mars rovers
I'm attending an Australian Mars Society conference AMEC 2005 on Mars rovers and exploration. http://www.marssociety.org.au/ I'm going to mention LENR to those at the conference. There is still an opening for papers so it may be semiformal presentation. Is there anything I specifically should or should not say? The main line I will take is that: * Cold fusion work is not dead. * Its nuclear reactions in a solid Hydride where quantum tunneling and/or electron screening effects combine to reduce the charge barrier of the nuclei to low enough levels to allow Deuteron/ Palladium and Deuteron/ Deuteron reactions. A few grams of fuel would power a vehicle for a year or so. * Reviewers are now acknowledging that it's a real effect, still not fully reliable or understood, but some who were sceptical are now less inclined to call it fraud or a mistake. * The Second DOE report, December 2004, gave limited [ambiguus] support for the data but argue that they still could not understand it. A majority of the reviewers were much more receptive and positive than the person that wrote the conclusion. They did say more work should be done but recommended against government funding. * Doors are opening a little. Some of its opponents are slowly coming around, conferences have been held at MIT, American Physical Society, etc. * We have up to 40 watts thermal per cc of palladium in some configurations. * We need people who can work on reducing the energy inputs to the devices; computer controlled chemical and thermo-chemical systems. * We need better heat flow control so we don’t allow the cell to chill down below the starting temperature. It never was room temperature fusion. * We need people who can design and build efficient heat/steam engines to convert the heat of the cells in to electricity. * There are several dozen companies working on it worldwide. * The technology could pop out of oblivion as a usable energy technology at any time. It might be available to power Mars operations. * Any help would be appreciated. Note the meeting I'll be attending is three weeks away and the dead line for anything formal could change at any time. Quick comments would be appreciated.
Re: mars rovers
I'd add direct thermal/electric to your range of output options, even the old dissimilar junction devices would be an option for low power work as the weight and reliability may be more important than output. and there are of course solid state devices - whether these fall into the category of heat engine is debatable. Regards JohnH - Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: mars rovers I'm attending an Australian Mars Society conference AMEC 2005 on Mars rovers and exploration. http://www.marssociety.org.au/ I'm going to mention LENR to those at the conference. There is still an opening for papers so it may be semiformal presentation. Is there anything I specifically should or should not say? The main line I will take is that: * Cold fusion work is not dead. * Its nuclear reactions in a solid Hydride where quantum tunneling and/or electron screening effects combine to reduce the charge barrier of the nuclei to low enough levels to allow Deuteron/ Palladium and Deuteron/ Deuteron reactions. A few grams of fuel would power a vehicle for a year or so. * Reviewers are now acknowledging that it's a real effect, still not fully reliable or understood, but some who were sceptical are now less inclined to call it fraud or a mistake. * The Second DOE report, December 2004, gave limited [ambiguus] support for the data but argue that they still could not understand it. A majority of the reviewers were much more receptive and positive than the person that wrote the conclusion. They did say more work should be done but recommended against government funding. * Doors are opening a little. Some of its opponents are slowly coming around, conferences have been held at MIT, American Physical Society, etc. * We have up to 40 watts thermal per cc of palladium in some configurations. * We need people who can work on reducing the energy inputs to the devices; computer controlled chemical and thermo-chemical systems. * We need better heat flow control so we don’t allow the cell to chill down below the starting temperature. It never was room temperature fusion. * We need people who can design and build efficient heat/steam engines to convert the heat of the cells in to electricity. * There are several dozen companies working on it worldwide. * The technology could pop out of oblivion as a usable energy technology at any time. It might be available to power Mars operations. * Any help would be appreciated. Note the meeting I'll be attending is three weeks away and the dead line for anything formal could change at any time. Quick comments would be appreciated.
