Re: Oil Crash
At 02:28 pm 22-03-05 -0800, you wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ They have no wine. Time to wheel out the five water pots. 8-) Frank Grimer
Re: Oil Crash
Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable?
Re: OT: The will of God
I apologize for not hearing the sarcasm, which is now obvious to me. I live and work with fundametalists every day and so sometimes I am inclined to take people at their word when they say such things. I must admit it has been a fun conversation though. --- Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And now I really will shut up :-) Cheers... Cheers... Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Oil Crash
At 8:34 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable? All you can get on this right now is opinion, so here's mine. The very existence of global warming is still contended. Unlike typical new scientific theories and supporting data, which can be fully accepted only when those who have professed opposed principles all their lives die off, we can not wait for those who can not accept the existence global warming, much less the possibility of *runaway* global warming, to die off before action is taken. Unfortunately, that is the mode we have been in - waiting for both politically over committed scientists and scientifically challenged politicians to die off so an appropriate perspective can be developed. Research on global warming in general, and on methane release in particular, has been grossly underfunded. This is the other side of the coin with regard to common funding errors. Funding for fusion research, and renewable energy research and development, is too small because the funding process is not based on the expected value of the research, but rather the likelihood the research will yield anything important. This effect is due to the need for ego protection. No bureaucrat wants to fund anything which might fail, much less anything stigmatized which might fail. The expected value of research is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome times the dollar value of such outcome. Errors in funding decisions occur when there is a colossal value to a possible outcome which has small probability. In the case of cold fusion, the dollar value is for all practical purposes infinite. The probability of successfully achieving it is not zero, as many researchers can attest, so the expected value of the research in this area dwarfs many other kinds of research. This results in an error on the positive side, or type 1 error (my definition). The other side of the coin, a type 2 error, is an error on the negative side, a failing to asses the expected cost of risk, i.e. to examine negative expected values. Research on runaway global warming, due to methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type 2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically high negative value. The probability of this risk is not zero, as evidenced by the climate mode of Venus. Given the fact that type 1 and and type 2 funding errors continue to be made, there is no way to reliably answer your question. The ongoing research may be too little too late. The effect of the oil peak can be reasonably predicted, however. The response in some countries will likely be to substitute coal energy for petroleum energy. The effect of this is clearly catastrophic. It is reasonable to expect that only a world war, both economic and military, can stop this. Further, the peak is just that, merely a peak. The subject article suggests the peak is symmetrical. If the peak occurs in 2000, it suggests the production in 2020 will be the same as in 1980. On this basis we can see that emissions out to 2150 will mimic those of the industrial age, and thus environmental catastrophe is unavoidable even if Hubbert's peak exists and we have passed the peak. I happen to have a little bit of practical experience with the projection of production curves. In my experience they are not symmetrical. They decrease more rapidly than they increase. I therefore think we thus can expect social effects more quickly than the article suggest, and a turn to coal production much more quickly than many expect. Methane production will increase dramatically too, but that is already a given. To sum up my opinion, the net effect of passing a global oil production peak, barring a miracle, will be to increase carbon emissions. Research funding errors, both type 1 and type 2 have been and will continue to be made until those who make them die off or are replaced. On the bight side, I was most surprised to catch on TV a small piece of a recent news conference in which President Bush was strongly encouraging energy conservation. I was also surprised no one mentioned it on vortex. This may be a sign of some kind of awakening in the administration. Then again, maybe not. My approach to a solution of the problem, An Energy Legacy Plan, I have posted here on vortex a number a times. As the plan notes, the funding amount suggested in the plan is too small, but was chosen because it seemed feasible based on political and economic conditions at the time. The
Re: OT: The will of God
At 1:32 PM 3/10/5, thomas malloy wrote: The scenario which is being played out was prophecized 4000 years ago, ergo it is the will of G-d. The Islamists believe that Allah has blessed their enterprise too. The fact that Allah isn't god has no bearing on their behavior, they believe that he is god, and they will do what the Quran tells them to do. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. The difference lies in the words and thus opinions of men, not in the two gods. Peace between these world factions must finally be won in the hearts of humanity, not in the interpretation of scripture. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Oil Crash
