Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Michael Foster]

No, the patents were invalidated for failure to
disclose "best methods".  I was to be called as
an expert witness, but I never testified because
the "inventors" had actually made public statements
bragging about how they had obtained patents, but
that no one would be able to do what they had
because the actual formulation had not been
disclosed in the patent.

This involved the Upper Deck trading card company
and, as I recall, American Banknote Holographics,
although it might have been another manufacturer.
It was about 15 years ago.  I have no idea what 
the case number was, or if there was one. The 
patents covered an utterly trivial and obvious
method of lamination of a hologram to a paper
substrate.

And, of course, I completely agree with you that
it is extremely easy, ordinarily, to get away with
this sort of thing.  It goes on all the time.

There is a company called Battelle (sp?) Memorial
Institute whose entire reason for existence seems
to be to magically transform publicly funded research
into private intellectual property packages without
reimbursing the taxpayers.  Perhaps I'm wrong about
this, but that's how it appears to me.  Know anything
about this, Keith?

M.

=

Jones Beene wrote:

This is not "that very reason" - at least not as you
have described it. What is the case name? What you
are referring to appears to be either the issue of
"obviousness" or "known in prior art" - not lack of
disclosure. The two are quite different. To assert
lack of disclosure, you have to prove that the device,
which IS otherwise patentable but cannot be built by
one "skilled in the art" as described - and to counter
this, all the patent holder needs to do is show that
someone skilled in the art can build it. The burden of
evidence is almost impossible to overcome as it
estremely overweighted in avor of the patent holder.

For instance, here is how this could play out in the
case of tungsten boride. Let's say the hidden trade
secret is that it needs to be "forged slowly over time
in a certain way". The claim is only for "forged" but
the trade secret withheld is the way it is done. You
claim you couldn't do it. He goes out and hires
expert-liar-PhD so-and-so, who comes into court and
says, "wrong, I did it and therefore you are not
skilled in the art." IOW the evidential burden is
almost impossible to overcome without a showing of
actual criminal conduct. Read the Rambus case, etc.
They hid everything and still got to keep the patent.

If you have real case law, I would actually like to
read it. It is an area of law that is changing, but it
is naive to think that this does not go on all the
time, especially with government patents. Hey,
Presidents are not supposed to have sex with interns
or invade sovereign nations either, so what. Laws are
routinely by-passed at every level of government.
Surprise, surprise.

The chief scientist can see the writing on the wall at
his retirement - no royalites and no decent retirement
income unless he can hire on to some independent
company as a consultant and explain everything he
inadvertently left out in the patent - which, of
course, he had no choice but to assign to uncle Sam.
It's called self-interest or even "survival" if you
want to get it down to basics. And look at how many
patents Sam gets every year -everything they fund,
they keep the rights to.

Geeze, does anyone really think that all government
scientists are somehow more honorable than the ones
who can get hired in industry and get a reward of
stock options or royalties? ...like they are doing us
a favor or something by obeying the letter of the law
instead of looking after their own interests ... I
don't think so.

Jones 

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Jones Beene]

--- Michael Foster  wrote:

> >This is naive. Trade secrets are routinely
withheld. I
> >have never seen a patent successfully challenged
for
> >withholding a trade secret, although it is
definitely
> >in the wording of the patent law. I suspect most
> >patents withhold many secrets. It is just way too
easy
> >to say that the challenger was "unskilled" in the
> >art...
 
> It might be naive, but I have been personally
> involved in a case where two patents were
invalidated for
> that very reason.  The real reason is that the
patents,
> like most patents, shouldn't have been issued in the
> first place.  "Inventors" who patent unoriginal
ideas tend
> to mouth off a lot about how clever they are ...

This is not "that very reason" - at least not as you
have described it. What is the case name?  What you
are referring to appears to be either the issue of
"obviousness" or "known in prior art" - not lack of
disclosure. The two are quite different. To assert
lack of disclosure, you have to prove that the device,
which IS otherwise patentable but cannot be built by
one "skilled in the art" as described - and to counter
this, all the patent holder needs to do is show that
someone skilled in the art can build it. The burden of
evidence is almost impossible to overcome as it
estremely overweighted in avor of the patent holder.

For instance, here is how this could play out in the
case of  tungsten boride. Let's say the hidden trade
secret is that it needs to be "forged slowly over time
in a certain way". The claim is only for "forged" but
the trade secret withheld is the way it is done. You
claim you couldn't do it. He goes out and hires
expert-liar-PhD so-and-so, who comes into court and
says, "wrong, I did it and therefore you are not
skilled in the art." IOW the evidential burden is
almost impossible to overcome without a showing of
actual criminal conduct. Read the Rambus case, etc.
They hid everything and still got to keep the patent.

If you have real case law, I would actually like to
read it. It is an area of law that is changing, but it
is naive to think that this does not go on all the
time, especially with government patents. Hey,
Presidents are not supposed to have sex with interns
or invade sovereign nations either, so what. Laws are
routinely by-passed at every level of government.
Surprise, surprise.

The chief scientist can see the writing on the wall at
his retirement - no royalites and no decent retirement
income unless he can hire on to some independent
company as a consultant and explain everything he
inadvertently left out in the patent - which, of
course, he had no choice but to assign to uncle Sam.
It's called self-interest or even "survival" if you
want to get it down to basics. And look at how many
patents Sam gets every year -everything they fund,
they keep the rights to.

Geeze, does anyone really think that all government
scientists are somehow more honorable than the ones
who can get hired in industry and get a reward of
stock options or royalties? ...like they are doing us
a favor or something by obeying the letter of the law
instead of looking after their own interests ... I
don't think so.

Jones 

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Michael Foster]

At 5:35 PM 2/7/5, Jones Beene wrote:

>
>This is naive. Trade secrets are routinely withheld. I
>have never seen a patent successfully challenged for
>withholding a trade secret, although it is definitely
>in the wording of the patent law. I suspect most
>patents withhold many secrets. It is just way too easy
>to say that the challenger was "unskilled" in the
>art...

It might be naive, but I have been personally involved
in a case where two patents were invalidated for that
very reason.  The real reason is that the patents, like
most patents, shouldn't have been issued in the first
place.  "Inventors" who patent unoriginal ideas tend to
mouth off a lot about how clever they are, and in so doing
open themselves to this sort of action.

M.

