Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

2013-06-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Jouni Valkonen 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:

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!


Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

2013-06-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, a.ashfield 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.


Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

2013-06-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Mark Gibbs 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.


Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

2013-06-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jed Rothwell 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.


Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT

2013-06-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Eric Walker 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.


Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...

2013-06-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Jed Rothwell 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?


Re: [Vo]:Mars waits for no man

2013-06-02 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Axil Axil 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.


Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.

2013-05-31 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude 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.


Re: [Vo]:Synchronization

2013-05-27 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On May 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 And in more complex systems:
 Does this apply to items of current interest?
 On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
 How the world becomes lockstep:

Nice videos. I recommend to read Steven Strogatz's book Sync. There are more 
examples on synchronization:

Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order


Re: [Vo]:Popular Science- May 2013 Rossi with a PS barb

2013-05-26 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 26 May 2013 16:18, Ron Kita wrote:

 Not sure IF this made the V-list:

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.


Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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.


On May 22, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 What do you think of my hoax theories?
 Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself Where is the benefit?

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

2013-05-21 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On May 21, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Jed Rothwell 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.


Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method

2013-05-06 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Edmund Storms 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 

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.


Re: [Vo]:13 GigaFLOPs

2013-04-28 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Apr 28, 2013, at 5:55 AM, Eric Walker 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.


Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Depressing statistic about North Korea

2013-04-17 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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!


On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 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

Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted

2013-03-30 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Mar 30, 2013, at 12:16 AM, David Jonsson 
 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 

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 

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 


Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted

2013-03-30 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 30 March 2013 19:46, Jed Rothwell 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.


Re: [Vo]:Electricity from solar and wind in Germany

2013-03-30 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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. 


On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 A good set of slides:

Re: [Vo]:Tesla to eat GM's lunch?

2013-03-29 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Jones Beene 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 ...
 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...
 Go Elon, go ...

Re: [Vo]:The history of the universe will soon be revealed

2013-03-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
 The first fractions of a second after the Big Bang
 cheers:   Axil

Re: [Vo]:The history of the universe will soon be revealed

2013-03-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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


On 19 March 2013 20:03, Harry Veeder 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.


Re: [Vo]:Natural gas electricity struggling in Europe

2013-03-16 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 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

Re: [Vo]:Natural gas electricity struggling in Europe

2013-03-15 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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. 


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 As noted here several times, coal is actually increasing in Europe. They 
 should do something about that. See:
 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

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear Industry Withers in U.S. as Wind Pummels Prices

2013-03-13 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 %.


Re: [Vo]:FBI Raids Inteligentry

2013-03-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen
Nice article! I wonder when we can read similar article on Rossi  Co. 


On Mar 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 The Securities and Exchange commission charges:
 . . . have engaged in an olnlong fraudulent investment scheme that
 has defrauded at least 98 people nationwide out of at least $1.4
 and about 17 pages worth.

[Vo]:Solar Energy and Moores Law

2013-03-06 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 

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)

German Industrial Roof-to Grid Parity at 100% on-site self-consumption at the 
time of generation


[Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.

2013-03-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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


Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.

2013-03-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Mar 4, 2013, at 7:27 PM, James Bowery 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 


Re: [Vo]:Feeding Stewart

2013-03-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 We don't need no steenkin' dark matter:

Re: [Vo]:Krivit takes a hard line on Rossi

2013-03-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 28 February 2013 19:01, Brad Lowe 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 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.


Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds

2013-03-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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.*


Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power

2013-02-26 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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

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 

Photoexcitation cascade and multiple hot-carrier generation in graphene


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 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.

Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions

2013-02-23 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 

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

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. 


On Feb 13, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Mark Gibbs 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?

Re: [Vo]:Tesla adds new meaning to Supercharging

2013-02-15 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 15 February 2013 21:13, Jones Beene wrote:

 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.

Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?

2013-02-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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

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! 


On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell 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 
 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

Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?

2013-02-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell 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. 


Re: [Vo]:Would someone care to estimate actual wind capacity factor from this data?

2013-02-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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.


 Terry Blanton wrote:
  Close to 29% I guess.
 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

Re: [Vo]:excess power as either anomolous heating or cooling

2013-01-27 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 


On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Harry Veeder 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

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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 

China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled nuclear 
plant at Rongcheng. 


