date:20051021

Recent statements from goering:

(Content edited because if found it sickening to read. Even my own sarcastic 
retorts couldn't stomach any more of this.)

...

 I might mention again that a second, much faster,
 perhaps even more desirable, means of achieving the
 goal, is by deliberately spreading a deadly disease;
 one, say, with a mortality of 95 percent. I suspect
 that this art also is much further developed than we
 know about, and by more governments.
 
 My guess is that by using this method it is also
 *much* easier to target specific races: slanty eyes,
 or dark skin, or some obscure gene that marks you out.
 
  This is a page right out of hardcore Nazism.
 
 Nazi, Schmazi: a tired, overworked cliche to pin on
 anybody who differs just a little too much from your
 opinions about anything.
 
 Something drastic must be done soon, or we will be
 living in a termatary, with or without cold fusion.

Mr. Rothewell,

I do not believe Mr. Goering is joking.

Mr. Beaty,

I try my best to be tolerant of the opinions of others, especially when I do 
not agree with their views. However, in this case, it is my personal opinion 
that this extremist be immediately banned from expressing any more of his 
personal views within the Vortex discussion group.

He is not a contributor. He is preaching a philosoophy of the Ultimate Solution.

I'm sure there are other nazi-like discussion groups where Goering can preach 
all the fanaticism he wants to the converted. He probablly already does, and 
decided to spread his wings a little.

Time to get them clipped.

Reagards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: Electrostatic Hover Cars

Baron sez:

...

 The Harry Potter novels speak about communities on Earth which make it
 illegal to speak about their communities if you wish to be a part of
 their community.  In some communities which already know how to make
 cars fly, it is illegal to fly them due to the United Kingdom Ministry
 of Magic (Beam energy computer control of airspace on Earth)  which
 prevents such cars from being made and used.  However hover cars do
 not fly, they simply hover a few inches above the ground, and are
 not covered by UK laws that forbid flying cars.  

Since we are talking about the writings of weighty authors might I suggest 
another individual, Carl Sagan, specifically his book Demon-Haunted World - 
Chapter 10 titled: The Dragon in my Garage.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: Beaming microwave power from the moon


Wesley Bruce wrote:

They're reinventing the whelel again. I have a full set of data on the 
orbital beam power technology designs built with luna material. These are 
1969-79 designs. . . .


Sure. The only nutty part is beaming the power all the way from the moon. 
That is too far! I suppose the beam would spread out and affect everyone.


Isn't L5 kind of far, too? Maybe we could intercept and reconstitute the 
beams close to earth.


Using lunar material was probably a good idea back in 1979, but now I think 
we should give serious consideration to building a space elevator instead. 
That would lower the cost of sending materials from Earth so much that 
would be no need to go to the moon. As some readers here have pointed a 
space elevator is presently impossible. The carbon filament is not strong 
enough yet. But it looks like progress is being made, and we may reach that 
goal in a few years.


- Jed

Re: Imagining the FFF(TM) future-fuel-farm

2005-10-21 Thread Wesley Bruce

I believe Brazil already has floating oil fired power station or two on 
the amazon river. It was used to power mining operations originally.


Jones Beene wrote:

Below are the headlines that got me originally thinking about a 
floating nuclear-powered ethanol + fertilizer plant ...but the FFF may 
be one F too short for US aggies.
Russia to Build World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Station for 
$200,000

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/09/09/floatingnuclearplant.shtml
Obviously the real numbers could not be 'that' low, but it does 
demonstrate that there is likely to be an affordable window of 
opportunity somewhere, using the expertise of the whole world to 
create a sustainable liquid fuel.
Recently the idea of using this kind of smaller capacity fission 
plant, in tandem with a combined fertilizer plant, fermentation plant, 
and an ethanol distillation unit seemed even more interesting - 4 
floating factories anchored in a freshwater delta area - but where to 
locate it?
Not in the USA - no way - that would take a decade for the regulators 
to make up their mind, and big-oil would never allow this kind of 
competition anyway.
Nope - somewhere a) sunny, 2) wet 3) poor 4) no-oil interests 4) and 
with officials who can be easily bought(oops, I mean persuaded)to 
act hastily for the good of all concerned.
Is there any better site than about 50 miles up in the river delta 
area of some large equatorial river, where biomass can be grown, 
harvested, fermented, and distilled using waste heat from safe nuclear 
reactors - combined with the capability of making massive amounts of 
nitrogen based fertilizer, to make the whole endeavor sustainable?

Several synergies are possible here -
1) A muddy and heavily polluted river is preferable, so long as the 
pollution is algae-based not chemical toxins - as green algae and 
suspended clay are the perfect feedstock for carrying added nitrogen, 
and can be converted cheaply into a most excellent fertilizer. High 
yields will be all but guaranteed - plus you can then claim that your 
are cleaning up the river - and plus - the algae will really bloom 
with the added reactor heat.
2) even before the excess heat is used to create the algae bloom, it 
is used to distill the ethanol from bio-mash - so that no combustion 
is necessary. All the energy used is either nuclear or ethanol based 
and local.
3) Converted ocean firefighter pumpers can be used to spray the 
(moated) fields of e-grass with lots of fertilizer, following every 
cutting, maybe three cutting per year, which can also be accomplished 
from floating harvester barges - all of these being ethanol powered, 
of course, with converted gasoline engines.
Anybody know where to raise about a quarter-billion to finance this 
baby? Five year payback (following completion)
¡Ay, Caramba! http://aycaramba.pixelzine.com/ And... 180 proof 
ethanol for 45 cents a gallon guaranteed - carbon neutral - US wages 
paid, and only modest payola back to government officials ;-). May 
have to peddle the stuff in Europe however, unless the US drops the tariff

Jones

Re: Imagining the FFF(TM) future-fuel-farm

2005-10-21 Thread Wesley Bruce

Are you aware of the bio-methane projects of the 1970's? See page 15 of 
this PDF http://www.pacaqua.org/Documents/Marine_Macroalgae_Culture.pdf


I would love to renew this project in a much smaller and scalable form 
with electric pumps powered by the methane. The methane can be reacted 
with CO to make methanol fuel for easier storage and transport.

Re: OT: Aquatic speculations on human evolution

2005-10-21 Thread Wesley Bruce


OrionWorks wrote:



I'm getting off-topic here (my apologies) but I couldn't resist bringing up a fascinating 
speculative book on human evolution I read back in the late 60s, The Naked 
Ape by Desmond Morris. In one of Desmond's chapters he made what I thought were 
convincing speculations claiming that some of our ancestors had adapted themselves to 
working within a water environment. Some of the most convincing human traits we currently 
possess that Desmond brought up to support an aquatic heritage are:

1) Fat deposits over most of our body: Fat deposits smooth the body's surface 
area causing less drag while gliding through water. Desmond stated that our 
nearest genetic relatives, Chimps, Gorillas, etc... have no fat deposits in the 
same manner that we possess. They possess have far less fat. (I suspect most 
simians don't enjoy taking baths either, with a few notible exceptions!)