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

gravity is a rush

[Harry Veeder]

Title: gravity is a rush





Witness the poetry of extreme sports
to see gravity in a new light...

Gravity is a rush
Gravity is life affirming. It is liberating.
It is not a burden. 


Harry

Re: Role of God in government

[Mike Carrell]

Steven Krivit wrote: 

   
  Ed,I think this a follow-up thread to that of Bill 
  Moyers discussing the relationship between environment, religion and our 
  government.I'll add my $0.01 (devalued dollar, you know.)  
  -This- high-tech worker has been significantly replaced by inexpensive 
  labor in India, too.

  Do not forget to mention that this 'inespensive labor' 
  in India is just as 'high tech' as the workers displaced here. India has a 
  large population of highly educated, intelligent, sophisticated workers as 
  able to do tech support and programming as US workers are. The living costs 
  and expectations there are currently lower than in the US, so acceptable 
  salaries are also lower. When I call Microsoft of HP tech support, I have 
  talked to people in India, but also Toronto, Nova Scotia and Ireland, 
  depending on the time of day. Tech support is always pot luck, sometimes very 
  good and other times not what I need. 
   
  What is at hand here is plain competition, someone able 
  to the job cheaper than you want to get paid. it is the reason the fabric 
  mills moved out of New England to the US Southeast, and then to the orient. 
  Electronic transmission of knowledge has become very cheap. 
   
  Conditions change, and outsourcing and become insourcing 
  as domestic manufacturing processes get more efficient, but that does not mean 
  the old workforce will be hired back. 
   
  Mike Carrell

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Horace Heffner]

At 5:35 PM 2/7/5, Jones Beene wrote:

>
>This is naive. Trade secrets are routinely withheld. I
>have never seen a patent successfully challenged for
>withholding a trade secret, although it is definitely
>in the wording of the patent law. I suspect most
>patents withhold many secrets. It is just way too easy
>to say that the challenger was "unskilled" in the
>art...

Witholding information is a great way to lose a patent battle.  If it can
be shown witholding the information was deliberate then the patent is
invalidated. If someone else applies for a patent on the secret, the holder
of the secret can not even continue to use his own trade secret because to
be able to use it he likely has to disclose he knew about it when he filed
for the patent, and thus invalidate what is alrady patented.  Further, if
not enough information is disclosed for the patent to have utility, one of
the requirements for a patent, it is invalidated.  Lastly, if a patent is
issued to, i.e. an interference is created by, another entity wherein the
full disclosure of the "trade secret" is made, and the approach works for
anyone skilled in the arts, the court can give the better disclosed
application priority, because to follow the fully disclosed approach is to
succeed, while to follow the prescription in the partially disclosed work
is to fail.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Keith Nagel]

Hey All.

As regards the patent, here's the INPADOC data.

/
Legal status (INPADOC) of US4349636
 
US F 26366581 A (Patent of invention) 
   PRS Date :  1983/05/10 
   PRS Code :  CC 
   Code Expl.:   CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION 
 
   PRS Date :  1994/11/22 
   PRS Code :  FP 
   Code Expl.:  - EXPIRED DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEE 
  EFFECTIVE DATE:  19940914 
/

Apparently someone got tired of shopping the thing
around in '94, and pulled the plug. 

K.




-Original Message-
From: Mark S Bilk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:39 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago


In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911

The October 9, 1980 issue of _Electronics_ magazine carried an 
article titled "Superconductivity at room temperature reported 
by Air Force researcher".  Fred W. Valhdiek, a materials research 
engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio, 
subjected titanium boride to extremely high pressure, and created
crystals that were superconducting at room temperature (after 
removal from the press).  He was awarded U.S. Patent 4,349,636 
for this in 1982.

I talked with him by phone several times over the years since then.
He denied that he was given a piece of superconducting material
from the Roswell saucer (which was said to have been taken to 
Wright-Pat) and asked to duplicate it; he said he was just 
looking for improved high-temperature material for turbine blades.

He said he clamped four TiB crystals together in a square and 
used a magnetic field to create a persistent current.

Later he said that he was able to create (very stiff) wire out 
of the material, and made a ring of it that carried a persistent
current.

The persistent currents have lasted for months.  The material 
remains superconducting in a magnetic field of 1,000,000 gauss.

He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them
has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of
the profits, without which he won't release any of the material,
although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to
his home and test his samples.  The details of the manufacturing
process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).

He said the U.S. government isn't interested in it.  He said he
talked with EPRI.

The last time I spoke with him was June 2003.

This ridiculous situation has been going on for twenty-five years!

It would really be nice if someone with money could reach an 
agreement with this man before he shuffles off to the next world,
taking the secret with him (if he hasn't already).  

His e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Mark

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:50:05PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>http://www.theenergyguy.com/USEnFlow00-quads.pdf
>
>Thanks for bringing this graphic to my attention, Jed.
>It continues to astonish me to realize the actual percentage of 
>energy wasted just trying to get to the final destination.
>
>Makes me hope that affordable room temperature superconductivity 
>might soon be around the corner.
>Steven Vincent Johnson

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Jones Beene]

--- Mark Goldes wrote:

> On the other hand, perhaps it was just another USO. 
> An Unidentified  Superconducting Object:)

This is probably correct, and Mark is in the best
position to judge, but the strange story behind MgB2
is not so different... it is not Room-Temperature, of
course, but the material was known long ago before it
was "rediscovered." and there again, we have boron
popping up. 
 
> >Michael Foster writes,  "This whole thing sounds
fishy." 

On the contrary... the details make the story sound
more, not less believable.

>> First of all, the  patent was assigned to the U.S.
government and never belonged to this fellow.  

Exactamundo ! ... connect the dots, this should be
clear the mystery...

>> Second, the patent expired long ago and is in the
public domain.  

>> H.H:  In general,  you just can't have it both
ways.  You can't hide some aspect of the method of
construction or manufacture that is essential to fully
obtaining the utility claimed

This is naive. Trade secrets are routinely withheld. I
have never seen a patent successfully challenged for
withholding a trade secret, although it is definitely
in the wording of the patent law. I suspect most
patents withhold many secrets. It is just way too easy
to say that the challenger was "unskilled" in the
art...

Jones

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Mark Goldes]

Vo,
He claims there were two additional Patents.  Both were likely classified.  
The published one was largely concerned with the material as a candidate for 
improved turbine blades.  He was employed by the USAF at Wright-Patterson 
prior to his retirement.  Both he and the fellow who went on to GE claimed 
RTSC.