Edmund Storms wrote: I wonder why the article ignores the fact that deuterium is the only energy source that is in sufficient amount with a sufficiently high energy density? Actually, I believe the energy density and availability of uranium would be enough to produce all the energy we need for a few thousand years, even with today's highly inefficient fission reactors. Of course there are many problems with uranium as we all know! Wind energy could supply a large fraction of today's total energy demand. It might even be enough to supply all energy, but future demand is likely to grow, and it would be nice to have enough energy left over for things like gigantic desalination projects. I do not think that wind or uranium could supply enough energy for such purposes. The only source of energy large enough for this, other than deuterium fusion (hot or cold), would be space-based solar energy. The prospects for space-based solar are becoming much more realistic than they used to be, with the likely advent of space elevators. If serious global warming set in, I believe we could launch Manhattan Project scale efforts and we could build a very substantial number of space-based solar to microwave generators within 20 or 30 years. Combined with improvements in efficiency and laws banning things such as SUVs, I expect this could stop global warming, and even reverse the trend. However, it seems unlikely to me that people will muster the political will to do this sort of thing, or that the technical knowledge will become widespread quickly enough. Cold fusion would be and much easier and far cheaper alternative, if only it could be made to work reliably. - Jed
Quote from Thomas Henry Huxley
T. H. Huxley quote: I have said that the man of science is the sworn interpreter of nature in the high court of reason. But of what avail is his honest speech, if ignorance is the assessor of the judge, and prejudice the foreman of the jury? I hardly know of a great physical truth, whose universal reception has not been preceded by an epoch in which most estimable persons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile, but blasphemous. And there is wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo. - Lecture at Royal Institution, 10 February 1860
water on mars: humor
sorry guys, got this one in an email, couldnt resist. first picture of water on mars. http://www.kiss-ezlink.com/downloads/funny/First%20picture%20of%20water%20on%20mars.jpg
Re: ...water into wine...
Developing the ...water into wine... theme, I had recourse to one of Beene's old posts and was impressed by how prescient it was. Bits like, for instance. = Now, consider the implications of Dry Ice Blasting. Dry ice blasting is similar to sand blasting, but solid carbon dioxide (CO2) is accelerated in a pressurized air stream to impact a surface. One unique aspect of using dry ice particles is that the particles sublimate (vaporize) upon impact with the surface. The gas expands to eight hundred times the volume of the solid in a few milliseconds in what is effectively a micro-explosion at the point of impact. This is not evidence of OU or ZPE coherence. It is mentioned only because it points towards the proven methodology of converting small amounts of heat into larger amounts of usable energy - even at extremely low overall temperatures. And when you substitute *water-ice* micro-spheres for dry ice, you get an expansion ratio that is 25% greater (i.e. 1000:1 rather than 800:1, PLUS a much higher critical pressure - over 3 times higher) = I think the problem is probably easier than it looks once one has changed the concepts one is using. I believe that in years to come people will be amazed that it took so long to use the power of ice. I suppose is an analogous situation to the use of steam as a motive power. All very obvious to us know because we have the appropriate concepts to understand what is going on - but in the early days the whole thing must have been very mysterious, even to the inventors. The power of ice is so obvious and so universal - it splits rocks heaves roads, breaks plumbing, sinks Titanics, heaps up glacial moraines, carries erratic blocks [not to be confused with erotic blacks as our geology lecturer would remind us ;-) ] far across the countryside. And yet, no one has yet put it to good use, with the commendable exception of that farmer (I must try and re find the URL). The conceptual changes needed are:- [1]. The inversion of the concept of temperature and the recognition that we are dealing with a external pressure. [2]. The recognition that (as the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics first showed me) two different gasses at temperature T, say, are not at the same temperature, but at equilibrium temperatures. [3]. The corollary of [2] that the gasses are not at the same Beta-atmosphere pressure but at equilibrium pressures (stresses). [4]. That we are dealing with strain energies under the alias of pressure and that, most importantly, we are dealing with balancing TENSION COMPRESSION STRAIN ENERGIES. Because I am an engineer I am very conscious of the fact the epsilon^2 has both a positive and a negative root, i.e. it can be tensile strain energy or compressive strain energy. Now this doesn't, as far as I know, arise in the case of Kinetic Energy say. Nobody ever suggested to me that one could have negative velocity. You can see how this lacuna has come about. When the idea of moving bodies first arose, the bodies were presumed to move in empty space. The idea of a negative velocity in such