power output. Tesla will introduce on later this year new 120 kWh version of Model S. On daily driving usually 20 kWh is enough, therefore additional 100 kWh could be charged only during high winds or when full charge is needed. Also advanced blade materials are great. And carbon fibers could cut down the cost of windmills quite significantly, perhaps 30 %. Also ultra strong and ultra light graphene is coming and this could cut down the price even further. We already have tennis rackets that are reinforced with graphene! —Jouni On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a little complicated. Honestly, too complicated for a spreadsheet or for my limited mathematical abilities. We have a moving target and two sets of numbers, one ending in December and the other in November. There are reportedly ~60,000 MW of wind turbines in the U.S. as of the end of 2012. Would someone care to estimate the actual capacity factor of these turbines? I would like to know approximately how much energy these turbines produced. Actual performance is usually estimated at 1/3 the nameplate capacity. In other words, 60,000 MW of turbines should produce 20,000 MW on average, which over 1 year adds up to 174,720 GWH (or thousand megawatt hours -- the EIA's preferred units). The number of wind turbines increases in spurts throughout the year as new turbines are installed and new wind farms are put on line. These MW quotes are for total number of installed turbines. Total power increases, though some old turbines are removed or upgraded. Output energy also increases. As follows: Year (start of year; January), total capacity MW, increase MW over previous year, energy from previous year in GWH (1000 MWH) 2013, 60,000 MW, 13,124 MW, 125,914 GWH 2012, 47,000 MW, 6,800 MW, 109,521 GWH 2011, 40,200 MW . . . In other words, in 2012, energy increased by 16,393 GWH. That was coming from more turbines than there were in 2011, but how many more? The numbers increased continuously, by a total of 19,924, but a turbine installed in October 2012 contributed practically nothing to the 2012 totals. You could say that the 60,000 MW of turbines should have produced 174,720 GWH in 2012, but they only produced 125,914 so the capacity is lower than claimed. But that is not true, because most of the 13,124 MW added that year was not there at the beginning. Would it be reasonable to say the average capacity in 2012 was halfway between 47,000 MW and 60,000 MW? 53,500 MW nameplate, or 17,833 MW with the fudge factor of 1/3? That would produce 155,789 GWH which is still considerably above the actual total of 125,914. Using that crude method of assuming the average was 53,500 nameplate, the capacity would be 27%, not 33%. - Jed
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That would produce 155,789 GWH which is still considerably above the actual total of 125,914. Using that crude method of assuming the average was 53,500 nameplate, the capacity would be 27%, not 33%. I did more exact although still crude approximation using following formula: (47GW+(13.1GW−8.4GW)×.7)×.285×24h×366 = 125 900 GWh This formula considers that 8.4 GW was installed on Q4, therefore they are assumed to contribute less than 50 %. This means that capacity factor was near 0.285 what is quite good. Typically onshore capacity factor is near 0.25 whereas on offshore it might be above 0.4. —Jouni
It is surprising that everyone hates German wind power expect germans them-self. Windmills are very popular in Germany and local politician must do unpopular decisions such as reducing the tariffs, because German grid infrastructure has hard time to handle the peak loads caused by windmills. We could speculate that wind power is significant factor for the competitiveness of German industry, because windmills have been pushing down the electricity price. Especially the high price of daytime electricity has been reduced due to day active wind and solar power. There are 32 GW solar power and 31 GW Wind power installed in Germany. Average electricity demand in Germany is 60 GW. I calculated for german capacity factor 19 % from 2011 data. There was on average 28 GW wind power installed during the year and total output was 46 500 GWh. Therefore I would assume that your sources used misleading data. It must be considered that windmills in Germany are quite old. And efficiency has improved quite significantly in recent years. Also today the installation of onshore windmills costs just €850 per kW although just few years ago the cost was €1200 per kW. Also the maintenance costs has been reduced by one third. —Jouni Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Close to 29% I guess. Optimistic: The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.
I would say with 99.98 % confidence that anomalous cooling hints to the calibration error of instruments. There should not be any doubts for that. Cooling and going against the second law of thermodynamics, however is not that particularly surprising. Entropy decreased at large scale when the universe was just three seconds old. The primordial nucleosynthesis compressed huge amount of energy into protons and alpha particles. This caused entropy to decrease in isolated system. Also in supernovae explosions, entropy decreases when energy is trapped into atoms heavier than Ni-62. Hydrino formation goes also against the second law of thermodynamics and it causes thus the cooling of isolated system, because hydrinos are stable. However as I know that Mills' theory is wrong at fundamental level, this does not do as an explanation. However, hydrinos are interesting thought experiments, because it is trivial to envision logical conditions where the classical second law of thermodynamics will fail in isolated system. Is this then yet another failure for cold fusion, or is it still too early to tell? —Jouni On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The MFMP results are not looking very good at the moment as excess heat appears to be marginal or non-existent. However, the data now suggest the possibility of some slight anomalous cooling effect. I don't know if this cooling is real or the result some minor calibration error, but it raises the question of how we estimate excess power. Although we tend to associate excess power with anomalous heating, it seems to me that a system can exhibit excess power (or over unity) through either persistent anomalous cooling or persistent anomalous heating . But what if the system oscillates between periods of anomalous cooling and anomalous heating? Simply taking a time average would make the excess power appear to be much less or even non-existent. harry
Indeed, However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having fun! If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion. It is nicer, because it does not produce a neutron flux, but it emits fast protons. This means in practice that protons can be captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can be transformed directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%). This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are devastating for the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any economical prospects. However argument (3) is still valid and it hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion could compete economically with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen nuclear. China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled nuclear plant at Rongcheng. —Jouni Sent from my iPad On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved or even widely acknowledged. 1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it is not a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into tritium which is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this conversion process is not 100% efficient because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This missing tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with the added expense this gives. 2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a result, its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major problem and requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time. During this time, the missing power must be supplied by expensive backup generators, thereby increasing the average cost of power. 3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes, most of which have not been identified. These will only be identified after the money has been spent and the machine is put into service. Consequently, more money will be required, but at this stage too much will have been invested to abandon the method, which seems to be the case even now. The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money and will never produce commercial power. The method was given its chance to prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on. In contrast, cold fusion was never given a chance to prove its worth. Ed Storms
Jed and Ed! Like I have pointed out earlier, you will get plasma fusion budget for cold fusion research in no time using crowd-funding. It is easy to get few million dollars to finance initial experiments and if there is any positive or even suggestive results to be published, crowd funding potential will crow exponentially after each published paper. * I have recently become huge fan of wind power. Therefore I welcome Obama's initiative. It is very inspiring to think how drastically industrial production must adapt to the chaotic energy production conditions that wind power will provide. Factories must be redesigned from up to bottom, so that they can scale up the production according the electricity price. But I think that automation will help adapting. Wind power is great, because it is very cheap, if and only if power hungry society can efficiently adapt into changing power supply conditions. If it cannot, then wind power is very expensive. There is also one often neglected detail. First generation wind turbines are relatively expensive and they require rare earth metals. However second generation wind turbines are very very cheap because the bulk of the materials, such as tower, rotor hub and neodymium, can be fully recycled. Therefore effective life span for wind turbine is something over 40 years, not 25 years. This means that the electricity produced is dirt cheap compared to to thermal electric sources such as coal and nuclear. —Jouni Sent from my iPad On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying, for example: We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. As much as I support alternative energy, it galls me when I hear Obama say that. I just wish there was some way we could bring cold fusion to his attention. If we could have 0.01% of plasma fusion funding it would do wonders. Alas we are drowned out by the noise from others, and by the skeptics. Energy was a large part of his Recovery and Reinvestment act. This article is somewhat political but it describes this: http://failuremag.com/feature/article/the-new-new-deal/ - Jed
On 31.12.2012, at 23.27, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than jet fuel. That is not true. On board cold fusion generator might be slightly cheaper than current heavily taxed fossil jet fuel, but with cold fusion it is cheap to produce synthetic jet fuel. Producing synthetic jet fuel is mostly an energy issue and that is why it is so expensive and only Qatar can produce it nowadays commercially. In Qatar electricity is already free (of charge). I cannot imagine that in any foreseeable cold fusion jet engine technology could have favorable power to weight ratio, not to mentioning that there is not ever demonstrated a practical or even potential cold fusion reactor that is anything else but curious scientific anomaly. I do not see that current laboratory work of cold fusion could be scaled up for real practical reactor. It does not help that the hydrogen loading takes several months. Even then there might be some issues with calorimetry that the erratic power production with high error bars is not good idea when you are 30 km above the surface of Earth. Aviation is lot more than high fuel cost or bunch of thermodynamic equations. With cold fusion engine you would practically replace fuel costs into higher maintenance costs. —Jouni
I also recommend for reading Dickson Despommier's book The Vertical Farm that Jed already linked. It is one of those books that are very stimulating for the imagination. On 1.1.2013, at 20.11, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is an example of a technology which can solve many problems that many people think cannot be solved. Indeed. It is surprising, that people are mostly blind for the devastation that traditional agriculture causes for the nature. Ca. 80 % of fertile land area is in use of agriculture where as the rest of the human activity (including cities, high ways and strip mines) takes only about 1.5% of (fertile) land use. This graph is self-explaining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_land_use_map.png With simple arithmetics this means that without agriculture there is no need to worry with any environmental problems that are currently worrisome. Of course large scale vertical farming does require cheap electricity. However, I would predict that solar electricity will be cheap enough in 10 to 20 years. There is one curious detail, that unlike heavy industry, vertical farming does not require constant power production. Therefore vertical farming could be near term solution that could easily absorb output fluctuations in wind power production. This would be great argument from environmentalist point of view to invest on vertical farming, because vertical farming could make wind power far cheaper because it can absorb all the wind power generation fluctuations. People make Malthusian predictions of starvation from overpopulation. This is also sad misconception by the people. Ethiopia is perhaps the most fertile country on this planet. Ethiopia could easily feed the entire population of Europe if Europeans would be willing to buy cheap African grain. I say that technology such as cold fusion and vertical indoor farming can solve these problems and avoid a crisis. Solar electricity could be potentially far cheaper electricity than even cold fusion. Therefore we do not need to rely only on rather speculative cold fusion economy that is in a best case decades away in the future. We also need to control population with contraceptives, needless to say. I disagree. Venus alone could inhabit hundreds of billions of people. When we archive fully reusable spacecraft (my estimation is that first reusable spacecraft will fly in 2020's), we can start almost immediate settlement of Venus. With full reusability, oneway ticket into Venus costs just few hundred kilodollars per person. It is less than a bungalow on Western Earth. There are many promising technical solutions to our problems lying around unused. I think that Tesla Model S is one of the first sneakpeaks how technology can make problems such as pollution nonexistent. There is no need to make compromises with hedonism when we are environmentalists! Imagine an electric family sedan that accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 3.9 seconds and has a range of 400 miles. These are the specs of Tesla Model S with 120 kWh battery pack (available in late 2013). —Jouni
Indeed, lenr is no good for airplanes due to low power density and extreme cost of onboard power generators. Same argument goes also for fission powered airplanes, because high cost of fission reactor cannot compensate extremely cheap jet fuel. All plans for fission/LENR planes rely on assumption that the price of Jet fuel would increase, but this is silly assumption! Fuel/energy usually gets cheaper over time if we are looking longer trends. As Earth is globular, there is no need for longer flight distances than ca. 20 000 km. Therefore it is very practical to produce hydrogen using LENR or solar energy and then use hydrogen as hypersonic jet fuel. Artificial photosynthesis may produce cheap hydrogen for airplanes decades before LENR is practical. However, I think that while we are waiting for cheap hydrogen, there might be a niche for hypersonic electric jets. Right now energy density of batteries must be doubled in order to electric jet engines to be economically practical. As cost performance of batteries gets better ca. 7-10 % annually, and there are promising prototypes that might suggest doubling the energy density of lithium batteries, I would estimate that first electric jet will fly commercially in early 2020's. Main benefit with electric jets is low maintenance costs compared to jet fuel driven turbofan jet engines and ability to go supersonic cheaply. Turbofan engines cannot operate supersonic and conventional jet engines are as expensive as Concorde and afterburners are not practical. Biggest drawback is low energy density of lithium batteries and hence range is limited to few thousand kilometers. There is just no physically possible better aviation technologies than hydrogen + SABRE engine. This provides ca. mach 5.5 cruising speed at 30 km, what is good enough for near term aviation. Later in 2030's we might try to develop suborbital airplanes but this technology is of course speculative. —Jouni Ps. Happy new year! Top topic for 2013 is the revolution in transportation: new generation of aviation technology and breakthrough of electric cars. Tesla Model S was the first real electric car. Also solar electricity will be big hit of the year. There will be onset investments for large scale solar electricity production. By 2020 solar electricity is the primary energy source in sunny areas such as in Australia, Greece and Arizona. On 30.12.2012, at 21.18, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings All, Boeing is fully aware of LENR Cold Fusion..and yet they talk about batteries: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-sugar-volt-boeing-vision-hybrid.html My bet is that their electric plane never sees batteries-except for a temporary back-up. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
I agree, I have not read any post from anonymous Jojo for a while, but as I know, she has not contributed with much relevant information. As she is anonymous, I would recommend banning her, becuse she does not want to contribute with the high quality content. She does not even seem to know what here is off-topic and why it is off-topic. High quality content is always on-topic here. As she is continuos problem that is degrading the list quality, I would strongly recommend banning her. There should not be much tolerance for anonymous users, who are flooding the list with irrelevant content. Although Jojo is a girls name, I am not perfectly sure with her gender identity. —Jouni
Orbitec managed to pull out successful Vortex engine test flight. This is very interesting development, because it would make reusability of spacecrafts into realms of possibility. Reusability could potentially cut the launch costs into orbit by one or even two orders of magnitude. SpaceX has already managed to cut the launch costs quite significantly, especially if the next generation of Falcon rockets is successful. But still physical realms are harsh that there are no big cost improvements available if there is no more reusability. —Jouni A novel twist on space launches In October, a small team of rocket scientists gathered in the middle of the Mojave Desert to watch a launch they hoped would help change space flight forever. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121219-a-novel-twist-on-space-launches “Our vortex generator eliminates the high temperatures at the inner surfaces of the engine. You can touch the exterior during lab-test firings and not get burned.” —Martin Chiaverini, principal propulsion engineer at Orbitec.