2) Loss of hair: Loss of hair adds to increased efficiency in swimming through 
water. Less drag.

3) Direction of hair: What hair that is left on human body parts, particular 
hair on the back, neck and shoulders possesses a curious directional flow 
patter that would match how water would naturally flow past the body surfaces 
as one propelled oneself through water.

As for me, like many humans, I love swimming, diving, and splashing about and 
was fortunate to have grown up in environments that allowed me quality time to 
snorkel and dive in the ocean. Guam, particularly. I can still hold my breath 
under water for more than two minutes if I put some mental effort into it.


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

 

*Elaine Morgan is the major proponent of the theory*  
http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm


*Jim Moore its major opponent on the web*  http://www.aquaticape.org/
I think their both wrong. We are wonderfully made. I have Elaines 
Aquatic Ape book somewhere.

Re: World Mysteries Cold Dusion

2005-10-21 Thread Frederick Sparber




Interesting stuff, many mysterious places. Great pictures too.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/

"The Great Pyramid has lent its name as a sort of by-word for paradoxes; and, as moths to a candle, so are theorisers attracted to it. The very fact that the subject was so generally familiar, and yet so little was accurately known about it, made it the more enticing; there were plenty of descriptions from which to choose, and yet most of them were so hazy that their support could be claimed for many varying theories."

CF isn't listed yet. :-)

FJS

Re: 3,000 nuke plant plan, 50:50 split


Standing Bear wrote:


For nuclear power, everybody on this forum knows by now that I am a blunt
and outspoken advocate for all things nuclear . . .


As such, you would be more credible if you would acknowledge that nuclear 
power has significant drawbacks and dangers. If we build thousands of new 
reactors, it seems likely there will be several more catastrophic accidents 
such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. (Three Mile Island was a financial 
disaster and it came close to being a physical disaster as well.)


You are enthusiastic about fission. I support it reluctantly, because I 
think it is the least dangerous choice.




for the simple and single minded
reason that it is the only power that we have right now whether fission or
fusion cold or hot that we can take to space and have it with us to use.


When I was researching food factories, the people I spoke to at NASA about 
growing food aboard spaceships all agreed that nuclear fission is the only 
practical energy source for a long-range, long duration manned space 
exploration. Unfortunately, I think it would be crazy to put a uranium 
fission reactor onboard a rocket ship, and I do not know what else would 
suitable. Pu-238 is way too expensive for a large scale reactor. There does 
not seem to be a safe, practical alternative at present. Needless to say, 
cold fusion would be ideal.



I have only to add to Jed's fine post that we  might as well build all the 
nuclear that we need and not worry that our materials or fuel will be 
stolen or misappropriated an used against us.


If we do not worry about these things we should *never* build another 
reactor! We need to pay a large group of highly competent experts to worry 
about these things 24 hours a day.


It is true that radwaste and loose nukes in other countries, especially 
Russia, or a greater immediate threat to the US than our own reactors. For 
that reason, we should vigorously continue with the joint cooperative 
project to secure Russian nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush 
administration has been lax about this program. (This is part of a pattern. 
They also been unforgivably lax about other major threats, such as weak 
levees in New Orleans, global warming, and avian flu. I get the impression 
these people do not like dealing with problems.)



We may want to look into building a full breeder program to extend the 
life of the supplies we are likely to be left with.  The Chinese and the 
Japanese are.


We should definitely look closely at the Japanese breeder program! Let us 
learn from their mistakes. After Chernobyl, this is the second most 
colossal fiasco in the history of nuclear energy. It is a terrific waste of 
money. So was the US breeder program, at the Enrico Fermi reactor.


I know little about breeder reactors, but my impression is that we should 
not try to make them at this stage in the development of reactor 
technology. There is plenty of uranium, so even though we only burn a 
small fraction of it with today's reactors, we should continue to do so for 
now, put aside the spent fuel in a safe, accessible location, and let our 
great-grandchildren deal with it. If people still need fission reactors 200 
years from now, they will presumably know much more about using them than 
we do, because they will have more experience. They will be in a better 
position to develop safe, cost-effective breeder reactors. We should 
concentrate instead on building inherently safe designs, and on spent fuel 
disposal.


Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to put off problems and let 
future generations deal with them. This is irresponsible. However, in some 
cases it is likely that future generations will be better positioned to fix 
the problem, and there are short-term solutions available to us which will 
avoid excessive damage or pollution. As long as we deal with nuclear waste 
responsibly, and we avoid creating a gigantic pile of the stuff scattered 
everywhere across the landscape in unmarked landfills, I do not think we 
should not worry too much about what will happen to it in 500 years. I 
would rather leave our great-grandchildren this problem than leave them an 
ecology which has been devastated by global warming.


- Jed

Re: ICEs can't burn h2




Wesley Bruce writes
 These guys are twits. We have known for 
decades that hydrogen powered  cars need ceramic piston heads, valves 
and liners. And the liners have  been around for as many years! 


Its even easier than that. It was learned years ago 
that the "ceramic" itself does not have to be a separatepart, but can 
easily be derived from the underlying aluminum in the pistons and cylinders. 
Normally aluminum is anodized with a thin oxide coating to prevent further 
oxidation in service, but to further prevent hydrogen imbrittlement - all one 
needs to do is add a little more magnesium to the die-casting alloy and then 
heavily anodize. In all of nature there is no better containment for hydrogen 
than MgO or anodized magnesium.It does not suffer embrittlement nor allow 
the underlying metal to suffer embrittlement. I agree with Wesley that this web 
page must be a front for unscrupulous fund-raisers of some kind, who have little 
engineering background. 

Anyway this does raise a very interesting issue 
about "why" H2 is such a good fuel in the ICE. 

Forget expensive fuel cells. Dead-end street (at 
least for now) -due to precious metals! If you have hydrogen as a fuel, and 
decide to forego its best use (fertilizer) then the easy answer, staring 
everyone in the face these days is - just convert the traditional ICE to burn 
it. 

Why layer on a completely new process (fuel cells) 
which are NOT more efficient than the ICE, in practice? Sounds like a 
mischievous plot of the petroleum industry to delay the hydrogen economy, 
doesn't it?

There are many reason why burningH2 is more 
efficient in an ICE than gasoline. Earlier I posted some information about 
*steam* being a preferable medium for translating heat to work over CO2. It 
turns out that although this is true, steam cannot account for the whole 
advantage - but is advantageous to a lesser extent than was indicated. Due to 
the overwhelming presence of nitrogen in the exhaust, steam can only raise the 
Carnot efficiency at most 8-10 percentage points(that correction thanks to 
RvS) and more complete combustion can account for another substantial part of 
the answer to the higher efficiency. 