Re: mars rovers
I know a lot about thermo-electric technology is an option but it has an efficiency limit of about 18%. The cause is greatly debated but attempts to push over that efficiency limit result in problems that have yet to be completely understood. I know the Brits have pushed over the limit by cycling the things from engine to pump and back rapidly but I have not seen proper data on the pump mode power consumption and thus full efficiency. It is however not subject to Carnot effiency limits the same way as other heat engines. John Harris wrote: I'd add direct thermal/electric to your range of output options, even the old dissimilar junction devices would be an option for low power work as the weight and reliability may be more important than output. and there are of course solid state devices - whether these fall into the category of heat engine is debatable. Regards JohnH - Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 4:48 PM Subject: mars rovers
RE: Are things really getting too complicated?
Zell, Chris wrote: one good battery. That's all it would take to end the energy crisis, stop global warming and end terrorism -- one really good battery. I agree. Sometimes a grand simplification in technology eliminates a whole class of problems. A really good battery probably would accomplish this. However, cold fusion would be better in some ways. For example, it would open up the solar system for exploration, and it would allow things like implanted heart pumps that run for decades. (A long-lasting super-battery that is recharged by induction every day would be nearly as good.) - Jed
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
Edmund Storms wrote: The complication I was addressing is based on the need to make a policy decision based on many conflicting possibilities. The number of these possibilities is increasing, as it always the case in every country, from classical Greek times to Germany under Hitler. Honestly, I do not see this happening. Policy decisions and economics have been complicated throughout history. I do not see why they are more complicated today. There were often times in history when people could not tell whether policies were helping or hurting. The British experience with the East India Company and later with their colonies was so complicated that economists and historians still argue about whether the British made money or lost money on the deal, and it is even more difficult to determine whether the people in India benefited more than they were harmed. (There was no question that a small class of people in England made a fortune on the colonies.) Pre-modern Japanese governments gathered immense quantities of data from the population, and they micromanaged every aspect of the economy and millions of people's lives. The inventoried every major tree in the country. They specified the type of cloth that every class of person was allowed to make into clothing, how many suits of clothes people would be allowed to own. They spelled out how big their houses could be, how they were designed, what kind of wood was allowed in each type of house. They decreed what kind of dishes people of different classes and occupations would be allowed to use. They did not just make these rules; they enforced them, with inspectors, paperwork galore, centralized record keeping and so on. This was an incredibly complicated undertaking. I assume that the US congressmen are smarter than they look, they understand that ethanol is an energy sink, and they voted for it because they are corrupted by payola from big agriculture. This is nothing new. The U.S. Congress has often voted for economically dysfunctional and unfair taxes and benefits. The ancient Roman legislators blocked the construction of better channels and improved freight landing docks and warehouses in Rome, because they want to keep a choke-hold on the importation of food at critical times of the year, to drove up prices. It is likely they were paid off by by corrupt shipping interests who wanted to gouge the public by keeping supplies tight and prices high. During the fake California energy crisis of 2000, Enron and other companies did the same thing, and the US fossil fuel companies accomplished exactly the same thing this week: they engineered an energy bill that rewards them with billions of dollars while choking off the development of competing technology and efficient automobiles. They even managed to slide in a provision that kills the development of energy-efficient overhead fans by nullifying standards set by the California legislature. (This is a gift to Home Depot -- a major contributor.) It does not seem complicated to me. I would call it corrupt, dysfunctional, treasonous, and a lot of other nasty words, but not complex. - Jed
CF Funding
A Brit friend informed me of this organization: http://www.cognoscence.org/ who: Cognoscence will identify and fund selected, high-profile research-projects for which it perceives there is considerable public enthusiasm yet insufficient official support . . . Looks like it's suited for CF Funding.