On Dec 22, 2012, at 18:42, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: nice job, that remind me some hoover I don't see yet if it can help LENR rockets... I do not see what LENR (i.e. mostly speculation and fiction) has anything to do with rocket engines (i.e. science). My hoover (that is also manufactured by Hoover) can also separate dust using vortex, so there is indeed a corollary! I wonder if this design could be fitted into jet engines also? I have fantasied of plasma driven electric jet engine, because plasma state would allow maximal thermal expansion. But as plasma is way too hot for conventional materials, Vortex design is necessary to keep hot plasma separate from the engine structures. —Jouni
Actually, we will _never_ build large space or Mars colonies, because we have Venus for second home. Venus is after initial costs cheaper place to live than Earth, because solar energy at Venus is free (far cheaper than e.g. thermal cold fusion electricity could be), because outside temperatures are optimal for solar cells and solar flux is very high. The pressure problem however is really difficult and it helps greatly if orbital habitats are kept at low pressure. I could not even imagine comfortable living in vacuum. Imagine landing with airplane at worst and multiply that with figure 100. Then you should get a feeling how radically uncomfortable pressure changes are at high vacuum habitats such as in Mars, Mercury and L1 points. There is no such thing as routine when we are dealing with high vacuum. There is also radiation hazard in orbital habitats. Of course ISS will get company and I would predict that in 2020's we are starting to build second generation space station with artificial gravity enabled into high lunar orbit. Perhaps into L1 point, what would be suitable anchor for lunar space elevator. Near Earth Asteroid material is relatively cheap to collect into high lunar orbit and it should compensate higher launch costs. In that Popular Mechanics article there was one very good and urgent prediction, that Connecticut could alone feed the world if advanced vertical farming projects are utilized. Vertical farming is the key idea why it is so cheap to live in Venus. For Earth as a living planet, vertical farming is essential, because we have already solved all environmental problems expect those that are related to horizontal agriculture. With advanced vertical farming there is no more such thing as environmental problem that is uncontrollable. —Jouni On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This kind of thing is such fun! See: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/news/110-predictions-for-the-next-110-years I have a book from 1890 with predictions by people such as Westinghouse for the year 1990. A lot of them were smack on target. In some ways it is not so difficult to predict the future. The latest issue of Sci. Am. is devoted to future predictions. Most of the authors wimped out. They did not even take a stab at future computers. One of them said that space-based cities would have to have low pressure, which might affect the health of children. What a nitwit! Does he really think we can build cities in space but we can't develop materials strong enough to hold 1 atm of air pressure? - Jed
On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There is also radiation hazard in orbital habitats. Probably the biggest problem. Radiation shielding has been part of space colony proposals. Actually radiation shielding is simpler than what is previously thought, because Near Earth Asteroids contains lots of rubble that serves well as radiation shield. You want to build in a place it is easy to travel from. Easy to get to any destination from earth orbit. Hard to get to earth orbit from Earth. Hard from Venus. If we are to build colony for millions of people, I would guess that getting back from there is not important. People who move into Venus will stay there. In Venus there should be room for hundreds of billions of people in a long term. In Earth we are struggling with few billion (western) people, if there is not going to happen breakthrough in clean energy production. Solar electricity might get cheap enough also here on Earth to support civilization, but many people do not believe that the cost of PV cells will be halved every eight years ad infinitum. I believe that they do, but I will not give you any proofs. However, today energy production is utterly unsustainable, because energy production is based on fossil fuels and very unstable nuclear power. Therefore there is urge to migrate into Venus, where there is abundant energy resources. Once in space, you can use solar sails to move even very large mass, all you need is some patience. Modern ion engines are as good as solar sails. Such as well served Hall thrusters. There are also few promising concepts in drawing board. NEAs have plenty of hydrogen for ion propulsion purposes so it is not required to lift from Earth. Hope was, eventually, to build a space elevator. Earth bound space elevator is not good idea, because reusable rockets are cheaper to operate than space elevator. Also the development costs of reusability are lower and there is no need for qualitative breakthroughs in basic material science. And we do not have any means to estimate the safety aspects of space elevator. However in Moon we have possibility to construct space elevator in 2018, because it is possible within existing technology and it will cost only few billion dollars, including development costs. That is less than Curiosity rover! I would predict that space elevator even in moon will get obsolete in 2030's due to reusable space crafts and orbital refueling. But my estimation is that there is at least 10+ year window while space elevator in moon is profitable. For humans to live in space, the biggest expense is lifting *hydrogen*. Oxygen is readily available on the moon, as oxides. Hydrogen is scarce in space. Problem with moon is that there very little gravity. Orbital habitats are better, because artificial gravity could be more confortable. We do not even know how well human body will adapt into Mercury and Mars ⅓-gravity, but I would guess that well enough, as I am going to book one way ticket to Mars in 2013. However hydrogen is abundant. There is huge amounts of water-ice in Mercury and C-type Near Earth Asteroids and sufficient amounts of water ice in the moon. Basic specs for 1200 ton C-type NEAs: transportation cost to high lunar orbit (Δv 100-500 m/s) are 2 billion dollars (or less if Falcon Heavy will be as cheap as promised) and that will contain ca. 200 tons of water and 200 tons other volatiles such as nitrogen and carbon compounds. This is kind a silly, but there are billions of small (1200 tons) bodies near Earth that can be harvested as a resource. People just did not realize this before because we cannot see them. Currently orbits are calculated only for few dozen NEAs, but none of them are observed accurately enough that we could estimate the mass or type of NEAs. Hydrogen was thought to be scarce resource in space, because it was not found until recently. Therefore it has not made into scifi visions. Why Venus is ignored in all scifi visions is just something that I cannot understand. Even floating city in Star Wars relied on antigravity technology although it would be easy to float e.g. in Saturn where temperature, gravity and pressure are in goldilocks zone. Using hot hydrogen balloons for floating in Saturn is not anyway futuristic technology! —Jouni
It should be obvious that there is politics involved in climate science. There is just too much money and urgency involved. This means also corruption, because science is not clear and it is very difficult and everyone wants to see what the wish most. However, Jed is very right that overall ideas behind climate change are very solid. Of course there is lots of room for criticism as there are big uncertainties, however basic are on very solid ground. Best way to measure the climate change would be to measure the total heat content of oceans. This gives reliable result, if there is net warming or cooling or random fluctuations. Too bad that there is very little data available from Ocean heat content. However we have good data set from the last 10 years and thus we could see the trend in climate with very good accuracy within the next 10 years. As I have previously personally pointed out, that I prefer geoengineering over cutting carbon emissions. This is because, if Europeans would buy their food from Africa where there are the most fertile untouched farm lands, the regrown temperate European forests would absorb all European carbon emissions. Forests have very favorable effect on water cycle so regrowing forests is the best way to geoengineer the planet. Later in 2020's and early 30's vertical farming will bring food production back to Europe. And when vertical farming is the major way to grow food, there is no more environmental worries, because 98 % of all environmental degradation is caused by traditional agriculture. —Jouni
Elon Musk has recently brought an idea of multi-planetary civilisation as a serious near-term issue. His goal is to establish Mars colony by 2023 and later retire and die in Mars. He has also envisioned the idea of larger scale Mars-colony. Last week he talked about 80 000 Martian citizens as realistic near-term goal if reusable launch vehicle succeeds. Now he has upgraded his vision into millions! However, I think that there is not much prospects for large scale civilisation in Mars, because environment is just too hostile and energy production is a real issue, because winter in Mars is very long and dim sun could be blocked by dust storms that may rage for months. Therefore there is no life in Mars without nuclear energy and nuclear energy in large scale is just impossible with current technology. Installation costs of nuclear power in Mars are probably some few millions per kW and advanced LFTR concepts may reduce the cost just by one order of magnitude. There is also minor ethical issues to launch fully loaded nukes from Earth. However, there is no need to discard dreams of multi-planetary civilisation, because we have better place for large scale colony than Mars. That is Earth's sister planet Venus. Venus has mostly ignored in Scifi, after it was discovered that the surface is utterly inhospitable. However, this wrong, because the conditions at upper atmosphere of Venus are perfect for large scale floating human colony. These conditions at 50 km altitude are very Earth like, unlike the hostile conditions in Mars. Of course for short term goal, small Mars base is essential. Also we might need a semilarge Mars base to supply large scale Venus colony. Fully reusable rocket should be rather easy to maintain in Mars, because gravity well is significantly weaker. Therefore it is just cheaper to export essential goods from Mars to Venus than from Earth. Venus has not much to offer, other than the second home for earthlings. Even science is rather dull basic research. Mars has at least prospects for (ancient) life and interesting geology. However for the purposes of colony, the most important resources in Venus are very abundant. Most importantly there is a huge flux for solar energy. More than double that of what there is in Sahara. And it is also useful solar energy, because light is indirect and scattered from clouds and outside temperatures are cool enough (ca. 0-20ºC). Indirect light and cool temperatures are essential for PV-cells, because their power output and durability is depended on the temperature of cell. Therefore the cost of energy in Venus is essentially zero and thus Venus might be cheaper place to live than Earth! For other essential resources, Venus has lots of oxygen and nitrogen for breathable air. It is also possible to boost lifting abilities with helium that is also relatively abundant in Venus. However Ni-O is by itself very strong lifting gas, so it is no problem to create floating cities. Most of the corrosive sulphuric acid haze is between 20 km and 40 km. It can be harvested and used as a hydrogen source. This means water and it is a basis for organic and inorganic chemistry. Infrastructure in Venus is mostly carbon, aluminium and silicon based. Other metals must be imported from NEA-asteroids and from Mars, because their concentrations are too low in Venus crust for practical mining purposes that are not too pleasant. However, carbon fibres are very versatile materials, therefore abundant basic materials: carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, silicon, aluminium and magnesium are more than sufficient for colonisation purposes. When the space infrastructure is established, it is not too expensive to utilise asteroids as source for rare metals. We must just replace steel as a basis of civilisation with carbon, aluminium and silicates. This is possible, because the cost of energy is practically free in Venus. —Jouni Reference: Colonization of Venus By Geoffrey A. Landis (2003) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668_2003025525.pdf
On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The building is reportedly stronger, and more earthquake proof than conventional buildings would be, and despite that it takes less material to make. I would say that it is more resilient _because_ it takes less material to make. Lightweight steel frame is flexible and thus it can absorb the Earth quake energy. It is similar to that that electric cars are far simpler than internal combustion engine cars, therefore Tesla Model S is the safest production car and its performance and cornering ability are superior. Less is more as it is said. For vertical farms this is indeed very good technology. And although I predict more anti-urbanisation due to reduced need for farmland, the transition period will take some decades, so meanwhile this technology can offer decent quality home for millions of people especially in China and India. Anyway, right now vertical farming is one of the most important existing technologies that should be developed commercially more viable, because current agriculture is unsustainable. 98 % of anthropogenic land use is due to traditional agriculture. Vertical farming is similar in importance to solar electricity, electric cars and reusable launch vehicles. For the vertical farming technology, the key improvement is of course the development of cheaper energy production methods and better LED's. Solar energy is the number one short term solution, because solar energy is the most abundant and cheapest free energy source. Solar electricity should be cheaper than fossil and hydroelectric power by early 2020's. ―Jouni