a space doesn't arise. For a negative velocity to make sense (or a negative anything else for that matter) there has to be an ambient velocity for the objects velocity to fall below. Now with water, the two B-A pressures must be something like the ionic H-O bond pressure, which I imagine might be the compressive strain, and the hydrogen bond the tensile strain as the first approximation. However, as Chaplin's site shows us, we have a lot more to play with. For example, consider these juicy facts:- The equilibrium ratio is all para at zero Kelvin shifting to 3:1 ortho:para at less cold temperatures (50 K);c the equilibrium taking months to establish itself in ice and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due to its non-rotation ground state [410]. Also, if we think of the bond as being a strut or tie, then quite apart from the axial strain energy we have the differential strain energy arising from the fact that the strut/tie is bent out of its free position by Compreture loading. I think the key will turn out to be the rate at which manipulation of the water/ice system takes place - very fast one way - very slow the other - something like that. We can think of 4 degree water as analogous to a prestressed concrete beam just prior to the point of collapse. Now anybody who has had any connection with dismantling pre-stressed concrete structures will know its not a job you can leave in the hands of Paddy Murphy. ;-) There is an
Re: water on mars: humor
At 09:41 am 23-03-05 -0700, you wrote: sorry guys, got this one in an email, couldnt resist. first picture of water on mars. http://www.kiss-ezlink.com/downloads/funny/First%20picture%20of%20water%20on%20mars.jpg Well, at least we were spared a picture of water on Uranus. ;-) FG
Re: Oil Crash
Stephen wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: This article says that the Canadian Sands won't save us because you can't squeeze it out fast enough: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Fascinating. Does anyone here know what the effect of peak oil is likely to be on global warming? Lack of oil will ruin the economy and lead to WWIII -- but will it also save the polar bears? Or have CO2 levels already gone so high that a methane burp followed by a total meltdown is inevitable? Take note of the cover story of the last Scientific American. The author uses deep ice core data to measure the cyclic methane and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over may millenia. It is cyclic, the cycles synchronous with variations in the solar illumination due to interactions of the eccentriciey of the the Eartth's orbit and its precession of the rotation axis -- both cosmic effect, beyond control of man. Following those cycles, Earth should have entered a cooling phase some 5-8000 years ago, headed for an ice age. That trend has been counterbalanced by the rise of agriculure, producing mathane from rotting crops and increasing carbon dioxide through deforestation. Thus we have ha a nice climate, due the presence of Man. We overdid it with the industrial age and massive use of fossil fuel, and may now face consequences. However, if the peak oil scenario is as bas as advertised, then the use of fossil fuels will decline, and we may continue down the cosmic cooling cycle toward another ice age. Thus even though there may be a near term victory for LENR and BLP to arrest the peak in global warming, the ride can still be bumpy. And to think there is a comepetition as to who can build the scariest roller coaster rides :-). Mike Carrell
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:22:51 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] For $8k extra per vehicle: http://wired.com/news/autotech/0%2C2554%2C66949%2C00.html Earlier this year, GM unveiled the Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid, a sedan concept vehicle the company claims would increase fuel economy by 25 percent over a comparable diesel car, or approximately 59 miles per gallon. The vehicle uses a hybrid system with two electric motors being co-developed with DaimlerChrysler, according to GM. Note that the people at http://www.dolphinaci.com/technology/technology.html are already getting 90+ mpg in some tests, and outperforming the Prius in all tests, and all they have done is somewhat modify a conventional engine, hence the cost of the vehicle could remain about the same. The only thing preventing this from being adopted across the automobile industry is the will to do it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: The only thing preventing this from being adopted across the automobile industry is the will to do it. And politics. And -- I suppose -- pressure from the oil industry. But if the price of gasoline goes up to $5 per gallon these impediments will vanish. - Jed
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
leaking pen wrote: on the issue of fuel economy, a friend of mine just made a good point. there are an estimated 170 million cars on the road. if one in ten (seems likely) have a one ounce support the troops sticker, we are talking about a bit over a million pounds of metal being shipped around daily. Entertaining idea, but a typical sticker doesn't weigh an ounce. More like a gram, which would cut that million pounds down to about 30,000 pounds. On the other hand, if you throw in the energy cost to manufacture all the American flags being flown at gas stations ever since the beginning of the war, the numbers start to look pretty impressive, I think. And then there are the pickup trucks with the flags plastered over their back windshields. If we add the cost of accidents caused by reduced visibility out the back ... well, whatever...