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The complication I was addressing is based on the need to make a policy decision based on many conflicting possibilities. The number of these possibilities is increasing, as it always the case in every country, from classical Greek times to Germany under Hitler. Honestly, I do not see this happening. Policy decisions and economics have been complicated throughout history. I do not see why they are more complicated today. Well, let me provide a few examples. Never before was a wrong decision able to eliminate most life on earth. We now have at least three ways to do this - by nuclear weapons, by bioweapons, and by ignoring growing CO2 in the atmosphere. I get the impression that policy makers have no understanding of these dangers, especially the Bush administration. Never before have the economics of the world been so inner rated and complicated. In the past a company, located in a particular country, made something using local labor and materials. A simple ledger could be used to keep track of their activities. Now a company is located all over the world, it sells its products everywhere, and make the products in many locations. They use money from many sources, including debt based on derivatives, and other new and complex systems. Some companies are more wealthy and powerful than many governments. The activities can only be understood using large computers. Never before has scientific knowledge been so extensive and complicated. Knowledge is growing so rapidly that it can only be organized using computers and no single individual can understand the general field of scientific knowledge. This was not always true. People we elect to manage this system are generally scientific and economic idiots, as recent decisions demonstrate. There were often times in history when people could not tell whether policies were helping or hurting. The British experience with the East India Company and later with their colonies was so complicated that economists and historians still argue about whether the British made money or lost money on the deal, and it is even more difficult to determine whether the people in India benefited more than they were harmed. Yes, and this is a good example of my point. As a result of this complexity, the British Empire Died. England is a much different country now. The development of the computer has made a greater amount of complexity understandable in recent times. However, even this tool is now being overwhelmed. In addition, the educational system has not kept up in the US so that an increasing number of voters are totally ignorant of basic information. This ignorance produces confusion and anxiety, so they turn to religion, something they can understand and from which they can obtain emotional support. They can't understand or control the threats - maybe God, if asked properly, well help. (There was no question that a small class of people in England made a fortune on the colonies.) Pre-modern Japanese governments gathered immense quantities of data from the population, and they micromanaged every aspect of the economy and millions of people's lives. The inventoried every major tree in the country. They specified the type of cloth that every class of person was allowed to make into clothing, how many suits of clothes people would be allowed to own. They spelled out how big their houses could be, how they were designed, what kind of wood was allowed in each type of house. They decreed what kind of dishes people of different classes and occupations would be allowed to use. They did not just make these rules; they enforced them, with inspectors, paperwork galore, centralized record keeping and so on. This was an incredibly complicated undertaking. I suggest the effort was designed to reduce the complexity for the general population. Ordinary people in Japan did not need to know very much, they only had to follow the rules. The people in charge had to understand the system very well, but these people could be given sufficient education. The US takes an ordinary C student and puts him in charge of a system that is very complex and open ended, with few rules. It is no wonder we are in trouble. I assume that the US congressmen are smarter than they look, they understand that ethanol is an energy sink, and they voted for it because they are corrupted by payola from big agriculture. They may be smarter than they look, but they are not smarter than they act. Granted, corruption is common place. However, even obvious self interest does not seem to be acknowledged. Why would a smart person who needed votes from workers in his state support NAFTA? This is nothing new. The U.S. Congress has often voted for economically dysfunctional and unfair taxes and benefits. The ancient Roman legislators blocked the construction of better channels and
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
Edmund Storms wrote: Well, let me provide a few examples. Never before was a wrong decision able to eliminate most life on earth. We now have at least three ways to do this - by nuclear weapons, by bioweapons . . . Ah, well, that is not an increase in complexity, but rather heightened consequences. I certainly agree that the consequences of decisions are much more serious and far-reaching. As Jared Diamond shows in the book Collapse people thousands of years ago made disastrous decisions that caused widespread ecological calamities and the extinction of their own tribes. They created vast deserts; nowadays our leaders can make a desert out of the whole planet much more quickly. Never before have the economics of the world been so inner rated and complicated. That's true, but ancient economies were pretty complicated! In the past a company, located in a particular country, made something using local labor and materials. A simple ledger could be used to keep track of their activities. Most of them, perhaps, but since the 17th century there have been hundreds of corporations and government agencies that are far more complicated than that. For example, the 18th and 19th century life insurance companies had manual data reporting and processing capabilities that would be impressive even today, with a