Indeed Mark, the problem with cold fusion is that it is almost impossible to explain to skeptic convincingly. Sam Kean explained the problem with with cold fusion very well in his book Disappearing Spoon. Here is an excerpt from the book that I recommend to read. Jed does not like it, I know that very well, but the problem is how to explain the errors to the scientists. It is not that easy task and it cannot be just ignored arrogantly. This is, I think the main problem with cold fusion, that there are no easy answers to the criticism. Science is very hard, especially if it is required to rely on own intuition, without support from other scientist. it is very difficult challenge science, because scientists rarely make severe mistakes. That is because science is self-correcting institution and scientists are usually smarter than they look. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28230378/papers/Sam_Kean_on_cold_fusion_and_pathological_science.pdf I also recommend the book as general good science book, although it is not anyway special. —Jouni On 8 November 2012 14:04, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: there is no hope to convince people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client table, and that clearly work, even roughly. I could have sworn that was what I've been writing on and off for the last year or so! No one but scientists care if CF exists but isn't useful in the everyday world. The endless theories about how CF might work are, in practical terms, unimportant. If CF is shown to be useful, everything changes. All that is required is for someone or some company to fire up a CF device that has some measurable useful energy output and leave it running for long enough to convince everyone it's real -- that would be the kind of fact that I think Peter's referring to that would counter theanti-CF memes. In fact, Peter summed up the problem with the public perception CF perfectly: no continuity and no continuation ... not [correlatable] by some common logic ... [making it] very difficult to compose a coherent, convincing discourse. Now it's over to Mr. Rothwell to tell us why we're all wrong. [mg] On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: I agree 100% with Alain. Very powerful anti-CF memes are circulating and cannot be erased by words, just by facts. The many positive achievements of Cold Fusion from the past have no continuity and no continuation, are not correlable by some common logic techno(logic), it is very difficult to compose a coherent, convincing discourse- for example for a young absolutely ignorant, unprejudiced public. We need FACTS- new Facts. Peter On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: A serial innovator I'm in contact with, and who is working to make LENR a vector of energetic transition, told me that there is no hope to convince people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client table, and that clearly work, even roughly. However as soon as we have a machine on the client table, and that the advantages for the client are clear, nothing can block people to use it... no lobbies, no regulation, no fear... especially todays, where it is clear that people think that the system cannot continue as-is. what make me afraid is that the replication of LENR (like by MFMP), won't have any impact People , even open mind, seems not to be able to accept LENR. It must make a car run or a plane fly, and even, people will suspect fraud. normal poeple behave between SDciAm (don't look at facts) or MY (argue on tiny points to reject the mass of proofs) 2012/11/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama campaign. New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, gather support and encourage people to vote. I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the people in the Obama campaign to assist us. I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political in many ways. We must deal with political realities. Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists who
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:45 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I am afraid of the extreme democrats also. They want to take us towards socialism. I think that this is untrue. Most of the leading Democratic thinkers, such as Joseph Stiglitz, wants more Keynesian economy and Keynesian economic policy is mostly polar opposite to that of Socialism, i.e. planned economy. I would guess that the US economic policy from 1980's onwards has mostly increased the influence of Goldman Sachs and other big players over the people and economy. Therefore it is quite justified to say there has been a shift towards privately controlled planned economy. E.g. oil price has fluctuated chaotically during the last decade, because it is not controlled by the law of supply and demand, but mostly speculative and algorithmic high frequency trading. This kind of HF-trading is destructive to the economy, because it does allow value extraction from the economy. And usually the more unbalance there is in the economy, the more there are opportunities for value extraction ― and the middle class is always the one who is paying the bill! However the idea of Keynesian economy is to increase relative purchasing power of the people. This way there is created more demand to the economy that will guide economy towards more productivity, more jobs and higher wages. If common people has more wealth than he needs for basic needs, there will be immense potential e.g. for crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is more effective in weeding out the most successful start-up companies. Traditional venture capitalistic approach is immensely inefficient and there are huge amounts of resources wasted for unfruitful start-up companies. There is far more wisdom in the crowd, especially in the era of social media, than what venture capitalists has to offer, therefore the mis-investment rate is inherently lower in crowdfunding than with venture capitalistic approach. This crowdfunding is just one example why it is good for the economy that most of the wealth is in hands of the Keynesian middle class rather than in the hands of Goldman Sachs and mittromnies. As Mitt Romney created his wealth by extracting value from the middle class misery, and he sees nothing wrong in that, I would say that this is the most powerful and fact based argument to support Obama over Romney. ―Jouni
Well said Jeff, I have not followed it carefully, although Fisker Karma was major client for A123 Systems, and it is assembled in Finland. Therefore it was reported also in Finnish media. There was speculation that inadequate demand for Fisker Karma was a contributor for the bankruptcy. However i do not buy this excuse I would speculate that the real reason was that they started to do business with unfinished new product (Lithium phosphate battery) and they just could not make the technology cost effective. Therefore there was no point to continue, because it was not likely that the company could become profitable. Instead Tesla is trusting normal lithium ion batteries that have high reliability. Currently market for laptop batteries is 100 times bigger than for EV-batteries. Tesla's chosen strategy to use cheap and reliable laptop batteries was superior business idea. As Tesla manufactures own battery packs, they have pushed the cost already down to $600 per kWh and Elon Musk claims that they can still further push down the price. $600 per kWh is already starting to be price level that EV can bring better price performance than combustion engine in cars for higher middle class. If Elon can push the price to near $300 per kWh, then it would mean that Elon can sell every car that he can manufacture. Because already the performance of Tesla Model S is superior to that of combustion engine cars. Actually Model S performance is already similar than BMW M5. Both Model S and M5 cost around $100 000. M5 is slightly faster, but on the other hand, Model S accelerates better at parking lot! And probably Model S is cornering faster because of ideal center of gravity. —Jouni On 21 October 2012 20:15, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... Jeff
Jed, I think that Diamond's idea is old, although I do not know what else recent book you did refer. However, Alain refers to Hunt Lipo rat theory, where rats ate the seeds of the native forests. The theory was explained in their 2011 book, The Statues that Walked: http://www.thestatuesthatwalked.com/ But this is not what caused the collapse of Rapa Nui civilisation, but ultimately it was Jared's own favourite i.e. measles and smallpox (curiously the Finnish word for smallpox is translated as bigpox) did the final devastation of the population. As Hunt Lipo theory is based on widest yet archeological research I did find it sound and believable, and old collapse hypothesis is thoroughly refuted. E.g. if I recall correctly that Jared assumed violence in the islands due to hunger, diminishing resources and over population, but there is no archeological evidence to support overpopulation or violence. Also the moving of statues was not very large feat, because statues did indeed walk to the shores and they were definitely not dragged like Jared assumed (iirc)! There were roads constructed for walking purpose and always when the moving project failed and statue fell, those fallen statues were lying on their belly, if it was downhill and on their back if it was an up hill. Also the centre of gravity was as such that it supported optimally the walking. The larger the statue, the lower the centre of gravity, although sometimes statues were finished when they were at target location, to smoothen the excess belly. I do not think that there was deep religious reasons behind making statues, but they were made just because they could do it and there were plenty of excess food available to do such deeds. However I agree that forests are the key in environmentalism. The destruction of forests was not good thing for the Rapa nui. If we would just get rid of agricultural subsidies and protectionism, this would immediacy free the area sized of Brazil that is currently consumed by agricultural overproduction. Almost 50 % of US corn production goes for bioethanol production and just less than 5 percent is for human consumption. Also as there is no protectionism it would be good idea to buy food from ultra fertile regions such as Sudan and Ethiopia that are currently starving, because westerners do not want to invest for the irrigation systems and buy the cheap food what they could grown there. I would estimate that those two countries alone could import food for one or two billion people globally. And as there is no forests, the food production there would be environmentally sound, unlike in Europe where lust and temperate forests are mostly cleared because of the agriculture. There is also additional benefits that the regrowing of forests that is sized of Brazil would probably soak most of the excess greenhouse gases and store it to living biomass. And most importantly, forests has the key role of controlling and moderating the local climate as they increase greatly the local water cycle and slows down the rate how long it will take that water is flown back to the ocean. Currently observed desertification is not due to climate change, but because e.g. Spain is almost completely cleared from forest. And also some Amazon regions are threatened to collapse, because there is cleared so much of the forests that water cycle is disturbed. ―Jouni On Oct 10, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I've heard that the story of overcutting trees causing and ecologic is a legend. Not according to J. Diamond and other recent books. They cut all the trees to erect the statues. When a wooden British sailing ship arrived decades later, they came aboard and they were thrilled to see wood again. They reportedly stroked the wood in tears. It was one of the spooky moments in human history. We will feel the same way if we manage to flood the coasts and destroy North American agriculture with global warming -- as we may well do. We will pay a tremendous price for a trivial benefit. To say a few pennies per kilowatt hour we would destroy our food supplies and turn the whole nation into a stinking desert! - Jed
Jarold, no, it is not called socialism. See my first post in this threat. Socialism is based on public ownership of means of production AND the price regulation. If income is just redistribute via basic income, it does not have an effect of the ownership of means of production and definitely it does not have an effect for price regulation. On the contrary, because increasing median purchasing power of people will increase the power of free market economy, because free market economy is based on the supply and consumer demand. This is polar opposite to that of socialism and free market economy does work the better the higher is the median purchasing power of the people. Therefore only thing what distinguishes socialism from ricardian capitalism, that in ricardian capitalism Rockefeller owns the means of production and controls the prices, but in socialism state owns the means of production and controls the prices. For individual consumer they both are the same, because democracy is lacking in both systems. And indeed without keynesian redistribution of wealth and antitrust laws, Rockefeller would indeed have the monopoly of production. The new economic system that Jed is referring is called Keynesian redistribution. That was widely practiced in 1960's, that was the golden age of keynesian redistribution. However, I would think that we need to modify keynesian redistribution in various ways. I personally would like to call the new keynesian economy as Star Trek economy, where there is no scarcity of basic needs ― globally! ―Jouni Sent from my iPad On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote: This economic system has already been developed. It is called socialism, or what some people would call communism. When there is no more need for human labor, it is obvious that governments are going to have to allocate resources. Capitalism obviously won't work.