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms 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

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying, for 
 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 
 Energy was a large part of his Recovery and Reinvestment act. This article is 
 somewhat political but it describes this:
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR

2013-01-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 31.12.2012, at 23.27, Jed Rothwell 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.


Re: [Vo]:Vertical indoor farm in Singapore

2013-01-01 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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 

On 1.1.2013, at 20.11, Jed Rothwell 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:

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 

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 

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).


Re: [Vo]:Boeing Electric Airplane- LENR

2012-12-31 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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 

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.


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 wrote:

 Greetings All,
 Boeing is fully aware of LENR Cold Fusion..and yet they talk about batteries:
 My bet is that their electric plane never sees batteries-except for a 
 temporary back-up.
 Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Sent a message of query off to Mr. Beaty concerning recent trolling activity

2012-12-25 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


[Vo]:New Vortex engine for reusable spacecraft

2012-12-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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. 


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 

“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 
—Martin Chiaverini, principal propulsion engineer at Orbitec. 

Re: [Vo]:New Vortex engine for reusable spacecraft

2012-12-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Dec 22, 2012, at 18:42, Alain Sepeda 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 


Re: [Vo]:Popular Mechanics predictions for the next 110 years

2012-12-16 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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 

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. 


On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 This kind of thing is such fun! See:
 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

Re: [Vo]:Popular Mechanics predictions for the next 110 years

2012-12-16 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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 

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 

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!


Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell

2012-12-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


[Vo]:The near-term colonisation of Venus

2012-11-27 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.



Colonization of Venus By Geoffrey A. Landis (2003)

Re: [Vo]:The world's tallest building will be built in 90 days starting in January

2012-11-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 The building is reportedly stronger, and more earthquake proof than 
 conventional buildings would be, and despite that it takes less material to 

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 

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. 


Re: [Vo]:We should employ new methods of persuading the public

2012-11-08 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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

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.

I also recommend the book as general good science book, although it is not
anyway special.


On 8 November 2012 14:04, Mark Gibbs 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.


 On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Peter Gluck

 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.


 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
 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

 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 

Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.

2012-11-07 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:45 PM, wrote:

 I am afraid of the extreme democrats also.  They want to take us towards 

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.


Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt

2012-10-21 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 21 October 2012 20:15, Jeff Berkowitz 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

 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...


Re: [Vo]:A new economic system will be needed in the next 20 to 100 years

2012-10-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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:

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 

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.


On Oct 10, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Alain Sepeda wrote:
 I've heard that the story of overcutting trees causing and ecologic is a 
 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

Re: [Vo]:A new economic system will be needed in the next 20 to 100 years

2012-10-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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!


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Jarold McWilliams 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. 

Re: [Vo]:A new economic system will be needed in the next 20 to 100 years

2012-10-08 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Oct 8, 2012, at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell 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.

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

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 

Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized

2012-10-06 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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.


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 7, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Daniel Rocha 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
  Well, in fact, Income Redistribution is a quintessential philosophy in 
 Daniel Rocha - RJ

Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized

2012-10-05 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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*

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.


On 3 October 2012 05:42, Jojo Jaro 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).


 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
 *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:50 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer

 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.

Re: [Vo]:A new economic system will be needed in the next 20 to 100 years

2012-10-05 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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

(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 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

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.


PS. I just started to read Chris Anderson's new book: Makers: The new
I cannot say yet that it is good, but it looks interesting.

Re: [Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells

2012-10-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:22 AM, 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.


Re: [Vo]:October is here

2012-10-02 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell 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.


Re: [Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells

2012-10-02 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:33 AM, wrote:
 With normal solar cells, the cell is exposed to the light 100% of the time 
 the light is shining. If the cell spins away then it clearly isn't exposed 
 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.


Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized

2012-10-02 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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!


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 wrote:

 Yikes! Didn't think of this . . .
 Every technology, no matter how good, can be used in harmful ways.
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?

2012-09-22 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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

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.


Re: [Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion

2012-09-20 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 20 September 2012 19:29, ecat builder 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?

 - Brad
 p.s. I don't agree with Jojo's characterization of the Chinese!

[Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion

2012-09-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


*Space Elevator Science - Climb to the Sky - A Tethered Tower*

Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?