On the other hand, perhaps it was just another USO.  An Unidentified 
Superconducting Object:).

Mark

From: "Michael Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
Date: Mon,  7 Feb 2005 19:34:20 -0500 (EST)
This whole thing sounds fishy.  First of all, the patent was assigned
to the U.S. government and never belonged to this fellow.  Second, the
patent expired long ago and is in the public domain.  Also, the
patent mentions *near* superconductivity.  So why would he be
demanding big bucks and be "difficult to work with" about something
he doesn't and never did own?
M.

 --- On Mon 02/07, Horace Heffner < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Horace Heffner [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:35:45 -0900
Subject: Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
At 10:39 AM 2/7/5, Mark S Bilk wrote:>He's had a number of 
companies interested in it, but none of them>has met his demand of 
$10,000,000 up front and a major share of>the profits, without which he 
won't release any of the material,>although he will allow people to 
bring their own equipment to>his home and test his samples.  The 
details of the manufacturing>process are not revealed in the patent 
(which has expired by now).A patent must provide enough information 
that one skilled in the art canobtain the utility of the patent.  
Failure to reveal such informationinvalidates the patent, and actually 
should prevent its granting in thefirst place if noticed by the 
examiner.   This is now a moot point if thepatent expired.  In general, 
you just can't have it both ways.  You can'thide some aspect of the 
method of construction or manufacture that isessential to fully 
obtaining the utility claimed, and still expect to get a
 br>patent.  A patent is essentially a *full* disclosure made in the 
publicinterest, in return for some number of years of a monopoly while 
thelicense fees are maintained.  There is a duty to describe the 
bestimplimentation(s) known at the 
time.Regards,Horace Heffner  

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Grimer]

>Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:25:15 +
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
>
>At 03:51 pm 07-02-05 -0800, you wrote:
>> Mark Goldes wrote in part:
>>>
>>>  >Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would
>>ride 
>>> them up and then jump off and parachute down.
>>>
>>I do not believe this. I take this mention to be done in jest. 
>>In my fascination with rocketry and WWII  history, I have never run across
>>this item for the V1 flying bomb being partially piloted. At least there
>>were no 'saddles' being part of the assembly. 
>>The V1 carried a 1,000 pound bomb versus 2,000 pounds for the V2. Its
>>propulsion was by a simple, noisy pulse-jet engine. The current
>>re-incarnation of the engine is the Dyna-Jet model airplane engine still in
>>production here (USA).
>>There were no guidance units on the bomb as we know it today.
>>Probably a web search should pop up an image of the missile and the simple
>>manner of its being lauched against England from Penumunde (incorrect
>>spelling) across the Channel.
>>
>>-ak-
>
>
>As someone who as a child was in the firing line of "doodle bugs" I have 
>always taken an interest in their development. On British TV a film is 
>often shown of some intrepid woman test pilot who did in fact rid these 
>things, not side-saddle I hasn't to add, but in a primitive cockpit which
>presumably took the place of the explosive charge. A lot of her predecessors
>were killed but she managed to sort out the problem. I can't remember 
>whether she bailed out or not though. 
>
>Oh, and they were launched up sloping ramps.
>
>Cheers
>
>Grimer

P.S. As you can see from below, the German test pilot was Hanna Reitsch.

"The V-1 airframe endured more stress than it may have appeared to at first; 
the two primary sources were the catapult for takeoff and the pulsejet. The 
main forces dealt with bracing of the wings and connection with the engine. The 
wings received the greater part of their stress during the catapult liftoff, 
and some considerations for the forces imposed by the booster rocket used to 
push the flying bomb off the catapult ramp had been taken in the original 
design. The problem came when the V-1 left the ramp and started its own engine. 
At this point the frame would experience a sharp shock, which caused the 
mounting bolts in the wings. The source and solution only came after test pilot 
Hanna Reitsch, flew in a modified Fi-103[4] in early 1943, after her fourth 
flight arrived at the diagnosis previously mentioned. The remedy was to simply 
strengthen the mounting bots and the problem was solved."

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Michael Foster]

This whole thing sounds fishy.  First of all, the patent was assigned
to the U.S. government and never belonged to this fellow.  Second, the
patent expired long ago and is in the public domain.  Also, the
patent mentions *near* superconductivity.  So why would he be
demanding big bucks and be "difficult to work with" about something
he doesn't and never did own?

M.




 --- On Mon 02/07, Horace Heffner < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Horace Heffner [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:35:45 -0900
Subject: Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

At 10:39 AM 2/7/5, Mark S Bilk wrote:>He's had a number of companies 
interested in it, but none of them>has met his demand of $10,000,000 up 
front and a major share of>the profits, without which he won't release any 
of the material,>although he will allow people to bring their own equipment 
to>his home and test his samples.  The details of the 
manufacturing>process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by 
now).A patent must provide enough information that one skilled in the 
art canobtain the utility of the patent.  Failure to reveal such 
informationinvalidates the patent, and actually should prevent its granting 
in thefirst place if noticed by the examiner.   This is now a moot point if 
thepatent expired.  In general, you just can't have it both ways.  You 
can'thide some aspect of the method of construction or manufacture that 
isessential to fully obtaining the utility claimed, and still expect to get 
apatent.  A patent is essentially a *full* disclosure made in the 
publicinterest, in return for some number of years of a monopoly while 
thelicense fees are maintained.  There is a duty to describe the 
bestimplimentation(s) known at the time.Regards,Horace 
Heffner  

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Grimer]

>From: Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
>
>At 03:51 pm 07-02-05 -0800, you wrote:
>> Mark Goldes wrote in part:
>>>
>>>  >Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would
>>ride 
>>> them up and then jump off and parachute down.
>>>
>>I do not believe this. I take this mention to be done in jest. 
>>In my fascination with rocketry and WWII  history, I have never run across
>>this item for the V1 flying bomb being partially piloted. At least there
>>were no 'saddles' being part of the assembly. 
>>The V1 carried a 1,000 pound bomb versus 2,000 pounds for the V2. Its
>>propulsion was by a simple, noisy pulse-jet engine. The current
>>re-incarnation of the engine is the Dyna-Jet model airplane engine still in
>>production here (USA).
>>There were no guidance units on the bomb as we know it today.
>>Probably a web search should pop up an image of the missile and the simple
>>manner of its being lauched against England from Penumunde (incorrect
>>spelling) across the Channel.
>>
>>-ak-
>
>
>As someone who as a child was in the firing line of "doodle bugs" I have 
>always taken an interest in their development. On British TV a film is 
>often shown of some intrepid woman test pilot who did in fact rid these 
>things, not side-saddle I hasn't to add, but in a primitive cockpit which
>presumably took the place of the explosive charge. A lot of her predecessors
>were killed but she managed to sort out the problem. I can't remember 
>whether she bailed out or not though. 
>
>Oh, and they were launched up sloping ramps.
>
>Cheers
>
>Grimer
>

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Jones Beene]

--- Akira Kawasaki  wrote:

> I do not believe this. I take this mention to be
done in jest.  In my fascination with rocketry and
WWII  history, I have never run across this item for
the V1 flying bomb being partially  piloted. 