On Oct 8, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is quite different from saying that computers will definitely become sentient (that is, self-aware; conscious). We do not yet understand what sentience is so we cannot predict with confidence that machines can achieve it. I expect they can. That is an unsupported opinion. I agree, but I doubt that they can be sentient in foreseeable future. And I base my unsupported opinion that sentience is not just making an intelligent computer, but it is more about motivation. And in the case of human's the motivation to be sentient is quite strongly moulded by evolution. Also the difference between humans and most of the other smart animals, such as elephants, dogs and dolphins is that they lack motivation to develop themselves although here it is only a matter of degree, not qualitative difference such as between animals and computers. I would speculate that this strong motivation of humans, is coevolved with the language. Similarly as dogs are coevolved with humans, so that dogs can understand humans better than any other animals expect other humans. Therefore, if we are to make sentient machines, there would need to be preprogrammed huge amounts of irrational motivations, behaviour and sex drives to do, to progress and to thrive. Learning, reading books and thinking (what we are right now doing) is itself non-rational process and machine will not just get it without complex and subtle pre-programming. And the programming task is not easy, but it must probably be done using directed and accelerated artificial evolutionary process. But I doubt that that this is done soon, because while developing sentience we must face huge ethical dilemma that is it right to discard semi-sentient, lets say chicken level immortal and artificial beings just because we are learning to program cat level sentience? And from cat level, there must be created probably billions of sentient beings until we reach primate and dolphin level sentience not to mentioning if we want to go beyond humans. And also there is problem that it might be impossible to direct artificial evolutionary process accurately enough that it will suit our needs. I do not think that there are short cuts for sentience. However artificial intelligence is by itself evolving rapidly and I would expect that we will make a breakthrough in genuinely intelligent algorithms during the next 30 years. Although strong AI is like hot fusion, that it is always looming 30 years ahead in the future. And cybernetics is the way to go near future! I do not think biological carbon based computers (brains) have any special properties that cannot be emulated in silicon or other materials, but I could be wrong. Yes, I indeed thing that you are wrong, because silicon based brains lack the evolutionary process. Behind human brain, there is 200 million years of evolutionary selection. This is not something that can be done overnight. And I really doubt that kurzweilian neurone by neurone simulation of brain will bear fruits. But I could be wrong. In the future I expect every phase of house and building construction will be prefabricated. Only the final assembly will be on site. There will be two options. First is a prefabrication that will come in massive scale that everyone in the face of the Earth will notice it in November 2012. Because Chinese are going to prefabricate and assemble the world's tallest building that is to be completed in March 2013. There has already been prefabricated 17 smaller skyscrapers, but this one will be the biggest building in the world with 800 000 residential square metres. The cost of construction per m² will be just one sixth of that of Bjur Khalifa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_City_(Changsha) Note that in Wikipedia there is an old completion estimate in January 2013. Second option is just brute force 3D-printing of houses. This process will suit well for two storey bungalows. So, we have serious problem in near future. Do we want a mile high megacities where a single prefabricated skyscraper will actually hold the whole city with full city infrastructure or that everyone has afford to dirt cheap bungalows with huge environmental footprint? As due to virtual reality, distances do not matter that much. Build a custom home in 20 hours using a giant 3D printer http://dvice.com/archives/2012/08/build-a-custom.php Perhaps if we force agriculture to skyscrapers and deserts, then there is enough room for humans to live comfortably in bungalows. So we turn the idea of city and country side upside down. That in the future humans will live in countryside, while food is produced in the cities and skyscrapers! On the other hand, I see no reason why interplanetary human colonization cannot be achieved, with travel time between the planets of weeks or months. Contrary to popular belief, Venus is most
Daniel, the income redistribution at USA was at it's peak in 1950's and 1960's when highest marginal tax rate for the rich people was 90%. Record high was 94% at 1940's. This golden era of keynesian redistribution saw highest prosperity increasing economic growth in history, because almost all of the economic growth went for the middle class. And where else it could even go, if the marginal tax rate for rich was 90%? Then there came Ronald Reagan that wanted to cut the taxes of rich, and the middle class of America is now dying. 90% of americans must be really lazy as their annual incomes has not increased even for one dollar during the past 30 years! The tax rate of the rich has fallen from 90% to 15 % and below. ―Jouni Sent from my iPad On Oct 7, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This really doesn't make sense. All eagle species are flying species, but not all flying species are eagles. 2012/10/6 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Well, in fact, Income Redistribution is a quintessential philosophy in communism. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
hello Jojo, This Guardian article answers on behalf of me to you. You will probably just ignore this article, because it does not fit on your ideology, but still I would appreciate if you would take a look at it. Things are not always as rosy as they are meant to be. It is extremely rare that the richest are hard working entrepreneurs who are creating valuable innovations out of their irreplaceable mind. *Mitt Romney and the myth of self-created millionaires* *The parasitical ultra-rich often deny the role of others in the acquisition of their wealth – and even seek to punish them for it* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/mitt-romney-self-creation-myth No, almost all the very richests are financial speculators who are utilizing loopholes in legislation often by avoiding regulations recycling dirty money through offshore islands. Therefore they are more like criminals, because their contribution does not add value to the society, but is almost always destructive. E.g. Gina gathered huge profit from Australian housing bubble and the ones who paid her profit were common hard working Australian house owners, whom you classified as gluttonous, rebellious and lazy people. I am personally huge fan on Elon Musk, who is the living proof that single person can make the difference. However Elon is extremely rare example of the classical hero of capitalism. There are just not too many of those on the Forbes billionaire list who are also the chief designers of the best rocket ever built, i.e. Falcon 9, that is to be launched for the first commercial operation at this Sunday. I apologize about the political nature of this message, but I would guess that due to elections they should be tolerated if they are not leading into flooding the mailing list. —jouni On 3 October 2012 05:42, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** This idea that poverty is the root cause of criminality is at best naive and at worst moronic. This can only come from the liberal minds of socialistic/communistic people who think that Income Redistribution is the panacea for all societal ills. My friend, stealing from people who work hard for their income and redistribute it to lazy bums will not cure sociatal ills. You are smarter than to believe in that solution. Let's take a real life example. The United States has more felons and criminals on a per capita basis than any other country in the world, including such 4th world countries like the Philippines who are poverty stricken to the core. The United States is flushed in food and resources and conveniences, and yet manage to produce more criminals and felons than any other country. Please, I would like to hear your explanation why the US has more criminals than the Philippines (on a per capita basis). Jojo PS. The root cause of crime is not poverty. but rather the inherent sin and rebellion in the hearts of a glutonous, rebellious and lazy society. - Original Message - *From:* Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com *To:* email@example.com *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:50 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized I would think that only way to combat this problem is to eliminate poverty from the society. About 95% of the criminality is due to unjust distribution of wealth. This is not that individual humans would resort into criminality if they fail to find job due to high unemployment rates, but because children are crown in the conditions where no children should be allowed to live. Best way to eliminate poverty is to set zero income level for each individuals into 1000-2000 dollars per month. This can be done quite easily by distributing income more justly. When there is no scarcity of the basic needs, there won't be breeding grounds for violent gangs and violent larger scale religions, because every child will get a proper and free education.
Jed pointed out the economic problem that we are facing. But I think that it is more about semantics than the real problem. If we just change our language, then we can do correct economic policy, because this new-speak will inherently force us to think in terms what we do really want for the economy. (My reference to Orwell was intended although not in dystopic sense, but to underline the power of semantics at current political discourse.) On 5 October 2012 23:02, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I continue perceive myself as a capitalist at heart. I think that the main problem here is that terms to describe modern society are outdated and they are mostly meaningless. It is just mistake to think society in terms of socialism and capitalism, because both of them are outdated and they do not have had any relevance for the past 30 years. Just have a glance towards modern communist China and see that the divide between socialism and capitalism is silly. And also China is good example, that high corporate taxes seem not to restrain the economic growth, contrarily to some economic theories. Other even more more remarkable contradiction is that Denmark is classified as the most socialistic country in Europe due to highest tax rate in the world, but at the same time it is also the most capitalistic country because market economy is mostly unregulated there. One country cannot be at the same time the most socialistic and the most capitalistic country, because there is a logical inconsistency. Therefore it would be better to redefine term capitalism as an opposite to consumer demand led economy or pure market economy. Market economy on the other hand would mean that capital is distributed mostly for the 99% of people as purchasing power. This is quite useful distinction because it would clarify the discussion. If some country would be purely capitalistic, then it would mean that almost all of the wealth would be in the hands of bankers and venture capitalists and most importantly in the hands of those who own the means of production. And rest of the people, who do not own the means of production, would live in ricardian subsistence level income just like workers live and work at Foxconn's factory while manufacturing iPad's. In ricardian capitalistic economy, workers would not be consumers, but they would in effect be the property of the owners of the factory, although they are not technically slaves, because they can always jump from the roof and hence not to do work like it is too common practice at Foxconn's factory. This classical ricardian definition for pure capitalism would be most clear. The opposite for ricardian capitalism is however consumer demand led market economy, where commodity prices are based on the law of supply and demand. When we have pure market economy, there is hardly any capital available for investments, but entrepreneurs are forced to gain their cash for expansion solely from the sales of goods that they are manufacturing. It goes without saying that both are bad choices in pure form. Pure ricardian capitalism will suffocate the law of supply and demand because all the capital is invested to increase the supply of goods, but as there is no demand for goods, capitalists do not know what they should produce. Hence the housing bubble in Australia and elsewhere, where consumer demand was too weak to direct the investments reliably. And pure demand led market economy is also problematic, because if all the capital is in the hands of consumers, there is not enough capital available to be invested into means of production. And different crowdfunding schemes are ineffective and difficult to direct. But those two contradictory economic forces are not meant to be in existence alone in pure form, but we must find proper level that balances them and gives the best of both contradictory worlds.The whole is infinitely greater than the sum of it's parts. And as Jed pointed out. Robotized manufacturing and especially near future additive manufacturing will have huge effect what is the natural balance between the consumer demand and availability of capital. Because wages are inefficient to distribute the wealth, there must be highly progressive taxation that redistributes the wealth more evenly, because natural state of the economy is drifting towards ricardian capitalism. –Jouni PS. I just started to read Chris Anderson's new book: Makers: The new Industrial Revolutionhttp://www.amazon.com/Makers-ebook/dp/B008K4JDLA/ref=tmm_kin_title_0. I cannot say yet that it is good, but it looks interesting.