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
on the issue of fuel economy, a friend of mine just made a good point. there are an estimated 170 million cars on the road. if one in ten (seems likely) have a one ounce support the troops sticker, we are talking about a bit over a million pounds of metal being shipped around daily. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:48:42 +1100, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:22:51 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] For $8k extra per vehicle: http://wired.com/news/autotech/0%2C2554%2C66949%2C00.html Earlier this year, GM unveiled the Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid, a sedan concept vehicle the company claims would increase fuel economy by 25 percent over a comparable diesel car, or approximately 59 miles per gallon. The vehicle uses a hybrid system with two electric motors being co-developed with DaimlerChrysler, according to GM. Note that the people at http://www.dolphinaci.com/technology/technology.html are already getting 90+ mpg in some tests, and outperforming the Prius in all tests, and all they have done is somewhat modify a conventional engine, hence the cost of the vehicle could remain about the same. The only thing preventing this from being adopted across the automobile industry is the will to do it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread. -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Correspondence with M. Savinar
I wrote to the fellow who runs the web page under discussion here: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/. I introduced him to LENR-CANR.org, and you respond cordially. Attached is our correspondence. I hope he does not mind my copying it here. He strikes me as being somewhat alarmist. I do not think a severe crisis will occur in the first world in five years. As for the Third World, there is already an energy crisis and there always has been one. Anyway, $2 or $3 per gallon gasoline will strike many people as a crisis. Frankly, it is our best hope for progress in CF, and touches I deplore the suffering it will cause among poor people, I am glad to see these high prices. My only fear is that the high prices will *not* trigger a panic, and the public will gradually get used to the idea instead. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jed, Even if cold fusion comes online today, we are still left with the problem of retroftting a $45 trillion dollar (and growing) global infrastructure to run on CF - and to do so inside of 2-5 years. Ultimately, it would give us access to an energy source even denser than oil. Do you really want humanity to have access to something like that? Consider the consequences to the species if that was to happen. Oil was a lottery ticket. When you exhaust the winnings from a lottery ticket, the solution is not to go look for an even bigger jackpot. Best, Matt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MY RESPONSE: You wrote: Even if f cold fusion comes online today, we are still left with the problem of retroftting a $45 trillion dollar (and growing) global infrastructure to run on CF - and to do so inside of 2-5 years. That could not be done! It would take at least 10 years, in a Manhattan Project style crash program. However, it would not take 30 to 40 years, because the engineering performance of cold fusion is similar to combustion, and because cold fusion devices are remarkably simple. A few of them have already demonstrated power levels and power density high enough to be practical. While I agree with you there is a crisis, I think that we have somewhat more than 5 years. Conventional technologies such as hybrid engines and variable toll roads can greatly reduce our present use of oil, and stretch out supplies. I have considerably experience dealing with Japan because I work as a translator from Japanese into English. Japan and Italy are the two most energy-efficient countries, and we could improve our efficiency simply by purchasing technology from them. I am well aware of differences in transportation systems, average commuting distance, and so on, but that still leaves much room for improvement. Ultimately, it would give us access to an energy source even denser than oil. Do you really want humanity to have access to something like that? Yes, I do, even though I agree it might be a problem. Regarding this issue, I wrote: . . . [W]e can easily destroy the earth with the technology we already have. We do not need cold fusion, nuclear bombs or any advanced technology. We are using fire, mans oldest tool, to destroy the rain forests. The ancient Chinese, Greeks and Romans deforested large areas and turned millions of hectares of productive cropland into desert. The destructive side effects of technology in 2000 BC were as bad as they are today. Cold fusion surely will enhance peoples ability to commit everything from public nuisances to continental-scale mayhem. Gigantic cold fusion powered boom boxes and laser light shows may blast popular music and bright lights into neighborhoods, beaches and pristine National Parks. People may be tempted to drive SUVs the size of Mack Trucks, since they will not have to pay for gasoline. . . . That is in Chapter 19 of a free e-book I wrote, Cold Fusion and the Future, 186 pages, available here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf It was recommended by Arthur C. Clarke and by some of the world's leading electrochemists, and a poet friend of mine called it lyrical. Cold fusion has eclectic appeal. . . . You might enjoy the photos of Japan's most notorious pollution at the petrochemical refinery in Yokkaichi, on page 125. Perhaps enjoy is the wrong word -- you might be interested in seeing these pictures, and the ones on the next page showing schoolchildren gargling to avoid the effects of the air pollution. Consider the consequences to the species if that was to happen. I have thought long and hard about that very subject! That is not to say I am right but I have considered it in depth over the last 16 years. Also I am greatly concerned about other species, and invasive species. I wrote a chapter about that. - Jed