good-sized computer. Some companies are more wealthy and powerful than many governments. The activities can only be understood using large computers. You would be amazed at how well they managed to keep track of millions of details without computers in 1800, in the Japanese government, at the US Census Bureau, and at British life insurance companies. It was slow but effective. Mechanized data processing only become necessary for the US Census Bureau when the population reached 50.1 million, in 1880. That data took 9 years to process. Since the census must be taken every 10 years, according to the Constitution, that was the limit. It took a lot of manual work to do an in-depth analysis of the data sets, for things like actuarial tables, but 19th-century statisticians did impressive work. Never before has scientific knowledge been so extensive and complicated. Knowledge is growing so rapidly that it can only be organized using computers and no single individual can understand the general field of scientific knowledge. Yes, indeed. The British experience with the East India Company and later with their colonies was so complicated that economists and historians still argue about whether the British made money or lost money on the deal, and it is even more difficult to determine whether the people in India benefited more than they were harmed. Yes, and this is a good example of my point. As a result of this complexity, the British Empire Died. The empire was not done in by complexity. It was destroyed by rising nationalism in India and elsewhere, by the Labor Party in England, and by World War II. [The Shogunate government] decreed what kind of dishes people of different classes and occupations would be allowed to use. They did not just make these rules; they enforced them, with inspectors, paperwork galore, centralized record keeping and so on. This was an incredibly complicated undertaking. I suggest the effort was designed to reduce the complexity for the general population. No, that had nothing to do with it. The government wanted to control every aspect of people's lives and infiltrate every organization and clan with informants. Their goal was to prevent opposition, and to squeeze as much wealth out of the population as they could, in taxes. It was a quintessential fascist organization. The only thing similar was the Mesoamerican pre-Columbian governments, and the modern East German government. The Italian fascists tried to monitor and control the population, but they were inept at that. (Also, by the way, the trains did *not* run on time, according to a retired Italian railroad conductor.) Ordinary people in Japan did not need to know very much, they only had to follow the rules. Actually they were the best educated premodern population on record. They sure did have to follow the rules! The people in charge had to understand the system very well, but these people could be given sufficient education. They were well-educated, but the rules and laws were deliberately obscure. Some were actually state secrets. You could be hauled off to jail for a breaking a law that no one was allowed to know about, based on evidence that you were not allowed to hear. The same thing can happen in the US today thanks to our recent anti-terrorism laws, but we consider it anomalous. Japanese government tends to be opaque even today. There are more hidden guidelines and suggestions than there are laws, and many extra-governmental organizations collect taxes and pseudo-taxes off the books, such as the money from highway toll
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
the government could easily have controlled the greed. unfortunely, when you try, people who know not of what they speak start screaming about free market economys. clue camel guys, a powerful single industrial leader destroys the free market as surely as the most socialist government controls would. On 7/29/05, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: The complication I was addressing is based on the need to make a policy decision based on many conflicting possibilities. The number of these possibilities is increasing, as it always the case in every country, from classical Greek times to Germany under Hitler. Honestly, I do not see this happening. Policy decisions and economics have been complicated throughout history. I do not see why they are more complicated today. Well, let me provide a few examples. Never before was a wrong decision able to eliminate most life on earth. We now have at least three ways to do this - by nuclear weapons, by bioweapons, and by ignoring growing CO2 in the atmosphere. I get the impression that policy makers have no understanding of these dangers, especially the Bush administration. Never before have the economics of the world been so inner rated and complicated. In the past a company, located in a particular country, made something using local labor and materials. A simple ledger could be used to keep track of their activities. Now a company is located all over the world, it sells its products everywhere, and make the products in many locations. They use money from many sources, including debt based on derivatives, and other new and complex systems. Some companies are more wealthy and powerful than many governments. The activities can only be understood using large computers. Never before has scientific knowledge been so extensive and complicated. Knowledge is growing so rapidly that it can only be organized using computers and no single individual can understand the general field of scientific knowledge. This was not always true. People we elect to manage this system are generally scientific and economic idiots, as recent decisions demonstrate. There were often times in history when people could not tell whether policies were helping or hurting. The British experience with the East India Company and later with their colonies was so complicated that economists and historians still argue about whether the British made money or lost money on the deal, and it is even more difficult to determine whether the people in India benefited more than they were harmed. Yes, and this is a good example of my point. As a result of this complexity, the British Empire