Truth is stranger than fiction. It was called the
Fleseler Fi 103 Reichenberg III. The Nazi's got pretty
desperate. Here is a picture of the plane Mark refers
to:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/v1/v1_info/vi_info.htm

In the piloted series there were four versions. I
suspect the survival rate was pretty low. But then
again, one of father's best friends following WWII was
a Kamikaze Pilot who surivived his only flight...

Jones

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Akira Kawasaki]

 Mark Goldes wrote in part:
>
>  >Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would
ride 
> them up and then jump off and parachute down.
>
I do not believe this. I take this mention to be done in jest. 
In my fascination with rocketry and WWII  history, I have never run across
this item for the V1 flying bomb being partially piloted. At least there
were no 'saddles' being part of the assembly. 
The V1 carried a 1,000 pound bomb versus 2,000 pounds for the V2. Its
propulsion was by a simple, noisy pulse-jet engine. The current
re-incarnation of the engine is the Dyna-Jet model airplane engine still in
production here (USA).
There were no guidance units on the bomb as we know it today.
Probably a web search should pop up an image of the missile and the simple
manner of its being lauched against England from Penumunde (incorrect
spelling) across the Channel.

-ak-

RE: VSG -- Naudin

[Keith Nagel]

Hey Jones,

Interesting experiment; I'm surprised that 33 gauss
is sufficient to lower the arc impedance as
much as what's shown. Yet it clearly does, as
you can see from shortened decay time. What
the current sense resistor energy dissipation
has to do with the claimed effect is something only Jean
can answer, I'm always puzzled by his approach
to electrical measurement. He should try using
a tungsten rod in replacement of the carbon rod,
this would be a more meaningful control for testing
the claim. 

K.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 5:09 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: VSG -- Naudin


Another interesting experiment from Naudin:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm


According to the commentary "vacuum energy is tapped
by the nucleus"   by way of Boron forming and then
transmutting back to Carbon.

The evidence is said to be a strong pulse of 13 Mev  

Naudin finds increased radioactivity but is not  using
spectroscopy, so apparently Vallee is the source for
the reaction signature being 13 Mev. This figure would
be *critical* for properly analyzing the experiment.

As an alternative explanation, on could suggest that
12 Ps are anihilating simultaneously - but
coincidenally?  No. How could this involve all 12 of
the electrons from one carbon at the same time?

However this same net energy of reaction would be
expected if the 12 Ps reactions consisted not of
electons per se but of the hypothesized compound triad
lepton electronium (*e-) but it is hard to see how
they would all end up  in the same atom. More likely
it is the 2 inner shell electrons from 6 atoms
hexagonally bound. Carbon prefers this hexagonal
bonding and one can suggest that the time scale is NOT
coincidental because that the alignment of fields
throws this reaction out of a time denominated
dimension and into reciprocal space.

At any rate it is one more in the growing list of
carbon LENR energy anomalies. And it does - without
much doubt show the influence of a magnetic field and
this should once again address the issue of what
alignment is best - crossed or aligned. Befor this, a
crossed-field seemed to be the ticket... this
experiment strongly suggests otherwise.

Jones

VSG -- Naudin

[Jones Beene]

Another interesting experiment from Naudin:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm


According to the commentary "vacuum energy is tapped
by the nucleus"   by way of Boron forming and then
transmutting back to Carbon.

The evidence is said to be a strong pulse of 13 Mev  

Naudin finds increased radioactivity but is not  using
spectroscopy, so apparently Vallee is the source for
the reaction signature being 13 Mev. This figure would
be *critical* for properly analyzing the experiment.

As an alternative explanation, on could suggest that
12 Ps are anihilating simultaneously - but
coincidenally?  No. How could this involve all 12 of
the electrons from one carbon at the same time?

However this same net energy of reaction would be
expected if the 12 Ps reactions consisted not of
electons per se but of the hypothesized compound triad
lepton electronium (*e-) but it is hard to see how
they would all end up  in the same atom. More likely
it is the 2 inner shell electrons from 6 atoms
hexagonally bound. Carbon prefers this hexagonal
bonding and one can suggest that the time scale is NOT
coincidental because that the alignment of fields
throws this reaction out of a time denominated
dimension and into reciprocal space.

At any rate it is one more in the growing list of
carbon LENR energy anomalies. And it does - without
much doubt show the influence of a magnetic field and
this should once again address the issue of what
alignment is best - crossed or aligned. Befor this, a
crossed-field seemed to be the ticket... this
experiment strongly suggests otherwise.

Jones

Re: A last resort attack on global warming

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:55:33 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>>There is also the chance that, due to the uncertainties involved, the 
>>effect will be too great, and overshoot the mark, resulting in a new ice 
>>age. Once such a cloud is in place, it would be next to impossible to get 
>>rid of it again, and we may not find out that we have gone too far, until 
>>it is too late.
>
>I do not think this would be a problem, because it would take a long time 
>to do this, and only a little of the aluminum would be added per payload, 
>so the effects would be closely monitored.

Nevertheless, some components of the climate have very long characteristic 
times, so it could be many decades, or even hundreds of years before effects 
show up. By which time it would be too late to back out. One such long term 
item is the cycle time of the deep ocean currents.

[snip]

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

All SPAM goes in the trash unread.

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Horace Heffner]

At 11:32 AM 2/7/5, Mark Goldes wrote:

>Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would ride
>them up and then jump off and parachute down.

Awesomely strange (love)! 8^)

Somewhat reminds me of Fred Sparber's experience riding astride a runaway
atomic cannon, though in Fred's case it wasn't planned!