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Entertaining idea, but a typical sticker doesn't weigh an ounce. More like a gram, which would cut that million pounds down to about 30,000 pounds. Only a gram? 10 sheets of 8 x 11.5 paper weigh 46 grams. A 3 page letter in an envelope weighs an ounce. I have not weighed a sticker, but aren't they magnetic? The stick on magnet business cards I have seen are pretty heavy. I do not have one handy . . . On the other hand, if you throw in the energy cost to manufacture all the American flags being flown at gas stations ever since the beginning of the war, the numbers start to look pretty impressive, I think. I'll bet the biggest energy flag cost is the cost of all those flags on cars flapping in the wind. Fortunately, they have mostly frayed and you do not see them often anymore. - Jed
Fwd: Transmutation report
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:59:26 +0100 From: Haiko Lietz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear all, This email is to let you know about my report on MHI's transmutation experiments on German National Radio. Incidentally it was aired on today's 16th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. German article and on-demand audio are here: http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/forschak/359485/ Steve Krivit has the English version on his site: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2005Mitsubishi-Answer-Lietz.htm I deliberately headlined my article Mitsubishi's Answer to Nuclear Waste as a response to the call European Union needs a clear answer on nuclear waste by European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/122format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en Best regards Haiko Lietz Science Reporter Germany
Re: Wikipedia
Steven Krivit wrote: Hey Jed, Congratulations on your progress on the Wiki CF page. You have been surprisingly diplomatic ;) . I also respect the time you put in as evidenced by the discussion page. I tried to be diplomatic. But I must say, the Wikipedia CF article there is an unholy mess, and I do not have the energy to fix it properly. It is a mishmash of nonsense and real information. It gives you new respect for academic traditions such as peer review and the PhD exam. I wonder how many other articles in that encyclopedia are unreliable? I suspect that most useful information in most books is a mixture of truth and falsehood, sense and nonsense. You can be pretty sure that an article in an Almanac describing the structure of state governments or the history of the Post Office is correct, but valuable information about nature or controversial new discoveries will probably always be a stew of confusion, emotion and politics. The Scientific American still cannot bring itself to write the simple truth about early aviation and the Wright Brothers. Their 2003 review was nearly as absurd as their famous comments back in 1906. Gene Mallove summed it up beautifully in his quote from Emilo Segre, F. F. I, p. 22, describing the work of Hahn and Meitner: Their early papers are a mixture of error and truth as complicated as a mixture of fission products resulting from the bombardments. Such confusion was to remain for a long time a characteristic of much of the work on uranium. 2. You've established a method, using references, that is acceptable to the Wiki community. As you and others will note, your work has not been defaced or challenged. So far. There is no telling when a skeptic will come and erase it. There is no control and no recourse. That is the main reason I will not put any effort into correcting all the other mistakes. So there is hope. I'll see what I can do to help, a little bit here and there. Maybe we can make the Wiki page the best, most accurate, and most progressive reference for CF after all. Perhaps it will be the best for the general public, but for scientists nothing can beat original sources. - Jed
RE: Quote from Thomas Henry Huxley
--- On Wed 03/23, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: T. H. Huxley quote: I have said that the man of science is the sworn interpreter of nature inthe high court of reason. But of what avail is his honest speech, if ignorance is the assessor of the judge, and prejudice the foreman of the jury? I hardly know of a great physical truth, whose universal reception has not been preceded by an epoch in which most estimable persons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile, but blasphemous. And there is wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo. - Lecture at Royal Institution, 10 February 1860 We live in a coarse and less eloquent age. Let me provide a more prosaic and contemporary translation of the above: The main and essential product of the human race is bullshit. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: Wikipedia