Died. England is a much different country now. The development of the computer has made a greater amount of complexity understandable in recent times. However, even this tool is now being overwhelmed. In addition, the educational system has not kept up in the US so that an increasing number of voters are totally ignorant of basic information. This ignorance produces confusion and anxiety, so they turn to religion, something they can understand and from which they can obtain emotional support. They can't understand or control the threats - maybe God, if asked properly, well help. (There was no question that a small class of people in England made a fortune on the colonies.) Pre-modern Japanese governments gathered immense quantities of data from the population, and they micromanaged every aspect of the economy and millions of people's lives. The inventoried every major tree in the country. They specified the type of cloth that every class of person was allowed to make into clothing, how many suits of clothes people would be allowed to own. They spelled out how big their houses could be, how they were designed, what kind of wood was allowed in each type of house. They decreed what kind of dishes people of different classes and occupations would be allowed to use. They did not just make these rules; they enforced them, with inspectors, paperwork galore, centralized record keeping and so on. This was an incredibly complicated undertaking. I suggest the effort was designed to reduce the complexity for the general population. Ordinary people in Japan did not need to know very much, they only had to follow the rules. The people in charge had to understand the system very well, but these people could be given sufficient education. The US takes an ordinary C student and puts him in charge of a system that is very complex and open ended, with few rules. It is no wonder we are in trouble. I assume that the US congressmen are smarter than they look, they understand that ethanol is an energy sink, and they voted for it because they are corrupted by payola from big agriculture. They may be smarter than they look, but they are not smarter than they
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Well, let me provide a few examples. Never before was a wrong decision able to eliminate most life on earth. We now have at least three ways to do this - by nuclear weapons, by bioweapons . . . Ah, well, that is not an increase in complexity, but rather heightened consequences. I certainly agree that the consequences of decisions are much more serious and far-reaching. As Jared Diamond shows in the book Collapse people thousands of years ago made disastrous decisions that caused widespread ecological calamities and the extinction of their own tribes. They created vast deserts; nowadays our leaders can make a desert out of the whole planet much more quickly. The point I'm making is that disastrous decisions are made because the system at the time is too complex for people to understand the consequences using the knowledge and tools available at the time. No one, even a greedy politician, would knowingly make a decision that would destroy his country or society. The disastrous decisions are always made out of ignorance about the consequences. Of course, greed blinds. Consequently, some critical number of knowledgeable, honest people are always needed, the number of which is reduced as the system becomes too complex for this critical number to understand the situation. Too few and their advice is ignored, just like the situation with cold fusion. Never before have the economics of the world been so inner rated and complicated. That's true, but ancient economies were pretty complicated! What standard would you use to judge? Surely, past economies were not as complicated as what we see today. In the past a company, located in a particular country, made something using local labor and materials. A simple ledger could be used to keep track of their activities. Most of them, perhaps, but since the 17th century there have been hundreds of corporations and government agencies that are far more complicated than that. For example, the 18th and 19th century life insurance companies had manual data reporting and processing capabilities that would be impressive even today, with a good-sized computer. Until modern computers came along, all recording had to be done by hand. Of course methods were developed to make simple calculations. The business models used today use equations that would take years to solve using these tools. In fact, modern large corporations could not function without computers and the complex mathematical models on which decisions are based. As these models become more complex, only people with special training can understand what is happening, thus the CFO is born. The CEO can now plead ignorance and get off scot free when the company goes belly-up. Some companies are more wealthy and powerful than many governments. The activities can only be understood using large computers. You would be amazed at how well they managed to keep track of millions of details without computers in 1800, in the Japanese government, at the US Census Bureau, and at British life insurance companies. It was slow but effective. Mechanized data processing only become necessary for the US Census Bureau when the population reached 50.1 million, in 1880. That data took 9 years to process. Since the census must be taken every 10 years, according to the Constitution, that was the limit. Nine years to process just a few questions!! The information being stored about everyone, on which taxes, employment, and credit are based, would not have been possible until recently. Surely, you must acknowledge that this is a level of complexity never before achieved. Important decisions are made every day based on this information. Once the amount of information becomes too great and the decision process becomes too complicated, an increasing number of bad decisions will be made and modern society will slowly regress. That process is happening right now. It took a lot of manual work to do an in-depth analysis of the data sets, for things like actuarial tables, but 19th-century statisticians did impressive work. No doubt they were impressive given the tools available. What would you expect to happen to society if the computer had not been discovered? Would data collection have stopped? Or would the amount of information have totally overwhelmed the system so that knowledge about the consequence of decisions was no longer available? This would not have stopped people from trying to make decisions. I suggest civilization would have died as countries regressed to simpler forms. Instead, development of the computer has put this event further in the future, unless another big discovery is made that can reduce the complexity of decisions. Never before has scientific knowledge been so extensive and complicated. Knowledge is growing so rapidly that it can only be organized using computers and