However the greater percentage of steam in the 
exhaust does in experiments make a more substantial difference in Carnot 
eff.due to a third importantreason. The complete answer 
towhy the efficiency of hydrogen is so incredibly high in an ICE must 
include "jerk" ! Jerk is a more than an insult these days, if one applies its 
meaning to power laws.

Why do I say "incredible" ? hey, in their very 
first try, Ford (not a powerhouse of innovation these days) was able to get 45% 
Carnot efficiency out of a *small* converted ICE. I think 55% is possible - 
which is double the efficiency of gasoline. For Ford to anything like this on a 
first attempt must indicates that inertia can be overcome by jerks 
;-)

More seriously, the third part of the "much greater 
efficiency" equation probably goes back to a subject that we periodically allude 
to on vortex - power laws and particularly power laws relating to kinetics. As 
Frank Grimer has visualized, you have:
dL/dT ..VELOCITY ...moving sceneryout the car 
window d2L/dT2 ACCELERATION ...being pushed 
back in ones seat as the plane takes 
off d3L/dt3 
JERKMmm..more difficult - beinghit over the head with a 
bottle perhaps?d4L/dT4 JOUNCE..I have no feeling whatsoever 
for this or high derivatives."But the failure to visualize these 
higher order derivative is becausewe arethinking in terms of 
straight line motion. If I think instead in terms of circular motion, or 
better still, helical motions, then things become very much 
easier.If I allow myself to be pinned to the wall of a fairground 
centrifuge then I can experience being "pushed back in my seat on a 
continuous basis. By imposing a circular motion on this circular motion to 
form an open vortex helix I can visualize the next derivative, though I am 
well past the age where I would want to experience it - and so on - 
and so forth."

Anyway - the possibility of some of the hydrogen shock wave being converted 
to Jerk or Jounce is a definite possibility here. A free proton, during the 
early stages of combustion has what - 46 times more mobility than CO2 - and that 
is if there is no power law in effect. The free proton during combustion may be 
a key to the higher efficiency, and there are ways to maximize this effect - 
ways that the folks at Ford will never figure out on their own.

BTW - why is Ford downplaying this H2 ICE advancement and still pursuing 
the fuel cell as a viable option, when their own scientists have admitted the 
fuel-cell is "dead-in-the-water" unless it can be made without platinum (it 
can't, so far) ? 

I don't have time to track down the details, but there is an oily smell to 
it.

Jones

Re: Electrostatic Hover Cars

2005-10-21 Thread ThomasClark123




In a message dated 10/21/2005 10:04:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since we are talking about the writings of weighty authors might I suggest another individual, Carl Sagan, specifically his book "Demon-Haunted World" - Chapter 10 titled: "The Dragon in my Garage."Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonwww.OrionWorks.com
Thank you for the reference to Carl Sagan. I liked his Contact

Re: ICEs can't burn h2

2005-10-21 Thread Alex Caliostro


From: Wesley Bruce


These guys are twits. We have known for decades that hydrogen powered cars 
need ceramic pistion heads, valves and liners. And the liners have been 
around for as many years!


yeah, pity they messed up that nice vette

_
-alex

_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: The Cheapest Way To Fix The Energy Crisis (and lots of other crises)


OrionWorks wrote:


Mr. Rothewell,

I do not believe Mr. Goering is joking.


Ah, well, in that case . . .

If he *is* for real -- or he is faking it but his brand of black humor 
bothers you -- then I recommend you auto-delete his messages. Life is too 
short to let such people bother you. It is not as if he is saying anything 
useful.


I hesitate to auto-delete some people because they post good messages 
sometimes, but irritating stuff at other times. I suppose I myself am 
guilty of that.



Treating this subject of overpopulation seriously for a moment, my views 
are expressed in chapter 16 of the book: Reducing population will reduce 
pollution. The two problems are linked, obviously. All else being equal, 
the more people there are, the more pollution they cause. But all else is 
never equal. The amount of pollution produced per capita can vary 
tremendously. In most nations, including the U.S., there is still scope to 
reduce it dramatically. . . .


(I see that I did not source that statement in the footnotes . . . Hmmm . . 
. For the record, this is the conventional view shared by most population 
experts and demographers. I learned it as a child, from my mother, who was 
a demographer.)


- Jed

Re: ICEs can't burn h2


Jones Beene wrote:

Forget expensive fuel cells. Dead-end street (at least for now) -due to 
precious metals! If you have hydrogen as a fuel, and decide to forego its 
best use (fertilizer) then the easy answer, staring everyone in the face 
these days is - just convert the traditional ICE to burn it.


Jones,

When you say convert in this context I presume you mean reengineer the 
engine with ceramic coated components, and then build a new production 
line. You are not suggesting that we could retrofit existing engines to 
burn hydrogen. Right?


That would be an expensive undertaking, but if a practical method of 
storing hydrogen can be developed I think this would be a great idea. Much 
better than fuel cells, for now, because of the precious metal limitations. 
(Plus, we may need those platinum group metals for cold fusion!) However, 
as long as we are revamping the production line, I think it would be a very 
good idea to make these new engines plug-in hybrids.


A plug-in hybrid hydrogen ICE would get fantastic mileage AND range. You 
could recharge both the batteries and the hydrogen at your house overnight, 
with a small electrolytic converter. It seems ideal. It would not call for 
much new infrastructure. We would need a few hydrogen recharge stations in 
large cities, for people who forget to recharge and run out of gas. We 
would need many more hydrogen stations alongside highways where cars and 
long-haul trucks travel long distances, and cannot wait to recharge 
batteries or wait for a small electrolytic converter to do its job.


- Jed

Re: OT: Aquatic speculations on human evolution

2005-10-21 Thread Taylor J. Smith

Hi All, 

Here's some stuff from the anti-Ellen site.

Jack Smith



http://www.aquaticape.org/

by Jim Moore

The Aquatic Ape Theory (often referred to as the AAT or
AAH) says humans went through an aquatic or semi-aquatic
stage in our evolution and that this accounts for many
features seen in human anatomy and physiology. Using the
principle of convergent evolution, it says that life in
an aquatic environment explains these features, and that a
transition from ape to hominid in a non-aquatic environment
cannot ...



http://www.aquaticape.org/hardy.html

Alister Hardy's original Aquatic ape theory

Sir Alister Hardy was a marine biologist who specialized in
the study of plankton -- and don't even think of laughing;
he got knighted for it. Plankton is one of the basic
components of the marine food chain, and his work was
very important to the British fishing industry, not to
mention everybody else's. Among his more important work, he
invented a device in 1925 to better record plankton levels
and map out the distribution of different varieties.
This was called the Continuous Plankton Recorder,
which was towed behind ships, and in 1929 he designed a
somewhat smaller version of the CPR which could be towed
behind merchant ships, getting more and better information
from a much wider area than ever before. This device, in
essentially the same form, is still used in ocean research
today, over 75 years later. Pretty cool ...