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Steven Krivit]

Mark,
>Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would ride 
them up and then jump off and parachute down.

That's pretty wild. How would such bombs be launched? I'm picturing a 
cartoon-like scenario of a man wrapping his arms around a missile...

Vorts-
Incidentally, Mark has some interesting things going on with 
room-temperature superconductors.
http://ultraconductors.com/

Steve

Re: High Energy Electron Bombardment of LiD & LiH, Was..

[Horace Heffner]

At 6:15 AM 2/7/5, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>>You can always try aluminum loaded with H or D, as Kamada et al did in the
>>two experiments described below:
>>
>Snip.
>
>No Horace.

Sure, Fred. Anyone can try it.  8^)


>
>The Proton + Li-7 Reaction P + 3 Li-7 > 2 He-4 + 17.6 Mev as well
>as the D-D, D-Li & Possible Hydrino reactions are possible when you dump
>750 joules per cubic millimeter ( 750 MegaJoules per cubic meter) or so,
>into a capsule
>of Lithium Hydride or Deuteride, creating plasma temperatures of around
>1.5 Billion degrees K
>and local pressures approaching several hundred kilobar or more.


Similar energy densities can be dumped into lattice confined hydrogen
bubbles.  I don't think in either case hydrinos would be significanly
involved, as the involved medium would be plasma.  Energetically effective
fusion created using electron beams I think is or would be essentially
electron catalysed fusion.  This requires a minimum beam intensity of
1x10^19 electrons/(cm^2*s), but I think improves with increased intensity.
Achieving a fast, dense, and high energy electron flux imposed on
inertially confined hydrogen might best be done using x-rays, however.
I've seen no research using an x-ray technique designed to achieve the
minimum high energy electron flux established by Kamada et al.  Maybe it
has been done, I just haven't seen it.


>
>If the Hydride/Deuteride can soak this up and rise to it's 680 C 25
>melting temperature and 25 Torr
>pressure in a stainless steel capsule (I've run Lithium Heat Pipes at
>white heat in 304 stainless)
>an energy multiplication of 5 X input would be a high grade thermonuclear
>heat source.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

RE: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Mark Goldes]

Mark,
I believe the material was real.  A lab assitant who worked with him, and 
then worked for GE, told a USAF research director that he had done a 4 point 
probe and measured zero resistance.

However, Vahldiek, who I have contacted several times, has so far been 
unwilling to work with anyone on reasonable terms.

Incldently, he was a test pilot for Nazi V1 flying bombs.  He would ride 
them up and then jump off and parachute down.

More practical RTSC, including our Ultraconductors will emerge in the next 
few years in the form of highly flexible wire.

Mark Goldes
Magnetic Power Inc.
Room Temperature Superconductors Inc.

From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: "Vortex List" 
Subject: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:39:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911
The October 9, 1980 issue of _Electronics_ magazine carried an
article titled "Superconductivity at room temperature reported
by Air Force researcher".  Fred W. Valhdiek, a materials research
engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio,
subjected titanium boride to extremely high pressure, and created
crystals that were superconducting at room temperature (after
removal from the press).  He was awarded U.S. Patent 4,349,636
for this in 1982.
I talked with him by phone several times over the years since then.
He denied that he was given a piece of superconducting material
from the Roswell saucer (which was said to have been taken to
Wright-Pat) and asked to duplicate it; he said he was just
looking for improved high-temperature material for turbine blades.
He said he clamped four TiB crystals together in a square and
used a magnetic field to create a persistent current.
Later he said that he was able to create (very stiff) wire out
of the material, and made a ring of it that carried a persistent
current.
The persistent currents have lasted for months.  The material
remains superconducting in a magnetic field of 1,000,000 gauss.
He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them
has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of
the profits, without which he won't release any of the material,
although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to
his home and test his samples.  The details of the manufacturing
process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).
He said the U.S. government isn't interested in it.  He said he
talked with EPRI.
The last time I spoke with him was June 2003.
This ridiculous situation has been going on for twenty-five years!
It would really be nice if someone with money could reach an
agreement with this man before he shuffles off to the next world,
taking the secret with him (if he hasn't already).
His e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Mark
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:50:05PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>http://www.theenergyguy.com/USEnFlow00-quads.pdf
>
>Thanks for bringing this graphic to my attention, Jed.
>It continues to astonish me to realize the actual percentage of
>energy wasted just trying to get to the final destination.
>
>Makes me hope that affordable room temperature superconductivity
>might soon be around the corner.
>Steven Vincent Johnson

Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Horace Heffner]

At 10:39 AM 2/7/5, Mark S Bilk wrote:

>He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them
>has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of
>the profits, without which he won't release any of the material,
>although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to
>his home and test his samples.  The details of the manufacturing
>process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).

A patent must provide enough information that one skilled in the art can
obtain the utility of the patent.  Failure to reveal such information
invalidates the patent, and actually should prevent its granting in the
first place if noticed by the examiner.   This is now a moot point if the
patent expired.  In general, you just can't have it both ways.  You can't
hide some aspect of the method of construction or manufacture that is
essential to fully obtaining the utility claimed, and still expect to get a
patent.  A patent is essentially a *full* disclosure made in the public
interest, in return for some number of years of a monopoly while the
license fees are maintained.  There is a duty to describe the best
implimentation(s) known at the time.


Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Role of God in government

[Steven Krivit]

Ed,
It was filmed starting about 10 days ago. He is currently travelling from 
NY to Los Angeles. He films each day, edits on his laptop (while driving!) 
and then uploads the MPG via the Internet once he "docks" each night.

Steve
At 11:33 AM 2/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Thanks, Steve. Hume did a good job.  Too bad it had no effect on the election.
Ed

Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago

[Mark S Bilk]

In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911

The October 9, 1980 issue of _Electronics_ magazine carried an 
article titled "Superconductivity at room temperature reported 
by Air Force researcher".  Fred W. Valhdiek, a materials research 
engineer at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio, 
subjected titanium boride to extremely high pressure, and created
crystals that were superconducting at room temperature (after 
removal from the press).  He was awarded U.S. Patent 4,349,636 
for this in 1982.

I talked with him by phone several times over the years since then.
He denied that he was given a piece of superconducting material
from the Roswell saucer (which was said to have been taken to 
Wright-Pat) and asked to duplicate it; he said he was just 
looking for improved high-temperature material for turbine blades.