FW: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday July 29, 2005
From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 7/29/2005 1:53:35 PM Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday July 29, 2005 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 29 Jul 05 Washington, DC 1. SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN'T WORK IT NEVER DID WORK. Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn't foam falling off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it's the most expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we're facing now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially, anything that went into space, including commercial and military satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space development before the Challenger disaster. Then it was declared to be a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of Columbia in 2003. The shuttle's only mission now is to supply the ISS. 2. ECHINACEA: THE THEME THIS WEEK IS THINGS THAT DON'T WORK. There is no reason why herbal remedies couldn't work. The bark and leaves of the angiosperms are packed with biologically active chemicals. Surely, among the thousands of herbals on the market, one must work. With a budget of over $100M, and under pressure to show it's not biased against alternative medicine, the new National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH set out to find it. Well, ephedra worked, but side effects were fatal http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn010204.html. Why not ask herbalists what would be a sure thing? Answer: Echinacea. Millions of Americans use the purple cone flower to prevent or treat colds. Native Americans used it, and we all know that primitive societies had wondrous cures that today's narrow-minded scientists can't explain. But in initial tests, it didn't seem to work http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn052804.html. This week, the New England Journal of Medicine published a convincing NCCAM funded test: Echinacea does not prevent or cure colds. 3. PRAYER: FOLLOW-UP STUDY FINDS NO BENEFIT FOR HEART PATIENTS. Prayers for the sick are probably the most widely practiced healing tradition in the world. An earlier study with the same lead author, Mitchell Krucoff, MD, at Duke University Medical Center, continues to be widely cited as scientific evidence for the power of prayer. In a much larger follow-up study, however, 748 patients who had common cardiac procedures were not helped by intercessory prayers of groups throughout the world, drawn from Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist denominations. You will not be surprised that the authors conclude that so-called noetic therapies, defined as therapies that don't involve the use of tangible drugs or devices, deserve further scientific scrutiny. Science assumes that all events result from natural causes http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn120304.html. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnewA=1
Re: Are things really getting too complicated?
Edmund Storms wrote: That's true, but ancient economies were pretty complicated! What standard would you use to judge? Surely, past economies were not as complicated as what we see today. I do not know much about economics, but premodern manufacturing was, in some ways, even more complicated than most present day versions, because it required so much manual expertise and input from so many different people. A good example is the 18th century British chronometer (marine navigation clock). The complexity, quality control, the number of people involved, and cost to manufacture rivaled that of the minicomputer circa 1980. Until modern computers came along, all recording had to be done by hand. Of course methods were developed to make simple calculations. Not just simple ones! Remarkably complex calculations were performed manually, by coordinated groups of hundreds of clerks. Good examples are the US Census Bureau statistics from 1860, which came in four volumes with hundreds of tables, and the lunar navigation tables produced by the British Admiralty. For that matter, the first atomic bombs was developed using only human computers equipped with mechanical calculating machines. An interesting point is that many of the techniques used in computer data processing evolved directly from the manual techniques used by live clerks. This is reflected in computer terminology such as ledger, register record and index. The ISAM index algorithms I implemented back in 1980 were derived directly from manual systems still used to shelve books in libraries. The business models used today use equations that would take years to solve using these tools. And for that reason, back in 1860 (and 1940) they used more elegant and clever equations and tools, that still gave reasonably good answers. My mother, for example, used a slide rule to the end of her days. The [1880] data took 9 years to process. Since the census must be taken every 10 years, according to the Constitution, that was the limit. Nine years to process just a few questions!! No, lots of questions. To start with they recorded a fairly large set of basic information for every citizen: age, sex, race, national origin, address (town, county, state), trade (I think), and before 1865, legal status (free or slave -- as mandated in the Constitution). I do not think the basic census form