There are some things that Hardy definitely did better
than his successors; his science background didn't desert
him completely.  He gave a fairly specific timespan for
the suggested aquatic period, as well as giving some idea
of how many hours he thought these hominids would be in
the water, and he recognized that they would have to be
in neck-deep water much of the time for his theory to work
as well as recognizing that aquatic predators exist ...

---

http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html

What is the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT)?

The Aquatic Ape Theory (aka AAT or AAH) hypothesizes that
humans went through an aquatic or semi-aquatic stage in
our evolution, generally said to have occurred during the
transition from the last common ancestor we shared with
apes (LCA) to hominids (Marc Verhaegen claims it continued
on through virtually the entire span of human evolution).

It claims that certain features are seen in human anatomy
and physiology which are only seen in humans and aquatic
animals and that these constitute proof that our ape
ancestors went through an aquatic phase in their transition
from ape to hominid.  Using the principle of convergent
evolution, it says that life in an aquatic environment
explains these features, and that a transition from ape
to hominid in a non-aquatic environment cannot.

Who thought up the Aquatic Ape Theory?

The original theory was done by Sir Alister Hardy, a marine
biologist who, late in his career in 1960, gave a talk at
the British Sub-Aqua Club (a scuba diving club) and a month
later published in New Scientist an article on that talk
called Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? It presented
most of the basic ideas, and definitely the method, of
the AAT.

Desmond Morris then mentioned Hardy's theory with a 2 page
write-up in The Naked Ape in 1967.

Elaine Morgan, at the time an Oxford grad in English and
a TV scriptwriter, entered the scene in 1972 with the
book Descent of Women, the idea for which she got from
Desmond Morris's book.  This was a pop book, pretty chatty
style which seems dated now but was popular then, and it
sold quite well. Looking back at it, I wouldn't call it
particularly female-oriented, but Morgan presented it as
the alternative to what she then called The Mighty
Hunter theory ...

Morgan has written another book on this subject (The
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, 1997); as a refreshing change
this time, she has included references for some, but by
no means all of her statements (this is perhaps to be
expected since many of those statements are false) ...

There have been a few other people who've done articles
on the AAT, and they belie Morgan's claim that you can't
publish academic articles on the subject. (Good academic
articles seem to be another matter entirely.) Chief
among them is Marc Verhaegen, who has done a number
of articles. Although Verhaegen's articles do have
references, they also contain statements such as claiming
that rhinoceros are predominantly aquatic, and several
other howlers among their many errors ...

Sexual selection and the AAT

Sexual selection is interesting vis a vis the AAT because
many of the traits that AAT proponents say are aquatic
traits due to convergent evolution in response to the
environment (and therefore selected via natural selection)
are actually, and rather obviously, due to sexual
selection. This is obvious because, typical of sexually
selected features, they appear at puberty instead of at the
age the animal would

Re: The Cheapest Way To Fix The Energy Crisis (and lots of other crises)

From Jed Rothwell

...

 Treating this subject of overpopulation seriously for a 
 moment, my views are expressed in chapter 16 of the book:
 Reducing population will reduce pollution. The two
 problems are linked, obviously. All else being equal, 
 the more people there are, the more pollution they cause.
 But all else is never equal. The amount of pollution
 produced per capita can vary tremendously. In most
 nations, including the U.S., there is still scope to 
 reduce it dramatically. . . .

and, obviously, an AE solution like CF, ZPE, or similar breakthrough will go a 
long way in reducing over-all global pollution because there would be 
sufficient free energy available to perform the necessary cleanups, cleanups 
which tend to be energy intensive.

There is another interesting component to population reduction which we are 
currently witnessing in a number of industrialized nations, particularly Japan. 
Young educated independent self-sufficient women are not too keen on the notion 
of getting married and bearing many sons for their husband. Fancy that! Japan, 
I understand, is in real danger of a population implosion due to the alarmingly 
low birth rate which is currently well below the replacement level. They will 
either have to force their women of childbearing age to get pregnant more often 
than they currently do (highly, HIGHLY unlikely for a lot of obvious ethical 
reasons!), or devise more attractive socio-economic measures making it a more 
desirable life-goal for these women to have children (Better health benefits 
regardless of marital status, guaranteed pre-paid education for their children, 
including through college or tech-school, etc...) - or else get over a somewhat 
xenophobic-like tendency of excluding outsid!
 ers from partaking of their culture. 

Japan may soon be forced to let more foreigners in to both settle and help 
supplement their dwindling workforce. I'm sure there's plenty of willing labor 
that can be had possibly from such places like the Philippians, Korea, (North 
Korea comes to mind), and China as well (more Chinese males than females are 
born there due to a tendency of families to abort unwanted females). But only 
if many of these countries could just get over a long history of hatred for 
each other. Perhaps the economics of the situation will make the memories of 
long-standing atrocities  hatred it justifiably generated unprofitable to 
maintain. I can only hope.

It is somewhat amusing to consider that fact that industrialization, itself, 
seems to be a very effective contraceptive in its own right!

 (I see that I did not source that statement in the footnotes 
 . . . Hmmm . . 
 . For the record, this is the conventional view shared by 
 most population experts and demographers. I learned it as a
 child, from my mother, who was a demographer.)
 
 - Jed

Wish I had met her.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: Another use of Fibonaci numbers

2005-10-21 Thread Harvey Norris



--- thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I attended a sales lecture for a foreign currency
 exchange (Forex) 
 predicting system last night.  An economist came up
 with a algorithm 
 based on the Fibonaci numbers. It is said to be
 quite accurate.
 
My two brothers and some freinds have got involved
with this 4x foreign currency program. Brother says to
go gft.com and get dealbookfx2,(a better deal) in the
settings you can set two or more triangular moving
averages that mimic 4x's program. 4x wants some 2500
dollars? to purchase their software, but they let you
use it for free  on a trial basis for 30 some days.
Apparently what this  (4x) trial basis program does is
give you practice in currency trading by using an
imaginary sum of starting money and to see how you
would do if this were reflected as actual monetary
trades.  What really surprised me was the fact that
every time you make a trade, ( I think the program
supposedly tells you when a currencies value is going
to go up), the  currency chart reflects this and seems
to do the opposite effect, the value you are betting
on to go up actually goes down instead.  Since the
value of the currency seems be reflected on who is
betting on it to go up, this sounds very similar to
what happens in racetrack betting. A horse may have a
very high odds against winning a race, but once a
significant amount of people bet on that horse, the
odds change to a lower payoff. Sort of an insurance
policy for the racetrack owners to never loose money
by manipulating the odds payoff to reduce their
potential payoffs. Now the first question that comes
up with currency trading is this.  Since the player in
the program is only typically playing with thousands
of dollars, and there is actually millions (or more)of
dollars being traded; why does such a small bet act
like it is actually influencing the value of the
currency being traded? This didnt make any sense to me
until I realized the following.  What if there are
thousands of other folks out there who are betting
exactly like you are betting. What if the major
players in currency exchange are doing the same thing
you are doing?  Then the thing starts to make sense
and one can even go into conspiracy theories about
this thought. What if the worlds major currency values
are being manipulated by a world bank  or some such
thing like the IMF to their own advantage?  Since the
value of a countries currency is supposed to be based
on that countries productivity or gross national
product or some such word,(I am by no means an
economist): could it possibly be true that outside
manipulative forces be at work here?  It seems to make
sense that if a world bank gives a loan to a country;
and then that countries currency is devalued: on the
loan payback more currency is needed to satisfy the
loan payback and its attendant interest; with the net
effect that the banks profits are being maximized. Has
anyone noted whether this is a popular conspiracy
theory?  Do some people think that the worlds major
money lenders are involved in manipulating things to
their own advantage?
Sincerely Inquisitive;
Harvey D Norris


Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: Imagining the FFF(TM) future-fuel-farm


Wesley Bruce

Are you aware of the bio-methane projects of the 1970's? See 
page 15 of this PDF 
http://www.pacaqua.org/Documents/Marine_Macroalgae_Culture.pdf


Thanks! I had forgotten about this. The whole document is 
interesting for both vegitarians and anti-oil ecologists. Nori 
lovers will not want their food supply threatened however ... and 
tank farming is too expensive for fuel anyway.


Open-ocean tethered farming, as on page 15 might be an option... 
but... one of the better of these ocean biomass ideas once seemed 
to be based on open ocean farming of the Sargasso Sea. There you 
would not need permanent structures or tethers - just a catamaran 
style factory boat with open-weave catchment filters between the 
two hulls.

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues98/nov98/sargasso.html
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/12/2233

There seems to be a forum dedicated to ocean-biomass ideas for 
gasification but I can't get access to all of it:

http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/

and they have mentioned some of the numbers
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/2003-November/000427.html

Such as One Million Square Miles of biomass... !!

Wonder why they focus on gasification instead of ethanol? I was 
about to temporarily give up on the Amazon bio-ethanol idea, but 
hey...


...wow, just look at those number for the Sargasso sea! Even at 
fairly low density of BTU per area, there could easily be 100 
quads of annual biomass in there! However, this will certainly 
inflame and infuriate the seaweed-huggers (who most likely have 
been carefully chosen and funded by Exxon to pounce on any mention 
of an alternative to Arab oil)


Jones

Some advanced nuclear reactors resemble breeders

Earlier, I wrote: There is plenty of uranium, so even though we only 
'burn' a small fraction of it with today's reactors. It should be noted 
that some of the advanced reactors now on the drawing board will burn a 
considerably larger fraction of the uranium, even though they are not 
breeder reactors in the usual sense.


In other words, even if we do not develop breeder reactors in the next 100 
years, we can still improve efficiency, extract more energy from the 
uranium, and produce a smaller volume of spent fuel. All to the good.


Some of these reactors also achieve 40% thermal to electricity conversion, 
as I mentioned yesterday.


Here is a recent summary of these developments, from the Uranium 
Information Centre:


http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

This describes advanced reactors that have actually been built recently and 
are in operation, and it describes even more advanced designs now on the 
drawing board.


QUOTE:

Third-generation reactors have:

* a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital 
cost and reduce construction time,


* a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less 
vulnerable to operational upsets,


* higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,

* reduced possibility of core melt accidents,

* minimal effect on the environment,

* higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,

* burnable absorbers (poisons) to extend fuel life.


Notice they say reduced possibility of core melt accidents. That is a 
prudent choice of words. I expect it was vetted by the legal staff to avoid 
liability. They do not want to claim a meltdown is impossible, just 
unlikely. Unfortunately for them, if a meltdown does occur, people will not 
remember this nuanced, guarded statement. When the Titanic sank everyone 
claimed the ship builders had called it unsinkable. They never did. The 
shipbuilders and technical journals called it practically unthinkable, 
and they were right. It took an enormous stroke of bad luck to flood so 
many compartments and sink the ship. But the distinction was lost on the 
public. If two or three fission reactor cores meltdown catastrophically in 
the next 20 years, the nuclear fission industry will also meltdown and 
disappear. People who advocate fission energy, such as our friend Standing 
Bear, should insist that safety be the Number One Priority, and they should 
never make flippant statements or dismissive statements such as:


. . . we might as well build all the nuclear that we need and not worry 
that our materials or fuel will be stolen or misappropriated . . .


That is the worst possible way to garner support from the public. It is PR 
anti-matter.


Along the same lines, people like me who advocate cold fusion research 
should strenuously avoid giving the impression that it is a sure thing -- 
just give us the money and we will make the breakthrough! -- or that we can 
be sure already it will be perfectly safe. The public will only support 
cold fusion when it is assured we are serious, we acknowledge that it may 
not work despite our best efforts, and if it does work we intend to make 
*very certain* it is safe, using extensive testing with radiation 
detectors, long-term exposure to laboratory rats and other species, 
extensive follow-up and recycling, and so on, and so forth. Many cold 
fusion researchers have been flippant about this subject, and many have 
unnecessarily expose themselves to possible danger. This is bad PR, and 
personally stupid.


The public demands inordinately high levels of assurance and responsibility 
from breakthrough technology. New technology is held to a higher standard 
than existing technology. That is unfair, but it is a fact of life. For 
example, some people are afraid of hybrid engines because they fear that in 
an accident the battery pack may electrocute someone. (This is untrue.) 
People are afraid of new things. They prefer the devil they know.


- Jed

Re: ICEs can't burn h2


Jed,

A plug-in hybrid hydrogen ICE would get fantastic mileage AND 
range. You could recharge both the batteries and the hydrogen at 
your house overnight, with a small electrolytic converter. It 
seems ideal.


Yes! This is definitely the best way to go: the H2 plug-in Hybrid. 
Even without a storage breakthrough, in such a redesigned hybrid - 
a small (motorcycle sized) H2 burning ICE would be useful to 
extend the commuter-range of mileage of the vehicle's batteries - 
and could then we can use the old-style compressed H2 storage - 
which is too bulky for use in a non-hybrid situation, with a 
larger engine.


Let's see... for the plug-in hybrid. Even without a major 
breakthrough in batteries or H2 storage, one could have a vehicle 
with total electric motor drivetrain, enough batteries for a 25+ 
mile commute (say 6- large marine grade lead-acid batteries - 240 
pounds). A small 1 liter gen-set for longer highway use or to 
recharge the batteries in an emergency. The H2 could be carried in 
a single pressurized cylinder in the safest place in an automobile 
(under the rear seat) giving a 200 mile range - when needed. In a 
normal commute, it would be all electric with a nightly recharge.