He said he clamped four TiB crystals together in a square and 
used a magnetic field to create a persistent current.

Later he said that he was able to create (very stiff) wire out 
of the material, and made a ring of it that carried a persistent
current.

The persistent currents have lasted for months.  The material 
remains superconducting in a magnetic field of 1,000,000 gauss.

He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them
has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of
the profits, without which he won't release any of the material,
although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to
his home and test his samples.  The details of the manufacturing
process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).

He said the U.S. government isn't interested in it.  He said he
talked with EPRI.

The last time I spoke with him was June 2003.

This ridiculous situation has been going on for twenty-five years!

It would really be nice if someone with money could reach an 
agreement with this man before he shuffles off to the next world,
taking the secret with him (if he hasn't already).  

His e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Mark

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:50:05PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>http://www.theenergyguy.com/USEnFlow00-quads.pdf
>
>Thanks for bringing this graphic to my attention, Jed.
>It continues to astonish me to realize the actual percentage of 
>energy wasted just trying to get to the final destination.
>
>Makes me hope that affordable room temperature superconductivity 
>might soon be around the corner.
>Steven Vincent Johnson

Re: Role of God in government

[Edmund Storms]

Thanks, Steve. Hume did a good job.  Too bad it had no effect on the 
election.

Ed
Steven Krivit wrote:
Ed,
I think this a follow-up thread to that of Bill Moyers discussing the 
relationship between environment, religion and our government.

I'll add my $0.01 (devalued dollar, you know.) 
-This- high-tech worker has been significantly replaced by inexpensive 
labor in India, too.

I think you'll like Hume's work:
Filmmaker Chris Hume's Provocative Red State Road Trip 

http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

Steve

Re: The joy of good discussion

[Edmund Storms]

Acknowledging God does not mean that the Christian religion is being 
acknowledged or supported. The idea of a god is universal and a belief 
in a spiritual reality does not have anything to do with Christianity. 
 It is possible for a government to acknowledge the existence of a god 
without actively supporting a particular understanding of the concept. 
The problem comes because certain Christians think their concepts are 
the only ones that matter or are real.  They then insist that government 
policy support their concepts.

Regards,
Ed Storms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vortexer's- What does the preamble to the constituion say?
 I seem to have a memory that something about God
 is included.- GES

Re: Role of God in government

[leaking pen]

jed, yeah, and facism was just a fad in germany.  it still did a hell
of a lot of damage.


john...  wow.  we DONT need a military launchpad in the area, and if
we did, there are other countries in the area relatively friendly to
us that would have been less work.  say, turkey.  the us's purchase of
oil is a small amount, we would not bankrupt the world if our oil
consumption were cut to even teh extreme of 10 percent current
consumption.

and you say socialism like its a bad thing.  as long as we have
corporate america exploiting the middle class here, we NEED a
socialist government to counterbalance.

as for china...   the powers that be here dont want a middle class
china.  that would raise the price of our manufactured goods we
import.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:35:59 -0600, John Steck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose if you take everything at face value and fail to see everything is
> based on military strategy then I guess I understand your confusion.  We are
> in Iraq because we have to get out of Saudi Arabia and we need a military
> launch pad in the region to maintain some semblance of stability in the
> production of fuel for the rest of the world.  Having Saddam pull the short
> straw was a no brainer.  We continue to buy oil because if we didn't the
> world economy would collapse and www3 would begin.  It is nothing more than
> a wealth redistribution system.  "Food for Oil" on a much grander scale if
> you will (and just as corrupt).
> 
> Same for China.  We are at war with China... not a hot or cold war, a green
> war.  We can not win traditionally so we are taking the Ron Reagan approach.
> We are compromising their will as a nation by infecting them with
> Capitalism.  As soon as we help them grow a middle class, we will have the
> necessary tools in place INSIDE the country to overthrow the existing
> COMMUNIST government.
> 
> Same for social security.  SS is nothing more than socialism with lipstick
> on.  Government is big, dumb, and slow.  It's only most dangerous when it
> implements something new because the true implications are rarely known.
> Once something is in place, the parasites that feed on it will NEVER let the
> core elements change.  It becomes the evil we know.
> 
> -john
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 12:29 PM
> To: Vortex
> Subject: Role of God in government
> 
> It is obvious that several contributors to Vortex hold very strong
> opinions about the Christian religion. It is also obvious that such
> opinions are shaping national policy in ways that are not beneficial to
> the general population.  We went to war based on the lie that Iraq had
> WMD, the social security system is being changed based on several lies,
> we send our work overseas based on the lie that this is good for our
> economy, we now have the largest debt of any nation at any time in
> history based on a lie that this does not matter, and now the
> fundamental relationship between religion and government is being
> changed based on a lie.  I'm interested to know how people who support
> the present government justify this approach and how this tendency to
> lie squares with their understanding of the Christian religion. If a
> person supports obvious lies, how can anything they say be trusted?
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Storms
> 
> Our Godless Constitution
> 
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2005
> 
> Church And State Voters
> 
>  (Photo: AP / CBS)
> 
> Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment
> ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus
> Christ was conspicuously absent.
> 
> (The Nation) This column from The Nation was written by Brooke Allen. It
> is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George
> Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts.
> The lesson the President has learned best -- and certainly the one that
> has been the most useful to him -- is the axiom that if you repeat a lie
> often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's
> current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on
> Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles
> but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor
> player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.
> 
> Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too
> obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander
> Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one
> account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid";
> according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's
> biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.
> 
> In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned
> only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has
> remarked, in the "only

Re: The joy of good discussion

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Vortexer's- What does the preamble to the constituion say?
 I seem to have a memory that something about God
 is included.- GES

The joy of good discussion

[RC Macaulay]

No question this group is special. Discussions may 
diverge into religion or politics but the  focus returns to science. It may 
be the diverging events that make for the cyberworld health and longevity of the 
group.
 
No one can change anothers belief system but we all seem 
to " cut each other slack" that permits one's views to be expressed. That is 
science .. in itself !
 
Richard
 
 
<>

RE: Role of God in government

[John Steck]

I suppose if you take everything at face value and fail to see everything is
based on military strategy then I guess I understand your confusion.  We are
in Iraq because we have to get out of Saudi Arabia and we need a military
launch pad in the region to maintain some semblance of stability in the
production of fuel for the rest of the world.  Having Saddam pull the short
straw was a no brainer.  We continue to buy oil because if we didn't the
world economy would collapse and www3 would begin.  It is nothing more than
a wealth redistribution system.  "Food for Oil" on a much grander scale if
you will (and just as corrupt).