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:22 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I can't guess what effect the lenses would have, but I'm guessing it would be minimal, since they only appear to cover a fraction of the total area. Focusing the light with lenses will increase the efficiency of the PV-cell by 20 to 75 folds. So 75 fold increase in efficiency of PV-cell is by no means minimal improvement. The problem with PV-cells is that without effective cooling they will overheat in southern latitudes if they are facing midday sun directly for prolonged time ― even without lensing. And when PV-cells are overheating, it will reduce not only the efficiency, but also the lifetime of PV-cell is compromised. So lensing with conventional flat panels is pretty much out of the question, because effective cooling is too expensive to organise. However this cone architecture of solar cell does solve the cooling problem quite creative way, without increasing too much the total cost. Therefore, don't you ever use the common sense, because it is always misleading you! It is better to use scientific sense. ;-) It is interesting that the total cost of the electricity with this technology could be as low as $90 per MWh. This means that it is almost cheaper than conventional coal power. ―Jouni
On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's claims seem similar to many others, especially Celani. The most worrisome thing is that indeed Celani's quantum reactor does resemble that of Rossi's, because he too refuses any independent confirmation or replication of his technology, although technology is just too important to let into hands of few. ―Jouni
On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:33 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: With normal solar cells, the cell is exposed to the light 100% of the time that the light is shining. If the cell spins away then it clearly isn't exposed to the light, therefore during the time that it is not exposed, it generates no energy. I wonder what it averages out to if this is taken into account? Individual PV-cell is operating at 20x efficiency, because the light is concentrated with lenses. However as only minor portion of the cone is in direct sunlight at the time, the total amount of silicon required is only about 75 % less than with conventional flat solar panels. As the structure of the rotating cone and lensing system is far more complex than with flat panels, the cost effectiveness is assumed to be as a whole ca. 50 % better than with flat panels. The idea behind is just brilliant and it is a parade example of out of the box thinking, where traditional flat Earth thinking is replaced by something more three dimensional. The rotating cone design solves quite many problems that are major issues with flat solar panels. The heating problem is solved with effective and economical cooling system. This is perhaps the most important. And when there is less heat, the efficiency and endurance of PV-cells is far better. Actually cooling is so effective that it allows the lens concentration of light. For flat panels direct midday and midsummer sunlight brings too much heating even without extra lensing. The second most important thing is that as it is a cone shaped, it does not require expensive direction systems that follows the sun. If flat panels can follow the sun during the daylight hours, it is quite expensive to create robust enough structures so that storm does not destroy the solar park. Cone shaped solar cells have optimal aerodynamical properties and thus they require little reinforcement for the storms. Third is that the efficiency is better for rotating PV-cells, because there is less heat production. Therefore less cooling is required or lensing factor can be significantly higher. Also as only minor portion of the cells are exposed for the direct sunlight at the time, the longevity of PV-cells is better, because the lifetime of solar cells is directly proportional to the hours that PV-cell is in direct sunlight. Fourth improvement is that cone shaped solar cell can utilise also indirect sunlight. This especially important in cloudy days, when light is abundant but almost all light is indirect. And the fifth improvement is that due to rapid rotation of the cone, AC electricity can be generated without inverter. In small scale solar cells, the cost of inverter is about ￠45 per Wp installed. This is ca. 10-20 percent of the total cost of the solar power. In sum this is just superb concept and for me as huge fan of solar power, it was a love in first sight. Just look the shapes of the cone! I hope that it will come in different colours. ―Jouni
This is indeed a problem. Best 3D-printers can already produce jet engine grade components, although this technology is not yet available for the public. However it will be available some time in near future. Actually jet engine companies such as Rolls-royce does pursue 3D-printing not because it is cheaper, but because it promises lighter and higher quality components for the jet engines, because the metal alloy produced is almost without structural flaws that are inherent for the traditional metal manufacturing techniques. I would think that only way to combat this problem is to eliminate poverty from the society. About 95% of the criminality is due to unjust distribution of wealth. This is not that individual humans would resort into criminality if they fail to find job due to high unemployment rates, but because children are crown in the conditions where no children should be allowed to live. Best way to eliminate poverty is to set zero income level for each individuals into 1000-2000 dollars per month. This can be done quite easily by distributing income more justly. When there is no scarcity of the basic needs, there won't be breeding grounds for violent gangs and violent larger scale religions, because every child will get a proper and free education. Therefore weapons of mass destruction that can be 3D-printed in near future, does not posses major thread for the security of the society. If we do not have injustice, then people do not have urge to print and use weapons of mass destruction. Of course there will be always some individual lunatics, but if there is no organised violence, there should not be too much problems that we cannot handle. I really mean weapons of mass destruction. Imagine 3D-printed fully working nuclear bomb that only requires after printing to add the plutonium that is stolen from the Russia, North Korea, Iran or Libya. Of course this just extreme. Almost any weapons that can be imagined can also be printed. And better yet, 3D-printing does allow completely new designs for the weapons that we cannot yet imagine! ―Jouni Ps. I would not think that there could be less off topic post than this! On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Yikes! Didn't think of this . . . See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/02/_3d_printed_gun_wiki_weapon_on_hold_after_stratasys_revokes_lease_on_printer.html Every technology, no matter how good, can be used in harmful ways. - Jed
There are two kinds of ethers. First: the classical ether is extremely stiff medium where light waves are propagating, similarly like sound waves are propagating in a water. It must be hugely stiff, because the speed of light is depended on the stiffness and the speed of light is quite remarkable. There is slight problem that if ether as stiff that it allows the speed for light to be 300 Mm/s, then how on Earth there can be inertial movement around the sun! And if ether does not interact with regular matter, then how come we can see the light that is pressure waves propagating through ether? Luckily this classical ether was refuted by Einstein and his (with little help from Planck) invention of quantum theory that pointed out that actually photons are quantum particles, not waves. And as they are particles, no ether as medium for light waves is required. Second: The other kind of Ether is Newton's fixed background or preferred frame of reference. Einstein developed this idea even further when he showed with general relativity that actually ether is not fixed, but the gravity can modify the geometry of absolute frame of reference. Einstein himself called correctly his general relativity as ether theory as it is based on a idea of an absolute frame of reference. In some other instances I have promoted Lorentz's theory of relativity. That is similar ether based kinematic theory as general relativity is for accelerating frame of references. That is, the kinematic motion in Lorentz's theory of relativity is always measured in respect of ether and if we choose Earth's gravity field as preferred frame of reference, then this interpretation agrees with every empirical observations so far. Although Lorentz's theory of relativity is ether theory, it has not been disproved and it happily agrees with MM experiment and all the time dilation observations. Therefore this latter kind of ether, where ether or preferred frame of reference is Earth's gravity field, is not refuted. –Jouni
Brad, please not in this thread! I wonder what did I do wrong that I deserved this massive troll attack from chan, chem, vorl and jojo? Did anyone just realize that crowdfunding provided 110 000 dollars for almost single person company that is aiming to build a *space elevator*that is in operation by 2020? And if such idea is so feasible, cold fusion research could benefit quite significantly. I would guess that we could raise from Vortex mailing list alone annually some few hundred kilodollars. –Jouni On 20 September 2012 19:29, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I too wonder why Chen/Chan/Phen/Mint/quickly,reliable, puppy dog, etc. is posting anonymous claims of LENR success and explosions, patents pending, and the like.. Care to tell us your real story? Respectfully... - Brad p.s. I don't agree with Jojo's characterization of the Chinese!
It is hard to get money for cold fusion research. How about financing science using e.g. kickstarter crowdfunding schemes? I just donated $11 for space elevator project that is planed to be build at full scale so that it is operational around 2020. Capacity for payload would be around two tons per climber at the first phase. Before that, I donated for 54 meters high vertical farm project at Linköping. As space elevator gathered $110k in just two weeks with almost zero advertisement budged, I would estimate that credible cold fusion research project could gather annually several million dollars using crowdfunding. –Jouni *Space Elevator Science - Climb to the Sky - A Tethered Tower* http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaellaine/space-elevator-science-climb-to-the-sky-a-tethered
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The main problems are that it allows anonymous editing, and it has no respect for authorities in complicated, specialized subjects. I hope that it is reformed, or -- if it is not -- that some competing encyclopedia arises. Perhaps another encyclopedia can be established that specialized is scientific subjects such as cold fusion, and that does a better job using more traditional academic standards. Encyclopedia for cold fusion would be quite good idea. Although wikiversity's resources are quite comprehensive. What I would add to the wikiversity, is a good and comprehensive video lecture series about the topic. I think 30-90 45 mins video lectures would be great. If lecture series is well made, it will find very fast good reviews and thus it increases a lot the gredibility of arguments. The main difficulty with cold fusion is, that it is very difficult to evaluate the reliability of sources. I think that your criticism about wikipedia is disproportional. Controversial subjects are not that important, because usually there are very good reasons why they are controversial. Wikipedia is just not the right place to settle controversies. If something cannot be settled without writing 'walls of text', then we must seriously question whether it can be expressed in wikipedia, without that people get false impressions while they are reading compact wikiarticles about the topic. I think that it would be good idea to have in paraller, more specialized version of wikipedia. I would dream about wiki like online community that would be used also for original research and debate. However discussion should civilized and moderated. Something like light peer review process, that before any comments are published, they are reviewed by several established experts and editors. And if necessary, feed back and suggestion for change are given before publishing. ―Jouni
On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: we need to have rock-solid statements to answer the hyper-skeptics. Rock-solid answer would be that anyone could go their local university and do the necessary measurement by himself. With Miley's and Celani's cells this kind of situation would be trivial to arrange. I can personally sponsor demonstration set to the University of Turku, Finland. We do not need statements, we need rock-solid evidence. The problem is that there is no good evidence presented to support the claims, but there are just statements that are in science next to worthless. ―Jouni
Indeed, it seems that case is finally closed for Rossi. —Jouni On Sep 10, 2012 5:06 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: http://ecatnews.com/?p=2417#comments quoting from article: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=svtl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3535258.ece Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than Rossi himself measured. Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy surplus reported. And any trust that may have been re-established in Rossi is now totally destroyed.