Perhaps it will be the best for the general public, but for scientists nothing can beat original sources. True. Scott Chubb and I had a very pleasant talk with Jack Sandweiss, editor of Physical Review Letters, and also Prof. at Yale University yesterday at the APS conference. He seemed truly open-minded. Though the bottom line came to this - he, and I suspect others like him, is busy - and doesn't have much motivation to take the time to inquire more deeply about CF. Considering the low probability (in the minds of honest skeptics) of cf, what will motivate scientists to even look (through the telescope)? We have the data. Now, how do we get their interest? Perhaps when more papers get published, perhaps not. Perhaps the interest will be driven by commerce and the science community will be very surprised one day. Steve
Re: Wikipedia
Steven Krivit wrote: Considering the low probability (in the minds of honest skeptics) of cf, what will motivate scientists to even look (through the telescope)? Nothing will motivate them and it is a waste of time trying to motivate them. We have the data. Now, how do we get their interest? You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. If the data itself does not excite interest in a scientist, nothing can be done. You should go look for another scientist. I hope there are enough open-minded scientists in the world to make a critical mass and get the field moving. Perhaps when more papers get published, perhaps not. Not. You could publish 6,000 or 10,000 more papers, but I do not think it would have an effect on the attitudes of those who express no interest in the field. Most of them figure it is simply not their business. No amount of proven no number of papers change the mind of a harsh skeptic. My impression is that most skeptics are extreme conformists. They will parrot whatever the authoritative sources such as Nature, the APS or Scientific American say. They will not change their minds until these mainstream organizations endorse CF. There is no point to trying to convince them. There is no point in discussing the matter with them or confronting them in any way. Prof. Steve Jones, for example, to this day will not admit that a *single experiment has ever produced convincing excess heat*. He dismisses all excess heat results, including McKubre, Storms, Miles, Mizuno and all of the others documented at LENR-CANR.org. He says -- and I am sure he sincerely believes -- that they are all experimental error or all so close to the margin they are useless. He and others are also pulling strings to prevent any further experiments involving calorimetry. That is why the DoE report came out so strongly against calorimetry. This is not because they feel unsure of their own beliefs or they secretly worry they might be proven wrong -- it is because they are absolutely, positively certain they are right, and they view any questioning or deviation from their beliefs to be an outrage and a disgrace to science. From their point of view, the search for excess heat from cold fusion is as absurd as a test to see whether a cow really can jump from the surface of the earth over the moon. It is manifestly impossible, and anyone who does not understand that is a crackpot, not a scientist. It is fruitless waste of time talking to such people. It is like trying to convince a religious fanatic of the theory of evolution. You have to go after open-minded people and fence-sitters. I believe there is some hope of success because people have downloaded more than 300,000 papers from LENR-CANR.org, and we get new visitors every day. There must be many people out there who are interested in the subject and will take a careful look at it. We must concentrate on those people and ignore the others. Perhaps the interest will be driven by commerce and the science community will be very surprised one day. Given the difficulties of replicating cold fusion, and the unpredictable power output from the reaction, I think it is very unlikely that corporations or venture capitalists will look at it. They have a very short horizon. Politicians are even worse. The other day I read that it is standard White House policy to deal with issues on a 90-day horizon -- i.e., it is the policy of the administration to ignore any crisis, legislative initiativeor opportunity that will not reach fruition (I mean pan out) within 90 days. Many corporations are run on this basis nowadays as well, with an eye to the stock market. Before corporations look at cold fusion, researchers must first learn to control the reaction. Our audience now is limited to researchers -- mainly academic researchers. This may seem pessimistic, but it is not necessarily so because there may be enough academic researchers out there to rescue the field. - Jed
Re: Wikipedia
Jed, Pessimistic, yes. Logical and realistic, yes. Perhaps we need miracle #4, whatever that will be. Steve
Re: Oil Crash