Same for China.  We are at war with China... not a hot or cold war, a green
war.  We can not win traditionally so we are taking the Ron Reagan approach.
We are compromising their will as a nation by infecting them with
Capitalism.  As soon as we help them grow a middle class, we will have the
necessary tools in place INSIDE the country to overthrow the existing
COMMUNIST government.

Same for social security.  SS is nothing more than socialism with lipstick
on.  Government is big, dumb, and slow.  It's only most dangerous when it
implements something new because the true implications are rarely known.
Once something is in place, the parasites that feed on it will NEVER let the
core elements change.  It becomes the evil we know.

-john


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 12:29 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Role of God in government


It is obvious that several contributors to Vortex hold very strong
opinions about the Christian religion. It is also obvious that such
opinions are shaping national policy in ways that are not beneficial to
the general population.  We went to war based on the lie that Iraq had
WMD, the social security system is being changed based on several lies,
we send our work overseas based on the lie that this is good for our
economy, we now have the largest debt of any nation at any time in
history based on a lie that this does not matter, and now the
fundamental relationship between religion and government is being
changed based on a lie.  I'm interested to know how people who support
the present government justify this approach and how this tendency to
lie squares with their understanding of the Christian religion. If a
person supports obvious lies, how can anything they say be trusted?

Regards,
Ed Storms


Our Godless Constitution

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2005



Church And State Voters


  (Photo: AP / CBS)



Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment
ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus
Christ was conspicuously absent.


(The Nation) This column from The Nation was written by Brooke Allen. It
is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George
Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts.
The lesson the President has learned best -- and certainly the one that
has been the most useful to him -- is the axiom that if you repeat a lie
often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's
current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on
Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles
but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor
player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too
obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander
Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one
account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid";
according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's
biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned
only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has
remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of
Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature
and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official
references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God
We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under
God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy
hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge,"
April 5, 2004].

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship
between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of
Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article
11 of the treaty contains these words:

"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity
against the laws, religion, or tran

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[Jed Rothwell]

This is just a passing phase or fad. All nations, including
the US, periodically go to extremes with one belief or another. In the
1920s and again in the 1950s in the U.S. people became obsessed with
communism and subversion, but after a while they came to their senses. At
present a small number of people are on a religious binge. This happened
in the late 19th century ("The Great Awakening") and again in
the early 19th century. Today's obsessions include religion and obscenity
on broadcast television. Complaints about obscenity have risen from 111
in the year 2000 to over 1 million last year. Most of these complaints
are lodged by members of "family oriented" right-wing pressure
groups. They are of no consequence, in my opinion. Actually, I am pleased
to see extremist groups (on the left or right) waste their political
momentum on trivial issues such as obscenity on television.
The US also went to extremes with the prohibition and with today's
"war on drugs." These had much more serious consequences than
the obsession with television pornography. The Civil War was obviously
the worst case of extremism in US history.
As for the humanist origins of the Constitution and the federal
government, throughout most of US history the federal government has been
considerably more liberal than the population at large. There have been
glaring exceptions such as the incarceration of Japanese-American
citizens and the 1950s anti-Communist witch hunts.
- Jed

RE: A last resort attack on global warming

[John Steck]

I don't think that was the case at all.  The strength of this list has
always been the highly creative people that engage in free-for-all
brainstorming.  For brainstorming to truly work effectively, outright
disregard of 'crazy' ideas should never be done.  Innovation comes from
unlikely places and unless you are willing to suspend belief in widely
accepted principals, you will never see better solutions that sometimes
completely contradict... like the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth,
etc.

Have faith in human nature to be too lazy or greedy to implement something
so altruistic.  Heated discussions on the implications to sovereign airspace
for such a particle band in the UN would never end... 8^)

-john


-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I was troubled by the speed with which people jumped on the band-wagon, IOW
the apparent readiness of others to see it is a primary solution rather than
a last resort.

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[leaking pen]

richard, no one, i repeat , NO ONE, finds anything offensive in the
teachings of jesus.  (well, maybe the neocons, which is a laugh, but
hey)

what people find offensive are those who demand that others live by
their religion.  the false persecution that so many "christians"  (and
as a christian, one who lives by the teachings of christ, i think its
safe to say that many who call themselves that ARENT.)  claim is
pretty much a matter of , well, im not being allowed to persecute that
group for not believing the way i do, and thats persecution against
me.

its bull.  people are attacking trying to run the country by the rules
of a few sub sects of christianity, not the actual sects.  its like
trying to cry "antisemitism" when people attack the policys of isreal.
 its not, so stop crying it.




ed, youve gone exactly where i was about too.  the neo-cons currently
running our country dont believe in science.  its a simple fact.  but
it gets worse than that.  if youve read some of the old documents from
PNAC, you'd know that the neo-con agenda is a rather simple one.  they
are trying to actively bring about armageddon and the rapture.  for
the real movers and shakers of the neo cons, global warming is a GOOD
thing.

thats the kind of dangerous thinking that needs to be quashed.  people
destroying the planet under the belief that it will get them to heaven
sooner.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:27:46 -0700, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> RC Macaulay wrote:
> 
> > Interesting subject
> > - Original Message -
> > From: RC Macaulay 
> > To: Christian Fellowship 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Role of God in government
> >
> >
> >
> > The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes
> > Ben Franklin.
> >
> >   " as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize
> > upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with
> > now,"
> >
> > Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion
> > because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to
> > defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation
> > has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about
> > expressing their opinions without knowing their subject.
> 
> >  What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching?   No, not what
> > people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words.
> 
> I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus.  In any case, that is
> not the issue.  The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects
> that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible.  These
> sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are
> damaging to the  general public when they are put into policy.
> >
> >
> > I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ.
> > I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary
> > prayer in schools and in government.
> > I do not believe it should be mandated.
> 
> If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist.
> >
> > I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what
> > wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this
> > great nation  to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that
> > is betting your life on your decision.
> >
> > Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in  the " Nation" , an AP/CBS
> > interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st
> > chapter. Compare them for yourself.  Paul's writing is an accurate
> > portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves.
> 
> Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the
> founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis
> for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush
> administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation
> in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to
> impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For
> example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception,
> and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to
> certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs
> are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration.
> >
> > Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the
> > habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
> 
> Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others.
> Also, two kinds of lying people exist.  Some people lie because they can
> not help it.  They base their view of reality on their unique
> understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand,
> people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[Edmund Storms]

RC Macaulay wrote:
Interesting subject
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay 
To: Christian Fellowship 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Role of God in government
 
 
The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes 
Ben Franklin.
 