This would be slightly heavier and bulkier than the current 
Prius - but has the large advantage of much longer all-electric 
range - yet the ecological advantage of no local pollution if the 
H2 must be used. Perfect for the other California (LA) and other 
areas which are smoggy. Since the H2 is not normally used, one 
would not need to make it at home and could purchase it in 
converted filling-stations.


I like it.

Jones

Popiel's Plug-in Hybrid


Let's base this re-design on the Prius.

The Prius takes the approach of using a water-cooled gasoline 
4-cyl. engine connected to an electric motor through a 
transmission, to propel the vehicle. With an electric motor 
alone - one can dispense with the transmission - which electric 
motors do not need - this is weight savings of about 150-175 
pounds.


The Prius does not have enough battery capacity - so you add 
batteries. 175 pounds of lead-acid batteries, say, to the one 
already there and we are still at the same weight as before but 
with a longer all-electric range.


Duh! why didn't Toyota do this already?

But wait! There is more ! From the vo-version of Ron Popiel: If 
you do this - then obviously you do not need the larger engine, as 
it wouldn't work without a transmission anyway - only a smaller 
genset. Gensets are (or should be) one-speed high rev items - and 
therefore can be based on much smaller high-RPM, lower torque, 
engine. In this scenario, the auto gets its high torque needs from 
the electric drive motor, and not from the fueled-motor. Big 
difference.


Duh! why didn't Toyota do this already?

But wait! There is more ! From the vo-version of Ron Popiel: The 
difference between a 1 liter and a 1.5 liter engine is only 50 
pounds or so but the best engine for this intended use (genset) is 
NOT the 4-cylinder water-cooled engine.


The best engine for a lightweight high speed genset, which can be 
air-cooled and be multi-fueled (i.e. use both H2 or ethanol or 
gasoline) is based on a single cylinder Wankel rotary.


The H2 Wankel, as Mazda has now shown (HRX-2), is most unique in 
that it can use H2 or gasoline as a fuel - with almost no 
alteration PLUS it is about 35% lighter than a comparable sized 
ICE, and the biggest advantage is ...


...that if/when you go to single cylinder, you can go air-cooled. 
Mazda, themselves know this, but they have not gone this far yet, 
and are sticking with the large double water-cooled version of the 
RX and using a transmission. They have not seen the light.


Duh! why didn't Mazda do this already?

But wait! There is more ! From the vo-version of Ron Popiel: A 
single rotary is not practical unless it is used as a constant 
speed genset - PERFECT! By that, it is meant when you need 
variable speed, and through a transmission, then only the double 
rotary works well. BUT the double cannot be air cooled easily and 
also avoid preignition.


In the guise of a single-hi-speed genset (50 kilowatt), however, 
you have all of these advantages in single Wankel: low weight, 
small size, air-cooled capability, multi-fuel capability, easy to 
optimize for hydrogen, no H2 preignition, so valves to embrittle.


Weight saving for the Prius redesign: 150 pounds. Weight of fully 
loaded filament wound pressurized H2 cylinder = 150 pounds.


Net weight of the new-Prius is the same as the old Prius, but now 
we have much longer Plug-in range, can use H2 when available of 
gasoline or ethanol till then, and is MUCH more ecologically sound 
without any sacrifices (other than my small consulting fee).


Wow. I feel like Cassandra once again - this is so obviously 
superior for use in a redesigned Plug-in hybrid - that is: with a 
Wankle genset for a Plug-in Hybrid, that it blows my mind that 
they have not considered it before now.


Best regards to Mazda and Toyota ... please pimp my ideas...(and 
don't forget my small consulting fee).


Ron C. Popiel

Hey Jed Please translate this into Kanji, and forward to 
Toyota. I will split the small consulting fee ;-) and maybe we 
will get one of the early models free for beta-testing!

RE: Popiel's Plug-in Hybrid

2005-10-21 Thread Alex Caliostro


From: Jones Beene


Wow. I feel like Cassandra once again - this is so obviously superior for 
use in a redesigned Plug-in hybrid - that is: with a Wankle genset for a 
Plug-in Hybrid, that it blows my mind that they have not considered it 
before now.


ok dr. zellerbach, you've solved the problem, time for your aspergers meds 
now



Ron C. Popiel


maybe you should stick with pocket fishing ;-)

_
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

OT: Fibonacci Numbers - a personal rant (you have been warned!)

 From thomas malloy

  I attended a sales lecture for a foreign currency
  exchange (Forex) predicting system last night.
  An economist came up with a algorithm  based on
  the Fibonaci numbers. It is said to be quite accurate.

Thomas,

Mr. Norris has already expressed some interesting speculations on the 
fascinating machinations of the foreign exchange market.

I'm compelled to express a few personal trading experiences of my own as the 
result so my adventures in playing the commodities, particularly in meat, oils, 
and grain markets. I dabbled in these highly volatile, risky markets back in 
the late 90s for about two years straight.

Back then, like many of my personal projects I became highly focused on 
learning as much as I could from available text books on the art  science of 
trading. I studied up on trend lines, diamonds, shoulders, 1-2-3 observations, 
break outs, the Elliott-wave, fractal patterns, and numerous other techniques 
all designed to make money for the participant. I even studied a complex system 
based on planetary motions and how these celestial cycles affect the ebb-and 
flow of commodity prices. To be honest, as absurd as it might sound, I suspect 
there may actually be an element of truth hidden deeply somewhere within that 
fascinating planetary motion data.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I got the impression, perhaps from a previous post 
of yours, that your profession to some extent involves the complex art of 
trading. What kind of trading you might actually perform I really don't know, 
nor is it important for me to know the specifics. It is obvious to me that 
trading is an important component in maintaining healthy capitalism in the free 
world. Many markets would literally cease to function if we weren't allowed to 
trade contracts (futures) on an open market.

Eventually, I lost several thousand dollars in my commodity trading endeavors. 
Despite my losses I have generally considered the experience to have been a 
VALUABLE education of sorts, one that I don't necessarily feel was ill-spent. I 
learned a tremendous amount of things while paying for the tuition of 
experience.

I don't know what your interest is in the latest Fibonaci number algorithm, 
particularly if you're considering the possibility of making money off of it. 
To be honest, the following comments are, more truthfully, directed towards 
anyone who might be considering getting into the volatile world of trading. 

I feel compelled to comment on the fact that most systems claim they will 
make money  profits for the individual who purchases their system - 
assuming, that is, that they carefully follow the rules of the system.

I believe some individuals actually do make money some of the time following 
some of these systems. Most don't. There are others out there who are 
obviously smarter and/or luckier than I. Perhaps you're one of them.