Jed, many people and thousands of scientist have looked the data and they are concluded that scientific data is nowhere near sufficient. It is in best case speculative, suggestive and inconclusive. There is no 'big money suppression'. That kind of idea is silly and non-informative and it is an argument that turns any reasonable people away from you. Perhaps not in here, but if you are saying that in any other respected forum, such as in wikipedia, you will get banned. It is true, that people often base their argumentation on assumptions and they often cannot separate facts form assumptions. It is difficult and arrogant people do often this kind of naïve categorisation, because they think that they know everything. And if someone presents ideas that are against their prejudices, then they are usually fiercely attacked by ad hominem arguments. Actually you did this also. I did not say anything what I think about cold fusion. But yet, you immediately labelled me as a 'skeptic', although in reality I am a firm believer of cold fusion. It is sad that I need to use the word 'believe', because there are not sufficient and conclusive scientific evidence. It does not help that Miley and Celani does refuse to let other scientists to replicate their quantum reactor although they both claim extremely high reproducibility and power density. If Celani would made just a single demonstration set of his device that is broadcasted in youtube and is supervised by independent respected scientists (in plural), this would be enough to convince every person in the world. There is no need for peer review process that is very easy to abuse, and the idea itself to publish validation results through peer review process is somewhat silly. Youtube is good enough medium, (yes, welcome to the digital age!). The only thing is that any magic tricks should be eliminated. And with Celani's and Miley's ultra high power densities, this is no problem to verify. But both of them, who are self-claimed as scientists, explicitly reject any attempts to replicate their cell. This kind of attitude has nothing to do with science. Science is about openness and sharing information and ideas. —Jouni
On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: There is no 'big money suppression'. Did I say anything about big money? Yes you did say. You said that hot fusion researchers are trying to 'suppress' it and indeed hot fusion research is operating with extremely big money. It is often matter of millions of dollars for annual budget. That is huge amount of money for academic research! yet again you jumped on conclusions solely that was based on your prejudice about what I meant. ―Jouni
There is no 'big money suppression'. Did I say anything about big money? Yes you did say. Actually perhaps it was Abd who said: »But the physics community, dependent upon large subsidies for hot fusion research, did not operate, here, by the normal standards of science. They, instead, demanded that nature comply with their expectations, that cold fusion researchers produce what many observers have said could take a Manhattan-scale project. And, of course, without the project results in hand, they would oppose any funding.» sorry that I mixed you two. —Jouni
The problem is that it is difficult to write about Rossi, because he has not shown any reasons why anyone should take him seriously. On the other hand, there are very serious reasons to believe that he is committing massive fraud. There is very good article about Blacklight Power in Wikipedia. That is because BLP is respectable company. Rossi instead is just nothing. There is already an article about Andrea Rossi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur) There is no need to separate article for his latest probably fraudulent and certainly controversial cold fusion stunt. On 9 September 2012 23:07, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia is dysfunctional and cannot be fixed. The problem is in the structure and guiding philosophy. That is untrue. And I am sad that although you are mostly rational, you are saying this. I fully understand that you have personal grudges, but I am sad that this personal conflict is clouding your judgement. What comes to cold fusion, there are no established scientific point of view, therefore it is impossible to write a good Wikipedia article on cold fusion that would satisfy everyone. Cold fusion advocates have failed to market their ideas. Instead many cold fusion advocates (such as Krivit) took seriously that there would be evidence for Ni–Cu transmutations, although scientific evidence was mostly zero. If Krivit-level experts are doing such mistakes in basic science, how it is possible that this field could be taken seriously by Wikipedia? Although Abd is saying that there is good correlation with helium and excess heat, somehow I find it very odd, that if correlation is good, why it is so darn difficult to replicate? The correlation is so difficult to understand that even Krivit cannot understand it. Therefore I would say that Abd is exaggerating the quality of evidence. Quantity does not replace quality. I hope that Celani could produce first ever clear and replicable cold fusion cell that produces, not quantity, but high quality data. That is what we need. There is needed only one convincing demonstration, that can be replicated at independent laboratory, and then the amount of skeptical scientist is exactly zero. Therefore it is sad that Celani is refusing independent replication of his cell. How could we the scientists take him seriously if he is refusing the independent replication? –Jouni
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You do not need to satisfy people. You need to report the replicated, peer-reviewed facts of the matter. Science is not a popularity contest. That is true, but here cold fusion science has failed. *Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes* http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf Here is one example of the good peer-reviewed paper, but where is the replication of the data? This finding about the correlation to be reliable, there should be several successful replication attempts published. But where are those? The paper is almost 20 years old. There are few, yes, but not good enough quality data and often the data is even conflicting. E.g. some studies suggest that both H and D are working. Perhaps the status of cold fusion could be better if there were better marketing of ideas. Cold fusion science is notoriously difficult and if you do not have burning will and money to commit to research it is almost impossible to reproduce the data. But as it is difficult and expensive, it is also huge liability problem, that the urge to see something may cloud the judgement. If you do not see anything, then the money is quite difficult to find. Here e.g. Miley et al. did not see anything with light water. How is that possible? Can we be sure that that they did not just assume that cold fusion should not work with light water? Because scientist are humans, science lives from replication to eliminate the erroneous human factor. —Jouni PS. Thanks Edmund for your new paper!
On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In essence, you are saying we should ignore the data because people opposed to cold fusion have successfully cut off funding. We should let politics dictate what we believe. I did not say that. I just said how science works and it is working very well. Science has (almost!) nothing to do with politics and actually it is surprising immune for political prejudices. And usually when someone gets caught on political bias (such as Climate Gate) that will lead into global scandal. Cold fusion research is far more valuable than puny climate science. However as I said, it is question of marketing ideas and successful marketing is not impossible. Mark Gibbs said it well, that with all your brain power, yet you are unable to bring even single convincing argument. Even moderate understanding does require open mind and quite a lot literature research. Besides that your idea about the funding cuts is silly conspiracy theory and if you are throwing such lazy arguments, it will not help the field. Miley et al. experiment was not expensive by any means and yet Miley was unable to produce an apparatus for demonstration purposes that could have allowed other scientists to replicate helium correlation experiment with their own instruments. If nothing else, Miley should have invited several groups of scientists into his own lab to replicate the correlation studies. Successful replication of his findings would have been the greatest science news of the 90's and it would have diverted hundreds of billions of dollars research funding to the field. This is really important thing. Also if Celani is not going to let other people to validate his quantum reactor with their own instruments, then that means only one thing that Celani has nothing that has scientific significance. —Jouni
Hello, there was some discussion about this alleged perpetual motion machine. It was elegant, perhaps too elegant, and therefore it is probably a fake. *Evolution of perpetual motion* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE The idea is however simple and understandable and I refuse to believe that it is impossible, because I do not see how it could violate the quantum mechanics and the conservation of *information*. As we know, that it based on improved version of SMOT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy). SMOT itself is a failed perpetual motion machine, because no one has managed to return the iron ball back to the starting square. Therefore, no energy is created and friction will win. However I developed a magnetic switch that can be applied to weaken the starting point magnetic field by 20%. Therefore rotational energy should be enough to overcome the sticking point. And when sticking point is behind, magnets are again switched on by heating and new revolution is started with full force. As we discussed earlier, it takes about 360 mJ energy to align dipoles and magnetize 1 cm³ neodymium magnet. On the other hand, when magnet is demagnetized 360 mJ heat is released. The alignment process itself is just normal information processing that does not consume energy more than is required to account entropy. We can demonstrate that demagnetization is exothermic reaction if we are heating magnet to curie temperature, because it will take 360 mJ less energy than heating similar non-magnetized body to curie point. Demagnetization does not take energy, but it releases energy. Therefore we can use cooling as rudimentary switch mechanism. Neodymium magnets loses about 20% of magnetism when magnet is cooled from -150°C to -250°C. With other alloys this kind of 'phase transition' could be more prominent that changes the crystal lattice structure so that dipoles get even more misaligned. And when magnet is heated back above transition temperature (-150°C with neodymium magnet), magnet is again magnetized as dipole structure realigns. Hence this alignment and misalignment cycle can be fully reversible. This way we could get also SMOT-derived perpetual motion machine working continuously, if we turn off the magnets when wheel is approaching the sticking point. Therefore, as magnetic field is temporarily weakened with flash-cooling, rotational energy of the wheel would be sufficient for overcoming the sticking point (and friction). This cooling and heating cycle does not bring external energy to the system, because permanent magnets do not store energy. Therefore this cooling and heating idea will not nullify the idea of perpetual motion machine, because we do not use that heat energy for doing the work as a heat engine. This is also where magnetism differs from nitinol spring based heat engine. —Jouni For neodymium magnet behavior at cryogenic temperatures, see: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=temperature-and-neodymium-magnets
I do not think that this thought experiment works with springs. That is because spring energy is stored into compression of electron orbitals into higher energy levels. This means that compressed spring is more massive due to E=mc². However this is very intriguing thought experiment, because on the other hand crystal structure of the spring is chancing when cooled. What happens to the potential energy then? Like David said, tracking energy conservation is very tricky. Other perhaps even more intriguing thought experiment would be that if compressed spring is assembled using molecular assembler such as star trek replicator. This should not take any more energy than with uncompressed spring, because van der waals forces are taking care of the assembling process in both cases. That is, the extra energy needed to assemble compressed spring is provided by van der waals force and van der waals force is not classical force, but it is inherent quantum property of atoms. This way we could utilize van der waals force to violate classical thermodynamics and create useful energy out of nothing. (Geckos are masters of utilizing van der waals forces) However, even if this thought experiment does not work with springs, for sure this thought experiment is working with permanent magnets. If neodymium magnet is demagnetized when attached to refrigerator door, we are loosing quite significant amount of classical potential energy that was required to remove magnet from refrigerator door. That is way more than that 360 millijoules that is the quantum energy stored into magnetic field. —Jouni On 7 September 2012 04:16, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If a spring is compressed by a force at room temperature, the spring will return to its original length once the force is removed. In the language of CoE the compressed spring is said to store the energy of the work done by the force. Now compress the spring again and then place it in a bath of liquid nitrogen. The spring will not return to its original length once the force is removed. At this stage I would say some of the stored energy has vanished and CoE has been violated. Harry
On 8 September 2012 06:55, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: When that system is submerged in the cold bath, the spring will become stiffer and this will translate into more pressure on the ends of the box, and therefore more potential energy. I think that here you have just 'normal' heat engine. The heat energy/mass of the hot spring is transformed into the spring energy/mass of the cooler and stiffer spring. That is, heat energy is transformed into useful (potential) work. Jones's video demonstrated more clearly how this change in crystal lattice structure due to temperature change can be utilized to create useful work from heat. With nitinol springs this 'phase change' is more extreme than with regular springs. —Jouni
Stored energy in magnetic field for neodymium magnet is around 40-50 MGOe. As one MGOe is 7960 J / m³, this means that energy stored in 1 cm³ neodymium magnet is 360 millijoules. That is, it is negligible for all practical purposes and certainly this field energy is not the source why permanent magnets can do work. —Jouni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oersted On 6 September 2012 19:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 11:46 PM 9/5/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300: Hi, [snip] I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you multiply the MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not much BTW). How much? If we dissolved magnetic material in an acid, compared with dissolving the same weight of the magnet material, unmagnetized, same other conditions, could we measure a temperature increase for the dissolved magnetized material vs. the dissolved non-magnetized material? I do assume the energy would end up as heat. If it's a reasonable amount of heat, this would make a nice science fair project.