2012-09-12 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 


Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

2012-09-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Alain Sepeda 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.


Re: [Vo]:Hot-Cat fails test, Swedish investors withdraw, Rossi input power measurements dodgy?

2012-09-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
Indeed, it seems that case is finally closed for Rossi.

On Sep 10, 2012 5:06 PM, Robert Lynn

 quoting from article:

 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

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy

2012-09-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 

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.


Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy

2012-09-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Jouni Valkonen 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. 


Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy

2012-09-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
 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.


Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

2012-09-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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:

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 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

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?


Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

2012-09-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 10 September 2012 02:52, Jed Rothwell 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*

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.


PS. Thanks Edmund for your new paper!

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia E-Cat article for deletion

2012-09-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 10 September 2012 07:39, Jed Rothwell 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

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


[Vo]:Perpetual motion machine. New idea!

2012-09-08 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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*

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 ( 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.


For neodymium magnet behavior at cryogenic temperatures, see:

Re: [Vo]:Compressed spring - what happens to the stored energy at different temperatures?

2012-09-07 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 7 September 2012 04:16, Harry Veeder 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.


Re: [Vo]:Compressed spring - what happens to the stored energy at different temperatures?

2012-09-07 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 8 September 2012 06:55, Harry Veeder 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.


Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-06 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 6 September 2012 19:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

 At 11:46 PM 9/5/2012, wrote:

 In reply to  Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300:

 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

 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.

Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-05 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
 For example, there is potential energy stored in a permanent magnet, in the 
 The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor will run 
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 

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.


Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-05 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On Sep 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, James Bowery 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.


Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 

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.


On Sep 4, 2012, at 8:33 PM, James Bowery 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 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.
 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset 
  This stuff is quite misleading.
  One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its starting
  So there is no energy gain.

Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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!


On Sep 5, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Harry Veeder 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
 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, James Bowery 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 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.
 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Teslaalset
 This stuff is quite misleading.
 One has to put energy in first to get the moving magnet into its
 So there is no energy gain.

Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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

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.


On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:00 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 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 [] 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:10 PM
 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 Goldes
 Co-founder, Chava Energy
 CEO, Aesop Institute
 301A North Main Street
 Sebastopol, CA 95472
 707 861-9070
 707 497-3551 fax
 From: James Bowery []
 Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:00 PM
 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?

Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-04 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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. 


On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen 
 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.

[Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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

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 

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 

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!


Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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 


On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen 
 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.

Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine

2012-09-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Giovanni Santostasi 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. 


Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.

On Aug 20, 2012 6:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 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

 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.

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-18 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 17 August 2012 19:58, Jones Beene 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.


Re: [Vo]:the Coil

2012-08-14 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 15 August 2012 02:24, Chemical Engineer 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.


Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration

2012-08-13 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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(?).

On Aug 14, 2012 8:20 AM, David Roberson wrote:

 Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts?  I just wanted
 to make sure I understood your description.  Thanks.

  -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell
 To: vortex-l
 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

Re: [Vo]:Detailed inside information about Rossi's 1000C test reactor

2012-08-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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.


On 10 August 2012 22:28, Peter Gluck wrote:

 The context of this story is interesting. Plus the material problems.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed inside information about Rossi's 1000C test reactor

2012-08-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 11 August 2012 01:48, MarkI-ZeroPoint 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

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.


Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

2012-08-08 Thread Jouni Valkonen
On 9 August 2012 02:12, Axil Axil 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

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


Re: [Vo]:First Manned Rocket

2012-05-19 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On 16 May 2012, at 14:31, Terry Blanton wrote:
 Did the first manned rocket launch in 1961 carrying Yuri Gagarin?  Or
 did it launch in 1933 carrying Otto Fischer?

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 

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.


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

2012-04-17 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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.


On 17 Apr 2012, at 06:20, Rich Murray 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
 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.
 ( -- 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 
 The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have
 investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material
 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
 “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, 

Re: [Vo]:Massive free energy - in the hood

2012-04-14 Thread Jouni Valkonen

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!


On 14 Apr 2012, at 00:41, Jones Beene 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).

Re: [Vo]:In the foodsteps of Jules Verne

2012-04-11 Thread Jouni Valkonen
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!


On 11 April 2012 06:38, Jed Rothwell 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

  1   2   3   4   5   >