A study was recently made in regards to who was making money in trading 
commodities and who wasn't. It was determined that most -professionals- who 
consistently made profits did so at the expense of the inexperienced and/or 
wannabe traders like me. (Perhaps there really is no difference between the two 
definitions.) This brings up an interesting problem for the pro: Fresh blood 
is constantly needed to refresh the profits of the professionals. More than 
five years have gone by since my last active trade, and I still get junk mail 
telling me of the latest trading technique that I would be a fool not to 
purchase - or, better yet, wouldn't I pretty please open up a brand new trading 
account with so and so. Fresh blood.

Despite my financial losses one of the biggest lessons I learned was the fact 
that no one actually ever makes money and/or creates wealth by practicing the 
fine art of trading. Any trader who ends up with more money in his bank account 
at the end of another highly satisfying trading session means other traders 
(collectively and/or individually) have lost the exact same amount of money in 
their own bank accounts. Wealth is simply being redistributed - NEVER CREATED.

This is, in fact, one of the biggest complaints I have against the Bush 
Administration's attempt to privatize Social Security. The administration has 
based its SSNO improvement premise on the fact that individuals could 
personally enrich their lives by making better decisions as to where to invest 
their retirement money in. I'm sure some individuals would make better 
decisions. But those American citizens who DO make better decisions will do so 
at the expense of other American citizens and at exactly the same amount of 
money LOST. It is not my belief and/or personal philosophy that an 
administration should preside over the overhaul of a financial institution that 
would eventually pit american citizen against american citizen in their 
personal attempts to get a better piece of the a finite pie.

IMHO, an administration should instead spend their efforts on assisting

FW: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday October 21, 2005

2005-10-21 Thread Akira Kawasaki

 [Original Message]
 From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 10/21/2005 12:45:23 PM
 Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday October 21, 2005

 WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 21 Oct 05   Washington, DC  

 1. SUPREME QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE NOMINEE'S VIEWS ON SCIENCE? 
 Our request for questions that should be asked of Supreme Court
 nominees to elicit their views on science drew a huge response. 
 Traditionally, nominees are not questioned about their religious
 views on the assumption that an oath to uphold the constitution
 makes the nominee's religious views irrelevant.  Science, which
 bases judgements solely on the evidence, is the antithesis of
 religion and is clearly relevant.  The WN staff felt the question
 that best captured the consensus of our readers' views in the
 fewest number of words was from Abi Soffer at SLAC:  

  How does being descended from a monkey affect your
  judicial philosophy?

 WN will include more suggested questions each week until the
 confirmation process in the Senate is over.

 2. INTELLIGENT ASTROLOGY: TRIAL FOCUSES ON DEFINITION OF SCIENCE.
 In early August, expecting it might come up in the Dover School
 Board case, WN copped a definition of science from the Concise
 Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.  It mentions the
 natural world http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn080505.html,
 but not the supernatural.  On Tuesday, Michael Behe, the
 defense's irreducible-complexity guru, testified in favor of a
 broader definition.  According to a NY Times story, Behe
 acknowledged that scientific theory by his definition would fit
 astrology as well as intelligent design.

 3. SPACE RACE: SO WENT THE LAST ISLAND OF SANITY IN A CRAZY WORLD 
 Who would have believed that the United States, having landed men
 on the Moon 36 years ago in a race with the Soviet Union, and
 having spent more than $600B on its space program, would today be
 locked in another race to send humans to the Moon?  A race with
 China?  And China may be ahead?  Go on!  Now suppose I told you
 that the United Kingdom, long admired by scientists for staying
 clear of the ISS, is urged by a commission of the Royal
 Astronomical Society to enter the race?  Say it ain't so, Joe.

 4. BUT I HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS: THE MOON MAY BE A SOURCE OF OXYGEN. 
 In a 1989 interview on CNN, Vice President Dan Quayle explained
 why the U.S. should undertake a manned mission to Mars: We have
 seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If
 there is water, there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can
 breathe,  http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN89/wn090189.html. 
 That didn't pan out, but I have some good news: we don't have to
 go all the way to Mars for oxygen.  UV images obtained by the
 Hubble Space Telescope show ilmenite deposits on the
 Moon.  Need to breathe on the Moon?  Just smelt up a little ilmenite.
 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: OT: Fibonacci Numbers - a personal rant (you have been warned!)

2005-10-21 Thread leaking pen

ill also point out that a software was designed about 5 years ago that took price flucuations of individual stocks as a whole and used equations that described the motion of quantum particles and the likelyhood of destruction of those particles. i believe that was the equations used, that or something with water droplets. they then used it to predict teh next days prices. for a year. with 90 percent accuracy. they then usedit to buy stocks. and it stopped working, because the very nature of a system that works DESTROYS what makes it work.

On 10/21/05, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From thomas malloy I attended a sales lecture for a foreign currency exchange (Forex) predicting system last night.
An economist came up with a algorithmbased on the Fibonaci numbers. It is said to be quite accurate.Thomas,Mr. Norris has already expressed some interesting speculations on the fascinating machinations of the foreign exchange market.
I'm compelled to express a few personal trading experiences of my own as the result so my adventures in playing the commodities, particularly in meat, oils, and grain markets. I dabbled in these highly volatile, risky markets back in the late 90s for about two years straight.
Back then, like many of my personal projects I became highly focused on learning as much as I could from available text books on the art science of trading. I studied up on trend lines, diamonds, shoulders, 1-2-3 observations, break outs, the Elliott-wave, fractal patterns, and numerous other techniques all designed to make money for the participant. I even studied a complex system based on planetary motions and how these celestial cycles affect the ebb-and flow of commodity prices. To be honest, as absurd as it might sound, I suspect there may actually be an element of truth hidden deeply somewhere within that fascinating planetary motion data.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I got the impression, perhaps from a previous post of yours, that your profession to some extent involves the complex art of trading. What kind of trading you might actually perform I really don't know, nor is it important for me to know the specifics. It is obvious to me that trading is an important component in maintaining healthy capitalism in the free world. Many markets would literally cease to function if we weren't allowed to trade contracts (futures) on an open market.
Eventually, I lost several thousand dollars in my commodity trading endeavors. Despite my losses I have generally considered the experience to have been a VALUABLE education of sorts, one that I don't necessarily feel was ill-spent. I learned a tremendous amount of things while paying for the tuition of experience.
I don't know what your interest is in the latest Fibonaci number algorithm, particularly if you're considering the possibility of making money off of it. To be honest, the following comments are, more truthfully, directed towards anyone who might be considering getting into the volatile world of trading.
I feel compelled to comment on the fact that most systems claim they will make money profits for the individual who purchases their system - assuming, that is, that they carefully follow the rules of the system.
I believe some individuals actually do make money some of the time following some of these systems. Most don't. There are others out there who are obviously smarter and/or luckier than I. Perhaps you're one of them.
A study was recently made in regards to who was making money in trading commodities and who wasn't. It was determined that most -professionals- who consistently made profits did so at the expense of the inexperienced and/or wannabe traders like me. (Perhaps there really is no difference between the two definitions.) This brings up an interesting problem for the pro: Fresh blood is constantly needed to refresh the profits of the professionals. More than five years have gone by since my last active trade, and I still get junk mail telling me of the latest trading technique that I would be a fool not to purchase - or, better yet, wouldn't I pretty please open up a brand new trading account with so and so. Fresh blood.
Despite my financial losses one of the biggest lessons I learned was the fact that no one actually ever makes money and/or creates wealth by practicing the fine art of trading. Any trader who ends up with more money in his bank account at the end of another highly satisfying trading session means other traders (collectively and/or individually) have lost the exact same amount of money in their own bank accounts. Wealth is simply being redistributed - NEVER CREATED.
This is, in fact, one of the biggest complaints I have against the Bush Administration's attempt to privatize Social Security. The administration has based its SSNO improvement premise on the fact that individuals could personally enrich their lives by making better decisions as to where to invest their retirement money in. I'm sure some individuals would