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: For example, there is potential energy stored in a permanent magnet, in the magnetisation. ... The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor will run down. This is untrue. There is no such thing as 'potential energy stored in permanent magnet'. That is unphysical idea. Magnetism is only about information and it emergences from the system if magnetic dipoles are aligned into right order. If we assume that there is no heat applied to the permanent magnets, then magnetisation will stay there forever. And video clearly showed that we can create easily rotational motion using permanent magnets. You can easily create your own replication with neodymium magnets and 3D-printer. Neodymium magnets are resilient enough for such demonstration, but you can increase the resilience if you cool the magnets to eliminate heat that causes misalignments of magnetic domains. Also it is important to understand that it does not take relevant amount of energy to arrange magnetic dipoles into correct order. Of course in practice it requires lots of energy, because we do not have means to manipulate crystal structure at nano scale. So in practice there is required lots of energy. But QM has nothing against it that we could assemble permanent magnets atom by atom. We could do this almost with zero energy cost. Of course there is slight energetic cost that is related to manipulating quantum information and entropy (see Maxwell's Demon), but that necessary cost is something in order of millijoules (perhaps picojoules). The problem with magnetism is that in classical mechanics the definition for work is wrong. It works, if we just assume gravity and electromagnetism, but if we try to explain electromagnetism as a force, then we end up in paradoxes. However if work is defined correctly and if gravity is defined as a force, then refrigerator magnet is doing endless work while fighting against gravity. That is: refrigerator magnet is a perpetual motion machine, if we define work correctly and if we define gravity as a force. We do not have absolutely no empirical evidence that would support the idea that gravity is not a force. Therefore we must conclude as a working hypothesis that gravity is a force. Hence ― perpetual motion machine is plausible. ―Jouni
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what about actually obtaining the device in question and running the obvious test: Let it run for a very very long time? Easy test would be to construct three identical perpetual motion machines and then run one in sauna at 60°C temperature, other at room temperature and the third in freezer at -18°C. If there is difference in duration how long the motion will last, then it would show clearly that it is indeed perpetual motion machine. Of course this kind of test is only necessary if you do not believe theoretical a priori argument that magnets do not store potential energy, but magnetism is just matter of information. ―Jouni
There is interesting thing to note, that the rotation of the wheel is oscillating. This probably means that the oscillation is chaotic and is governed by nonlinear dynamics. This also means that system is not freely rotating, but there are significant friction forces that resist the rotation of wheel. But magnetic pushing forces in the track are stronger than resisting magnetic forces. Thus the work needed to be done to lift the driving magnet is probably not the strongest force that is acting against the rotation. Therefore this is not only very good proof of concept for perpetual motion machine, but it is also very educational demonstration of chaotic oscillation of rotation. Nonlinear dynamics in chaos theory is probably even more interesting and more revolutionary idea to classical physics than perpetual motion machine is. This is indeed very interesting idea, because it shows, that the concept of work in classical mechanics is ill-defined. Quantum mechanics is way more interesting. Also QM does not comment on energy conservation of macroscopic systems. It just states that energy is conserved in quantum systems. Why this energy conservation principle cannot be applied to macroscopic system is evident if we understand the concept of emergence. Other interesting example for similar phenomenon is the formation of spiral galaxies. It is needed huge amount of work to form spiral galaxy, but gravity can still do it without consuming energy. Conservation of energy is failing at macroscopic systems also if we look expanding universe as whole. Photons are losing their energy but on the other hand, the amount of vacuum energy is increasing exponentially while universe is expanding. This is very interesting idea indeed, but this particular perpetual motion machine can be understood well if we just understand what is the underlying reason behind electromagnetism. The concept behind is no more problematic than refrigerator magnet. We live in nonlinear quantum universe. There is very little room for classical mechanics! James, I have not done the arithmetics, but it is important to understand that permanent magnets do not store 'magnetic energy', but magnetism emerges from the proper order of magnetic dipoles. Therefore magnetism is just information and it can violate as a macroscopic system the conservation of energy principles and QM has nothing to complain, because QM does not comment on macroscopic systems. ―Jouni On Sep 4, 2012, at 8:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried to do any arithmetic here? I mean to even an order of magnitude? On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their starting position. Harry On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: This stuff is quite misleading. One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting position. So there is no energy gain.
Harry, standard QM does not comment on plausibility of magnetic motors. And for classical mechanics refrigerator magnets and spiral galaxies are exactly as impossible constructions as this magnetic motor. It is just that in classical mechanics work is ill-defined, because classical mechanics just assumes gravity and rigidity of bodies without explaining them. Mark, I agree, that this should be demonstrated as a proof of concept for perpetual motion machine. There is nothing new however, because the underlying mechanics is the same as with refrigerator magnet. As the video was very good and it clearly explained the the principles behind the perpetual motion, this should be very easy to replicate, because 3D-printers and neodymium magnets are popular toys for geeks. And certainly I do not think that this could be practical power source, because permanent magnets are far too weak for commercial scale power production. Solar, wind and nuclear are way cheeper free energy sources and they will last billions of years. It is however curious that windmills also utilises neodymium magnets to generate electricity, so perhaps we already are using this same magnetic phenomena, without actually understanding that actually wind-power is acting against classical mechanics! ―Jouni On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: According to standard physics, it is impossible to design a magnetic motor that won't get stuck after a few turns. Therefore, questions about how much was energy was needed to assemble the device distract from the real significance of the demonstration. Either this is a hoax OR the device is really able to overcome the sticking problem and turn indefinitely. harry On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried to do any arithmetic here? I mean to even an order of magnitude? On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming no hidden power sources, the assumption is the work done repeatedly lifting the magnets (and the rod at the side) will eventually exceed the energy required to place the magnets in their starting position. Harry On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: This stuff is quite misleading. One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting position. So there is no energy gain.
Mark, I think that the site what James was citing is an obvious scam site. There is no question about that. Terry quite clearly stated that permanent magnets do wear down quite fast, so it should be impossible to do commercially significant magnetic perpetual motion machine. It was sad that James put that scam link, because the original video: Evolution of perpetual motion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE was very reasonable concept. Same uploader has also uploaded few other concepts for magnetic perpetual motion machines. They show more clearly that the rotation is indeed accelerating, but their operating principles are not as clearly demonstrated as with this video. ―Jouni On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:00 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Bottom line: Mark Goldes is assuming it's the same group of guys and therefore, don't bother with it! -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:mgol...@chavaenergy.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:10 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine This is almost certainly the same group of scammers. They keep changing the device and the device is easily faked in a video. Mark Mark Goldes Co-founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute 301A North Main Street Sebastopol, CA 95472 www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: James Bowery [jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine These are not indictments of the device in the video I cited. Is device in that video, whether or not legitimately claimed by Magniwork, Lutec or others, a device that has been shown to be incapable of self-sustaining motion? If it has been so shown, where is the demonstration of that fact?
Terry, do you know how much it has influence to the speed of misalignment of dipole structure, if neodymium magnets are cooled into -192°C using liquid nitrogen? In theory dipole structure should be far more resilient, if magnets are cooled. Neodymium magnets do retain 87% of their magnetic strength at -192°C, so cooling with liquid nitrogen is possible. ―Jouni On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Terry quite clearly stated that permanent magnets do wear down quite fast, Terry said magnets in opposition degrade. Magnets in attraction will not degrade over time. A magnet struck repeatedly by a hammer will degrade due to the randomization of magnetic domains due to the shock. Magnets in opposition suffer a similar shock. T
hello, here is interesting and easy concept for perpetual motion machine using magnets. Problem: why this is not accepted as perpetual motion machine? I do not see anything wrong with this concept, but it clearly produces more rotational energy that easily overcomes the friction. Evolution of perpetual motion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE I do not think that this has commercial relevance as free energy generator, because solar, wind and nuclear are far cheaper free energy resources that will last billions of years. But as perpetual motion, this should be a proof of concept. However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than refrigerator magnet that is doing endless work against gravity or electron that can orbit nucleus without losing it's energy. Earth revolves around the sun and that is also perpetual motion. In sum: in quantum universe there are no room for classical physics. It is also interesting to ponder that around 2030 solar electricity will be far cheaper than electricity generated using cold fusion. That is because PV-cells do not have moving parts and as they are semiconductors, their cost effectiveness is evolving exponentially. Price of electricity generated using PV-cells has halved around every six years for the past 33 years. In March 2012 industrial scale solar electricity price was $151 per MWh and if this trend continues, like it is hugely probable, solar electricity is by 2021 cheaper than coal power and by 2030 it will be cheaper than cold fusion electricity, and after that, it will be too cheap to meter! ―Jouni
Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because it just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 kg hand weights stationary with straight hands in horizontal orientation, then conventional physics says that you are not doing any work, but I would say that your muscles are burning more oxygen than your blood vessels can supply. Refrigerator magnet does exactly the same work as your muscles are doing, when they are fighting against the gravity. Terry, of course Magnets will wear down, because they are imperfect. However neodyme magnets are very resilient and I would say that produced energy exceeds by far the energy required to make the magnet in the first place. I would say by factor of 1000 or more. And if system is cooled to near absolute zero, the factor should be many orders of magnitude larger. I was also pondering that could this magnetic motor be sustained with electromagnets, but I thought that it would not be very likely that it would produce OU. However permanent magnets are more interesting because in ideal case they do not lose magnetism when they are doing work. This ideal case should be good enough theoretical proof that perpetual motion machine is possible in principle. Giovanni, I think that fixed electron orbitals can be explained and understood with probabilistic interpretation of QM. This can give also sound philosophical explanation. ―Jouni On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than refrigerator magnet that is doing endless work against gravity or electron that can orbit nucleus without losing it's energy. In your example no work is performed according to the definition of work that physicists developed about two centuries ago. Unless the magnet displaces itself upwards the magnet hasn't accomplished anything from the standpoint of conventional physics. Unfortunately physics has no concept of stationary work. harry
On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: What happens is that your muscles are like springs and they are getting stretched by the weight. When they are stretched beyond a point the muscle pulls back and then relaxes, this over and over again and this oscillatory motion does indeed work. Somehow this explanation reminds me that annoying anomaly in classical physics is just explained away by inventing epicycles. Classical physics is based on simplified conception of reality. It does not deal with gravity and permanent electromagnetic forces that are making bodies rigid and solid. I still think that Terry's explanation is incomplete, because I assume that permanent magnets are demagnetised more slowly if magnets are cooled significantly. If neodymium magnets are heated close to 80ºC, the will demagnetise very rapidly. And my assumption is that demagnetisation rate is close to zero near absolute zero. —Jouni
Indeed, small traces of transmutations (e.g. Pd—Ag, Ti—Vd and Ni—Cu) may be explained by neutron production in light element fusion reactions. Afterall Fleischmann thought that he saw some neutrons, although there were no where near enough of them to be statistically significant or what is expected from hot fusion reactions. Just an idea. Therefore it would be important to look for helium and tritium also from Ni-H cells. Where Celani's cell is perhaps the most advanced. Celani should send his cell for someone who has mass spectrosopy available. I would say that even Curious could find the Helium from Celani's cell. This test could be done as early as 2016, when there is a launch window open to Mars. It would cost perhaps 20 billion (distributed for ten year span) but it is still cheap compared to the scientific value of such experiment. Just another wild idea. —Jouni On Aug 20, 2012 6:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:43 PM 8/18/2012, Eric Walker wrote: I am not in a position to assert an opinion here, but the impression I get is that the evidence for transmutations to stable isotopes is solid; see Ed Storms's book for a good discussion. An important difficulty, however, is that the amounts detected cannot explain the levels of excess power observed. (For those wondering whether a shift to unstable isotopes is also possible under certain circumstances, I'm not sure, although I have only seen this reported in two instances by two related groups.) This is commonly said, and it's important to understand the full context. Yes, with transmutations, other than to helium, the amounts detected, so far, cannot explain the levels of excess power seen. Helium does that. The transmutations are found at a much lower rate than would be necessary to explain the observed power, without the helium production. Transmutations can sometimes be observed at very low rates of formation. Complicating this, the analytical methods used can detect extraordinarily small quantities of some isotopes, and ruling out contamination can be difficult. Nevertheless, it can be done. The steps necessary are not always taken. One remarkable thing I've found. There is often little attempt to correlate transmutations with excess heat. If the transmutations are from a side reaction or secondary reaction, we'd expect correlation, at least a loose one. What we normally see are results from a *single experiment*, not results correlated across many experiments. That correlation would normally be done by showing the range of heat/isotope. Or helium/isotope. As well, it's entirely possible that transmutations are related to the H/D ratio, at least in FPHE experiments.