  " as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize 
upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with 
now,"
 
Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion 
because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ.
 
That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to 
defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation 
has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about 
expressing their opinions without knowing their subject.

 What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching?   No, not what 
people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words.
I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus.  In any case, that is 
not the issue.  The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects 
that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible.  These 
sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are 
damaging to the  general public when they are put into policy.
>
 
I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ.
I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary 
prayer in schools and in government.
I do not believe it should be mandated.
If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist.
 
I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what 
wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this 
great nation  to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that 
is betting your life on your decision.
 
Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in  the " Nation" , an AP/CBS 
interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st 
chapter. Compare them for yourself.  Paul's writing is an accurate 
portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves.
Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the 
founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis 
for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush 
administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation 
in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to 
impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For 
example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception, 
and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to 
certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs 
are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration.
 
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the 
habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others. 
Also, two kinds of lying people exist.  Some people lie because they can 
not help it.  They base their view of reality on their unique 
understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand, 
people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are 
only intent on gaining power and advantage over other people. 
Politicians are noted for being this kind of liars.

For those of you who think this thread has gone too far from an accepted 
subject for Vortex, let me propose that the attitude of government plays 
a significant role in the creation and solving of problems.  Science can 
not do everything, especially when the insights of science are ignored. 
 For example, as a previous thread has argued, ignoring global warming 
may require creative solutions that may not work.  Would it not be 
better to have a government that saw the danger and stepped in before 
such solutions are required. The question is, why does the US government 
and the Christians who support it fail to recognize obvious problems, 
the example above being only one of many? Why do they accept obvious 
lies and policies that are clearly harmful to the general population? 
What makes Christians so blind?  Science in the US would have fewer 
problems to solve if such blindness did not exist.  Also, to be 
practical, science would have more money to solve the unavoidable 
problems if the policies were not so wasteful. Why are conservatives and 
Christians not up in arms and on the street demanding that changes be 
made rather than ranting against people who suggest that the system is 
broken?

Perhaps answers to these questions can not be given.  In which case, I 
apologize for the bother.

Regards.
Ed Storms
 
Richard
 
 
 
 
 

 

Re: A last resort attack on global warming

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:
"Two or three modest space elevators with perhaps 10 times of
capacity each . . ."
I meant 10 tons of payload capacity, per trip. I think a trip would take
about a week with the primitive space elevators now being planned. The
Space Shuttle capacity is 29 tons. The DC-3 payload was about 9 tons. One
DC-3 full of equipment and supplies every few days would be enough to
build a gigantic mylar shade, but it would not be enough to build a
significant number of solar power generators. However, once a space
elevator is in place, it can be used to bootstrap a larger space
elevator.
- Jed

Re: A last resort attack on global warming

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
I am also troubled by the
possibility that the oil barons may use it as an excuse to keep on
keeping on. 
That bothers me too, when applied to less drastic solutions that people
are actually offering now, such as building dikes around cities.

There is also the
chance that, due to the uncertainties involved, the effect will be too
great, and overshoot the mark, resulting in a new ice age. Once such a
cloud is in place, it would be next to impossible to get rid of it again,
and we may not find out that we have gone too far, until it is too
late.
I do not think this would be a problem, because it would take a long time
to do this, and only a little of the aluminum would be added per payload,
so the effects would be closely monitored.
I discussed a project similar to this in chapter 9 of "Cold Fusion
and the Future." I proposed gigantic orbiting mylar parasols. These
would certainly be benign and I think they would be more practical than
they sound. I said it would only be practical to implement something like
this with space elevators. This is true of the aluminum plan as well I
think. It would drastically lower the cost, by a factor of 10 or 100. Two
or three modest space elevators with perhaps 10 times of capacity each
would probably be enough to implement the plan. I think this would
inevitably lead to the construction of a larger set of space elevators
with hundreds of tons of capacity. This, in turn, could allow orbiting
space power systems that transmit power to Earth via microwaves. This
would solve the energy crisis, and eliminate CO2 emissions. It would be
far more expensive than cold fusion, and much less flexible, but it would
solve the problem. For that matter, so would a practical hot fusion
reactor.
- Jed

RE: Good energy flow flowchart from Lawrence Livermore

[orionworks]

From: Jed Rothwell

>Matt McConnell pointed this out to me:
>
>http://www.theenergyguy.com/USEnFlow00-quads.pdf
>
>- Jed

Thanks for bringing this graphic to my attention, Jed.

It continues to astonish me to realize the actual percentage of energy wasted 
just trying to get to the final destination.

Makes me hope that affordable room temperature superconductivity might soon be 
around the corner.

Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: High Energy Electron Bombardment of LiD & LiH, Was..

[Frederick Sparber]

One could always add some Boron-10 or Lithium Borohydride LiBH4 to the Lithium Hydride/Deuteride
capsule, to get the high reaction cross-section neutron Boron-10 Reaction:
 
n + B-10 > He-4 + Li-7 +  ~ 3.2 Mev
Boom or Bust?
Frederick

Re: High Energy Electron Bombardment of LiD & LiH, Was..

[Frederick Sparber]

Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>You can always try aluminum loaded with H or D, as Kamada et al did in the>two experiments described below:
>
Snip.
 
No Horace. 
 
The Proton + Li-7 Reaction P + 3 Li-7 > 2 He-4 + 17.6 Mev as well 
as the D-D, D-Li & Possible Hydrino reactions are possible when you dump
750 joules per cubic millimeter ( 750 MegaJoules per cubic meter) or so, into a capsule
of Lithium Hydride or Deuteride, creating plasma temperatures of around 1.5 Billion degrees K 
and local pressures approaching several hundred kilobar or more. 
 
If the Hydride/Deuteride can soak this up and rise to it's 680 C 25 melting temperature and 25 Torr 
pressure in a stainless steel capsule (I've run Lithium Heat Pipes at white heat in 304 stainless)
an energy multiplication of 5 X input would be a high grade thermonuclear heat source.  
 
Frederick