today is much more complicated. They broke this down into six major tallies, with various actuarial of tables and so on. Furthermore, starting in 1810 the Congress ordered the Census Bureau to collect more extensive information from some people and most commercial establishments, relating mainly to commerce. The Congress mandated a statistical report . . . covering the kind, quantity, and value of goods manufactured, and the number of manufacturing establishments in each State, Territory, district, and county for 25 broad categories of manufacture, and 220 kinds of goods. In 1820 this was expanded to include data on the location of establishments, 14 additional inquiries elicited information on raw materials employed (kind, quantity, and cost), number of employees (men, women, and boys and girls), machinery (whole quantity and kind of machinery and quantity of machinery in operation), expenditures (capital, wages, and contingent expenses), and production (nature and names of articles manufactured, value, demand, and sales). Believe me, it only got more complicated after that! See: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/pdf/giq97/GIQ_history.pdf And if I may add a blatant plug for statistics and the Census Bureau, the U.S. has an old and proud tradition of gathering and publishing accurate, detailed data about every aspect of our society, such as public health, manufacturing, employment and so on. This transparency is one of our great strengths as a society. Traditionally, only the U.K. and France have been as forthright. The information being stored about everyone, on which taxes, employment, and credit are based, would not have been possible until recently. On the contrary, the Constitution mandated that the data be collected for everyone, in order to divvy up the representatives in Congress, and to impose taxes and distribute benefits fairly. That is why they established the Bureau in the first place. You cannot have democracy without good, solid, detailed statistics, and the U.S. had 'em starting in 1790. It took a lot of manual work to do an in-depth analysis of the data sets, for things like actuarial tables, but 19th-century statisticians did impressive work. No doubt they were impressive given the tools available. What would you expect to happen to society if the computer had not been discovered? I know exactly what would have happened. The cost of the 1890 and 1900 census would have gone through the roof, and the Congress would have demanded someone come up with a mechanical solution. That
A response in the Harvard Crimson
Well, well. Someone responded in the usual manner. See: http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article508328.html To The Editors: In his recent letter to The Crimson (Madrian Mistaken About Cold Fusion Debate, July 22), Jed Rothwell writes regarding cold fusion research that the claim was never invalidated. Rothwell then goes on to state that cold fusion has been replicated by hundreds of major laboratories worldwide, when in fact the research has had no such success. Rothwell is a contributing editor at Infinite Energy magazine, a fringe publication devoted to the study of New Energy, which the magazines website defines to be the term applied to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the scientific establishment. In addition to cold fusion, the editors include New Energy to mean other pseudoscientific buzzwords like zero-point energy and significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . Now we shall see whether the Crimson allows this kind of ad hominem attack to go unanswered. - Jed
Comment by J. Barandes
[My response, e-mailed to the Crimson. If they do not publish it, I will put it on LENR-CANR.org] To The Editors: Jacob A. Barandes says that cold fusion was not replicated. It is a matter of fact that hundreds of researchers think they replicated it, and published peer reviewed papers claiming they did. Barandes can confirm that at the Harvard library by looking up back issues of the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, the Journal of Physical Chemistry, the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and so on. It may be that all of these papers are mistaken, and the replications are invalid. If Barandes thinks so, he will have to publish a peer reviewed paper himself, showing how and why mistakes were made. A skeptical or negative opinion does not get a free pass; all views must be held to the same rigorous standards. Barandes' statements about me and my background are ad hominem and irrelevant. I did not publish these papers; electrochemists from hundreds of different universities, national laboratories and corporations published them. Barandes should question their qualifications, not mine. Barandes can avoid a trip to the library and read the full text of over 400 cold fusion papers at our web site, http://lenr-canr.org/. Researchers from all over the world download 3,000 to 5,000 copies of these papers per week. They have downloaded over 350,000 copies since 2002. We cannot track individual users, but we know that many of these readers are students and professors, because they contact us, and because our traffic ebbs and flows with the academic calendar. (It drops close to zero during exam weeks!) If the papers were all mistaken, and all unconvincing, it seems unlikely that so many academic professionals would bother to read them. Sincerely, Jed Rothwell Atlanta, GA
Re: Langmuirs paradox and ZPE
In reply to David Jonsson's message of Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:17:16 +0200: Hi, [snip] Hi I wonder if ZPE can be involved in the distribution of thermal motion of low density plasmas. These distributions are found to be of Maxwellian type even when collisions are too few to maintain the distribution. This is called the Langmuir paradox. [snip] How can they be too few to maintain the distribution? Even a single particle alone in a container will collide with the walls (where there are lots of particles). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk In a town full of candlestick makers, everyone lives in the light, In a town full of thieves, there is only one candle, and everyone lives in the night.