Re: Popiel's Plug-in Hybrid




Mark Goldes sent me this site for 
Wankel's:
http://www.freedom-motors.com/

75 hp and only 80 pounds - that is the perfect size 
for a Prius-style hybrid. This one is multi-fuel too but apparently they haven't 
tried H2.

... not ot disappoint "Ron" 

But ... OK, there is nothing new under the sun 
(almost) and it's "tortoises all the way down," but in this report, S.A.E. 
did not go far enough 10 years ago:

"Evaluation of the hydrogen fueled rotary engine for hybrid 
vehicle applications"

They had adifferent definition of "hybrid" 
back then
Salanki, P.A. (Univ. of Toronto, 
Ontario (Canada)); Wallace, J.S. 
pp. 35-46 of Strategies in Electric 
and Hybrid Vehicle Design Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA 
(United States) (1996). 143p. (CONF-960204--: International Congress and 
Exposition of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Detroit, MI (United 
States), 26-29 Feb 1996). 

  The hydrogen-fueled engine has 
  been identified as a viable power unit for ultra-low emission series-hybrid 
  vehicles. The Wankel engine is particularly well suited to the use of hydrogen 
  fuel, since its design minimizes most of the combustion difficulties. In order 
  to evaluate the possibilities offered by the hydrogen fueled rotary engine, 
  dynamometer tests were conducted with a small (2.2 kW) Wankel engine fueled 
  with hydrogen. Preliminary results show an absence of the combustion 
  difficulties present with hydrogen-fueled homogeneous charge piston engines. 
  The engine was operated unthrottled and power output was controlled by quality 
  governing, i.e. by varying the fuel-air equivalence ratio on the lean side of 
  stoichiometric. The ability to operate with quality governing is made possible 
  by the wide flammability limits of hydrogen-air mixtures. NO{sub x} emissions 
  are on the order of 5 ppm for power outputs up to 70% of the maximum 
  attainable on hydrogen fuel. Thus, by operating with very lean mixtures, which 
  effectively derates the engine, very low NO{sub x} emissions can be achieved. 
  Since the rotary engine has a characteristically high power to weight ratio 
  and a small volume per unit power compared to the piston engine, operating a 
  rotary engine on hydrogen and derating the power output could yield an engine 
  with extremely low emissions which still has weight and volume characteristics 
  comparable to a gasoline-fueled piston engine. Finally, since engine weight 
  and volume affect vehicle design, and consequently in-use vehicle power 
  requirements, those factors, as well as engine efficiency, must be taken into 
  account in evaluating overall hybrid vehicle efficiency.
  
  
Now if they had only known about the Prius back 
then ,or if Toyota only knew about the small Wankel engine fueled with hydrogen, 
and its multifuel capability - then Ron Popiel wouldn't get credit for tying all 
the loose ends together into one primo package.

Jones

Small Nuclear Power Reactors



All kinds of interesting stuff has been added to this UIC web site
lately. It is impressive. Almost too impressive; I fear they might
succeed and hold back the development of CF!
Main index:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip.htm
Here is a paper about thorium fuel:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm
Here is something about small nuclear power reactors, including some
that we have discussed here, and some I have never heard of:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
Here is something that sounds like a CF reactor, except it is way more
dangerous. The scale and power output is similar to what I envision for a
medium-sized community CF generator:
A small-scale design developed by Toshiba Corporation in
cooperation with Japan's Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry (CRIEPI) and funded by the Japan Atomic Energy Research
Institute (JAERI) is the 5 MWt, 200 kWe Rapid-L, using lithium-6
(a liquid neutron poison) as control medium. It would have 2700 fuel pins
of 40-50% enriched uranium nitride with 2600°C melting point integrated
into a disposable cartridge. The reactivity control system is passive,
using lithium expansion modules (LEM) which give burnup compensation,
partial load operation as well as negative reactivity feedback. As the
reactor temperature rises, the lithium expands into the core, displacing
an inert gas. Other kinds of lithium modules, also integrated into the
fuel cartridge, shut down and start up the reactor. Cooling is by molten
sodium, and with the LEM control system, reactor power is proportional to
primary coolant flow rate. Refuelling would be every 10 years in an inert
gas environment. Operation would require no skill, due to the inherent
safety design features. The whole plant would be about 6.5 metres high
and 2 metres diameter.
It sounds like a small diesel generator.
Or this:
A related project is the Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor -
STAR being developed by Argonne. It a lead-cooled fast neutron
modular reactor with passive safety features. Its 400 MWt. size means it
can be shipped by rail and cooled by natural circulation. It uses
U-transuranic nitride fuel in a cassette which is replaced every 15-20
years. The STAR-LM was conceived for power generation, the STAR-H2
is an adaptation for hydrogen production. Its reactor heat at 780°C is
conveyed by a helium circuit to drive a separate thermochemical hydrogen
production plant, while lower grade heat is harnessed for desalination
(multi-stage flash process). Any commercial electricity generation then
would be by fuel cells, from the hydrogen.
Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! 15-20 year refuelling. Multi-stage
flash desalination. (This is what you need for irrigation. Other
techniques leave too much salt in the water for long-term use. See
chapter 8.) It is just a darn shame the thing is radioactive.
Freeman Dyson wrote that the tragedy of the nuclear power industry was
that it grew too big, too quickly. Researchers should have had more time
to play around with designs. In the 1950s, Dyson worked on
one that was inherently safe with passive safe features. I
believe that evolved into CANDU. The papers on this web site give me the
impression that the fission industry developed backwards. The effusion of
ideas and prototypes that we see today should have taken place before
reactors were built on an industrial scale in the 1960s. The designs
discussed here make existing reactors look primitive and
dangerous.
Great stuff. But unfortunately many of these reactors will end up being
operated by drunks  idiots, and no matter how you cut it,
radioactive fuel is hazardous.
- Jed

Hybrid design