At 11:29 AM 3/23/5, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Research on runaway global warming, due to methane release and high altitude water vapor, is undervalued due to a type 2 error. Failing to asses the risk early enough has a catastrophically high negative value. The probability of this risk is not zero, as evidenced by the climate mode of Venus. Think positively! I think we can safely discount the Venus scenario. There is stron evidence we can not safely discount the Venus scenario (see below.) After all, Earth has been through at least one apparently permanent snowball phase in which the albedo went 'way up. My understanding is that the recovery path from snowball Earth was provided by the accumulation of massive quantities of CO2, released by volcanoes over a period of millenia, which remained in the atmosphere, unused, due to the lack of green plants. The CO2 level finally got high enough (10%? 20%?) to produce a truly ferocious greenhouse effect, which eventually melted the snowball ... and as the albedo dropped, there must have been massive overshoot since all that CO2 would have taken a very long time to break down, leading to a very hot Earth for some period of time. The come-back scenario I read was based in part on volcanic ash deposited on the ice ball reducing the albedo. If that hot Earth phase wasn't enough to cook the CO2 out of the carbonate rocks, which is the path which leads to a Venus Earth, then it seems very unlikely that industrial CO2, even combined with arctic methane, could do it. That scenario did not produce sufficient high altitude water vapor. High altitude water vapor is the ultimate killer, not CO2 or methane. Increased concentrations of CO2 and methane warm things up enough to get the water vapor into the stratisphere, but it is the water vapor that causes the runaway. There is a gigantic supply of water. It is just a matter of tipping the concentration balance. We currently dump a lot of water vapor directly into the stratisphere via jet engine. A large methane release will directly increase upper atmospheric water vapor via the gradual oxidation of the methane. Methane is lighter than air. And if the carbonate rocks don't break down then I think we can also safely assume that, in no more than a million years or so, global warming will abate and the coral reefs can start to come back. The Venus runaway greenhouse effect was not initially caused by CO2, but rather high altitude water vapor, which has a very powerful greenhouse effect. Try googleing: venus greenhouse water vapor Especially check out from that result: http:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020516080752.htm http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm There is an area over the Pacific already in a *measurable* runaway regime. Melting of the polar ice caps and vast methane releases already underway may be enough to tip the balance to a clearly measurable global runaway regime. In my book, that means that we are currently in a runaway regime, a regime in which global warming will runaway unless drastic action is taken. This is not the definition of runaway greenhouse effect used in the second URL above, but it is a definition that makes more sense to me. If the progression will not stop without drastic intervention, then to me that is runaway. Any other definition only clouds the issue. I was very happy to see all that information online. It was not available when I posted on the subject in 1998. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Detroit Pushing Diesel Hybrids
Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Entertaining idea, but a typical sticker doesn't weigh an ounce. More like a gram, which would cut that million pounds down to about 30,000 pounds. Only a gram? 10 sheets of 8 x 11.5 paper weigh 46 grams. A 3 page letter in an envelope weighs an ounce. I have not weighed a sticker, but aren't they magnetic? No, the ones you see on cars are more like decals -- they're just a film of plastic, or possibly paper, with sticky stuff on one side. Probably more than a gram, it's true :-) but not a whole lot more, I'd guess. The Fish Wars had the potential to be more expensive, I suppose, since the bumper-fish (both Darwin and IXOYE fish) appear to be rather thick plastic plaques. I kept meaning to get one of each, and let them fight it out on the back of our car, but I waited too long and now the back of the car's completely covered with political bumper stickers, so both fish lost out. I'll bet the biggest energy flag cost is the cost of all those flags on cars flapping in the wind. Fortunately, they have mostly frayed and you do not see them often anymore. Yeah -- I wish I could say the same thing for the gas-station flags, and the flags in restaurants, and the flag in the barber shop, and the flags at the copy shop, and I suppose they'd be useful if one occasionally forgot what country one was in, and needed to be reminded, but that's not a problem I find I have. - Jed
Re: Wikipedia
Jed Rothwell wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: 2. You've established a method, using references, that is acceptable to the Wiki community. As you and others will note, your work has not been defaced or challenged. So far. There is no telling when a skeptic will come and erase it. There is no control and no recourse. Say what? Is this the same Wikipedia I'm familiar with? There is control and there is recourse. A page which someone deletes for personal reasons can be retrieved. To get a page taken down permanently, you actually need to go through a somewhat formal process in which the community gets to vote on it. What's more, the Wiki community is strongly opposed to graffiti on the pages: a page which is defaced can also be retrieved. The 2004 election fraud page was a real flash point for a while, and one or two people tried -- at least twice -- to get it taken down, but the voting was in favor of keeping it, so it stayed. It was also defaced and subsequently retrieved, at least once. It's still there today; I just checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities Anarchopedia has _no_ control and _no_ recourse: like all anarchists, they depend on the innate goodness of humankind to keep the pages sane. But Wikipedia has a good size chunk of (volunteer) bureaucracy which gets involved in any attempt at deleting content. At least, that's my impression.