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Jed, You didn't include the last paragraph from Barandes. It was juicy, and of course nasty. I'm going to keep it for historical purposes. The extreme point of view and the viciousness, I think, will be something fascinating to look back on. I'm finding, more and more, that it's helpful to talk with those who will listen and show some interest, and leave the rest alone. The Crimson made an editorial decision. I have to assume they are intelligent people and understand what a disgusting ad hominem and unsubstantiated attack this was. I also have to assume that the Crimson was testing the waters with your pro-cold fusion letter - and they subsequently decided that there was a strong contrarian viewpoint that they had better represent, lest they appear too progressive. Honestly, I think they may not even have published your letter a few years ago. We all know that CF has followed the scientific method. Many of us accept that it is a demonstrable and a true effect of nature. My thought is that It's just a matter of time before the rest of the world knows it too. How much time? I don't know. Remember what Stan Pons said in 1989: It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited have taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty. .. They might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science.'' I do see a progression occurring. It's slow, and it may only be evident over the next few years, but it is clearly visible. ITER's pathetic situation and deservedly bad press, in my view, has given a tremendous boost to the view of CF in some circles, or at least those outside of Harvard yard. At the March APS meeting, Scott Chubb and I spoke with the editor of a very prestigious physics journal who is a prof at another Ivy League school. The idea of a CF lecture on campus came up. I have not heard of any follow-through with it yet, but it seems possible in the future. And then, in less than one month from now, I will present to the orthodox scientists at the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems, How can cold fusion be real, considering it was disproved by several well-respected laboratories in 1989? http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICENES-2005/KrivitS-ICENES2005-Abstract.pdf . I'm not expecting an overly-friendly reception by this fission and hot fusion nuke physics crowd, but I'm still going to tell it the way I see it. We'll see who is receptive. For reasons unknown to me, somebody, or some people on the organizing committee on ICENES made the (enlightened, IMO) decision that it was time they, and their attendees learn more about cf. Let's see where this goes s
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Jed, One more thing I forgot to mention. I had a very pleasant chat with Chase Peterson yesterday. We were just talking about some of the old days of cold fusion for him. Peterson sees the picture quite clearly: The cold fusion episode is much bigger than cold fusion. It is about major issues in the philosophy of science and how the world of science currently responds to new ideas. I think sometimes when we see unscientific responses like that published in the Crimson, that we often forget how big this subject really is, and perhaps the reasonable, monumental effort which is and will be required to bring about a transformation in understanding. One brick at a time... s
Re: Comment by J. Barandes
Jed, Oh, one more thing, Look who you are up against: a grad student. I went up against one like him from Columbia last year in a Wikipedia match. Believe it or not, he may actually be an innocent victim who's been spoon-fed myths and misinformation by his teachers. Want to see how this may be occurring? Look here for an example from Berkeley: http://newenergytimes.com/students/AcademicPerspective2004.htm It's no wonder our cold fusion friend and professor at Berkeley needs to keep off the record, lets he be labeled a heretic or kook. s