On 17 August 2012 19:58, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 5) Helium ash is often seen with Pd-D but no helium is seen with Ni-H. But have we looked for helium in Ni-H systems? I would doubt that because Ni-H is rather new way to produce excess heat and it is not well established. There are not much scientific papers published on Ni-H system and I would guess that there are zero scientific papers, where helium/tritium was searched from Ni-H system that sustained clear anomalous heat effect, such as Celani's cell. My bets are still that both systems are based on light element fusion reactions. Also helium, helium-3, lithium and boron should be researched well. I think that the evidence for any transmutations of heavy elements is just too weak and erratic although it should be easily detectable e.g. from Celani's cell. –Jouni
On 15 August 2012 02:24, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I think in the Papp you are trading Helium ions for energy at the rate of e=mc2. Not a bad trade, i just hope the cost of balloons does not go up. We can make additional helium using cold fusion, so no worries with with future parties. –Jouni
Thanks Jed for reporting! Does it mean that you have now seen first ever scientifically demonstrable quantum reactor that producess clear and replicable anomalous heat effect? Too bad that Fleischmann cannot receive Nobel prize anymore. But at least he did not die in vain but is making soon glorious scientific rebirth(?). —Jouni On Aug 14, 2012 8:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts? I just wanted to make sure I understood your description. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 1:14 am Subject: [Vo]:Celani demonstration Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelste - Jed
I myself are starting to see a pattern here. There are again two wire conducting more than enough electricity to the device. Some intended measurement error here and some other there, and pretty soon we are talking real heat. They all follow the same pattern that can easily hide a fraud inside. It seems that the input electric wires are more important than the actual quantum reactor. I would say that there is zero probability that Rossi has anything that is even nearing the commercial viability. And if he has, then it would make Rossi the greatest criminal in the history of Earth because he has delayed the technology so long that it has already caused the death of hundreds of millions people due to not enabling this to enter the market properly. I guess that Rossi is already making very good money, because he has time to engineer these kinds of unpractical electric heaters. –Jouni On 10 August 2012 22:28, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The context of this story is interesting. Plus the material problems. Peter
On 11 August 2012 01:48, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You guys are missing the big picture… what Rossi does now is immaterial. What he **did** is open the floodgates, and because of that, there are now enough high-level people aware of what the ENTIRE LENR/CF COMMUNITY has accomplished – namely, irrefutable proof that the excess heat is REAL, repeatability, evidence of energetic particles – i.e., some new physics that can likely be exploited for cheap clean energy. That’s what’s important; that’s the BIG picture. Large companies are also aware, and investment $ is beginning to flow… who the heck cares what Rossi does or does not do from here on? That is true. Rossi has brought huge amounts of popularity for the cold fusion (I still do not believe that there is solid evidence for transmutations, expect helium production!), so his role has been irreplaceable, even if he did it for his own hobby and gathered decent money from his surroundings. I would say that it is because of Rossi, Brillouin Energy and BLP have managed to raise some extra money for their quest for clean energy, even if they will not find anything worthy for publishing. This argument against Rossi is however extremely strong, because he has already done 14 trillion dollar damage to the world economy if he is hiding commercially viable product. These are just too big money that anyone could have moral sense to hide them from public. Therefore there is no more for Rossi, what he has already presented. –Jouni
On 9 August 2012 02:12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From a systems engineering standpoint, it is a far better energy system than the Rossi reactor because high efficiency is possible without high heat production. Better, are you serious? This engine would immediately transform Earth Civilization into Star Trek age (by 2014 into Type I and by 2050 even into Type II civilization at Kardashev scale). With this engine, we could travel into Mars in just six days and into nearby stars in one generation. Although this is far better than any perpetual motion machine fancier has ever hoped for, I am a big fan of this thing. Not that I would not think that it is way too good to be true, but it feels just utterly good to take some vacations from reality and go Rohner's web pages and dream a little bit of fairy-tale world, where there are no scarcity from any material needs. Probably this is not real, because Rohner is religious and religion is somewhat antithesis for being smart, creative and scientific. It is sad, but that's the way it is. Same argument goes also for Rossi, btw. I would say that currently our best shot is in Celani. It would be huge boost for cold fusion research if he could make it replicable and that he could present a first ever convincing demonstration of cold fusion apparatus! –Jouni
On 16 May 2012, at 14:31, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Did the first manned rocket launch in 1961 carrying Yuri Gagarin? Or did it launch in 1933 carrying Otto Fischer? http://io9.com/5908728/did-the-germans-launch-a-crewed-rocket-into-space-in-1933 Actually, Yuri Gagarin was not the first astronaut in space, but Americans won the space race, because Ham the Astrochimp (1956-1983) was the first astronaut in space (January 1961).Yuri was only the second Great Ape in space (April 1961). I think that ignoring Ham is one of the biggest errors in writing of modern history. Recognising Ham's merit as a first in space would also be a giant leap for mankind, because it would help on recognising partial human rights for great apes. ―Jouni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_the_Chimp
Re: [Vo]:Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space, Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, Physics Essays 2012.04.03: Rich M
Actually, Fiscaletti and Sorli did not invent anything new, but they just reinvented Lorentz's theory of relativity from the early 1900's. It is exactly the same theory that I was here using to explain the supposed neutrino speed anomaly. (that was mostly ignored or misunderstood, because people in general does not have cognitive tools to understand Lorentz's theory of relativity) That is that length contractions are not necessary, but everything that has been observed, can be explained if just time dilatation is assumed. As it follows from this that time dilatation is absolute in nature (it depends only on the speed relative to Ether i.e. the local dominant gravity field), the speed of light seems to get faster and faster from a perspective of observer. Lorentz explained this that all three spatial lengths are contracting in the universe, but this length contraction is of course only subjective observation. As the observer's clock is slowing down, it looks like lengths are contracting due to speed of light is gaining speed, because inertialess photons are not bound to the moving inertial frame of reference. And if lengths are defined as how far light travels in time interval, it appears that lengths are measured to be shorter. —Jouni On 17 Apr 2012, at 06:20, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space, Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, Physics Essays 2012.04.03: Rich Murray 2012.04.16 http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html April 14, 2012 by Lisa Zyga Light clocks A and B moving horizontally through space. According to length contraction, clock A should tick faster than clock B. In a new study, scientists argue that there is no length contraction, and both clocks should tick at the same rate in accordance with special relativity. Image credit: Sorli and Fiscaletti. (Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of special relativity -- time dilation and length contraction -- can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space. The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics Essays. The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material change.” The main concepts of special relativity -- that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame -- are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way. In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities. “With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in 3D space,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.” To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors,
hello, how about ball lightnings? First of all, are they real, i.e. has anyone or does anyone know someone who has seen such thing? If they are real, can they be explained in the terms of thermodynamics and (electro-) chemistry, or is it required to have cold fusion or other more exotic type of free energy? Largest observed ball lightnings are huge, about basketball sized, and can last for minutes. That high energy output is almost impossible to imagine from chemical origins. Could this lightning anomaly (neutrons and gammas etc.) explain that ball lightnings can exist and indeed they are the positive verification of some sort of exotic interaction? Could this be the reason, why they cannot be produced in the lab, that necessary conditions for exotic interaction are not sufficient? There are some free energy inventors who claim things about ball lightnings, but these are certainly not reliable evidence. On the contrary! ―Jouni On 14 Apr 2012, at 00:41, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Massive amount of free energy delivered yesterday, a few miles away. No doubt about it. This spike was about 4 gigajoules. There were others. A few gammas detected, but not enough to account for the net energy. It did set off the rad alarms at the port of Oakland. Yet, this is not exactly LENR, at least not in an obvious way. However, there is an LENR connection (to be continued). http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/13/article-2129246-1294184D05DC-2 23_964x694.jpg winmail.dat
I think that the biggest problem with Space Elevator is that it is too slow. I takes quite a lot of time to climb into geosynchronous orbit. It is better to get into LEO as fast as possible. I think that fast climbing is too demanding for the materials and slow is just too slow in order to get much cargo during one year. It takes week or so for one way trip. As Daniel pointed out that full scale human capable Space Train is perhaps too demanding for the materials due to vibrations. However, the cargo only Space Train could be sufficient, because it can be build on the mountain top. Humans can be launched into space via traditional means, to avoid extreme accelerations. I think that it is just a matter of engineering to get enough power for Maglev acceleration. We can use superconducting materials, perhaps. Skylon is also rather interesting concept, as it was pointed out that first few machs will consume the most of the rocket fuel. Therefore spared oxygen can be replaced with payload. However I think that this tech also works well on powerpoint presentation, but things are not as simple in real life. I think that I will invest on Space Train! —Jouni On 11 April 2012 06:38, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I did not know so many methods have been proposed. The Skylon reusable space plane seems like the most practical and low-cost method discussed here. I think a space elevator would ultimately have the lowest cost per ton, and it is the safest and most elegant solution. But it calls for materials not yet developed. The initial version of the space elevator would be cheaper than you might think. It would be used to bootstrap larger, heavier versions. If the first one can be deployed entirely by robot, later versions can be used to send people. People would be needed for a really big system, capable of handling thousands of tons of freight per year. Ultimately it would be capable of handling millions of tons. A hundred years from now the terminals might be the largest ports in the solar system, although it is a little difficult to imagine what physical goods people might need to ship around. I suppose most production will be handled locally with universal replication machines. - Jed