[Vo]: Now this is a website!
Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website!
surely http://www.helicola.com is better? On 09/02/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website!
I'm all for Apocalypse: *Apocalypse* (Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language: Ἀποκάλυψις -translit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransliterationAPOKALYPSIS, literally: the lifting of the veil), is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind. Plus 2012 isn't the end of the mayan calenda, just the end of one part. On 2/9/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Empathy: the ability to imagine oneself in another's place and understand the other's feelings, desires, ideas, and actions... (Encyclopaedia Britannica) Congratulations Jed, few people if any are capable of such a high level of empathy, sincerely! Now try another impersonation. Imagine yourself in the place of a hypothetical CF experimenter who realizes years later that his past overunity claims were erroneous for some unobvious reason, but still believes (rightly so maybe) that there must be a way to make CF work. Would you endanger the whole field -and therefore the world- by admitting your error, or would you keep quiet? Let's push it further. Imagine you lack, unknowingly, the particular technical skill (some exotic subbranch of EE or plasma physics or statistics, whatever) which you would need to realize your error. Then your claims are perfectly sincere aren't they, so how could anyone lacking the same skill, but admirative of what other skills you may have -say you've got a nobel prize in electrochemistry and another one in calorimetry whether such prizes exist or not-, realize your error? Now push it further, imagine that among all CF experimenters (among whom, as an aside, you can see that some such as Naudin are clearly incompetent and/or fraudulent even with your limited scientific and technical skills), there are several such people whom you highly esteem, persisting in their error, some of them knowingly (some for commendable reasons and others not) but you're not aware of that, and you believe CF would be a really good thing for mankind, rightly so. How could you distinguish false claims from legitimate ones? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:44 AM Subject: [Vo]: More about the skeptics' mindsets I wrote: But in the case of the NHE and Toyota, I sense that the decision makers do not believe the results, so they lie about them. . . . Our guess, based on talking with these people, is that when they saw positive results emerge, they thought something like this: Damn, that looks like excess heat. It must be some kind of crazy instrument error, or just noise. What I am trying to say is, I do not think that any opponent of CF thinks the effect might exist. None of them is thinking: This is real! I'll be out of a job if people find out! They will shut down the hot fusion program! Even in the oil industry I doubt anyone would go that far, but who knows. As far as I can tell, no opponent imagines that he is quashing what Michel Jullian called important stuff. They are sure it is unimportant. Opponents are 100% certain that it is nonsense, garbage, fraud, or, at least, a ridiculous waste of time. They figure, why not lie a little or fudge the data to get rid of what is obviously a big lie and a travesty? Also, they think it is a good idea to employ insults, ridicule and ad hominem attacks. As David Lindley wrote in Nature, in March 1990: All cold fusion theories can be demolished one way or another, but it takes some effort... Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation have speeded cold fusion's demise? (You can see that I am not just trying to read their minds, and I am not making this stuff up as Dave Barry used to say. The skeptics boldly go on record saying things that in normal circumstances, any scientist would consider appalling!) Skeptics attack CF only to prevent a small amount of funding from being taken away from real science and diverted to schlock science. And to protect the public reputation of science. Not because they fear CF might actually someday succeed and then take away their entire program. Also, they attack it because they are upset that anyone would take it seriously. They put it in the same category I put astrology or creationism. The difference is that although I consider these things to be nonsense, I am not upset by them. I do not care whether other people spend time or money on them. But I would be upset if someone got government funds to do creationist research, or if he taught it in a public school. So I guess I can understand how the skeptics feel about government funding for cold fusion. It is difficult for people who share my beliefs to understand how these people think. You should not imagine they are evil, or they are deliberately trying to prevent progress and quash academic freedom. That is not how they see themselves. They commit evil acts, but it is unintentional. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website!
Everyday is judgement day. Harry John Berry wrote: I'm all for Apocalypse: Apocalypse (Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language : ?¼ok?luyiV - translit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration APOKALYPSIS, literally: the lifting of the veil), is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind. Plus 2012 isn't the end of the mayan calenda, just the end of one part. On 2/9/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website!
Ah, a fellow etymologist! There are occasions when I just can't be satisfied with a word until I know all about its origin. I felt such impulse about anode (Gk ana, up and odos, way) and cathode (kata, down and odos, way), what the hell was it that goes up or down in those electrodes? I was surprised to discover that the answer, much more complex than I expected, involves both astronomy and magnetism. A summary of this fascinating story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode My rewriting of the general definitions, supported by the new etymology sections I wrote and the references I cited (my first significant contributions to Wikipedia), seem to have undergone only minor tweaks for about a month now, which I find a bit miraculous. Admittedly the matter is hardly as controversial as CF :) I wonder, were others here familiar with this little known story? I had a hard time collecting the bits and pieces and making a reasonably concise digest. If anyone is interested in the Faraday consults the scholars... paper, I can email him/her the pdf privately as it is not freely accessible any more (it was when I downloaded it). Michel - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Now this is a website! I'm all for Apocalypse: *Apocalypse* (Greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language: Ἀποκάλυψις -translit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransliterationAPOKALYPSIS, literally: the lifting of the veil), is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of humankind. Plus 2012 isn't the end of the mayan calenda, just the end of one part. On 2/9/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vortexians; Those of you who have been on the list for a while know that I have a fascination with the apocalypse, and a gallows sense of humor. The author of this website was interviewed this morning on C to C AM, no matter what you think about his theories, you will, IMHO, appreciate the art that went into the introductory page. http://www.apocalypse2012.com . Momma mia, that's a spicy webpage! I'm reminded of a Tesla Society conference around 1992 where someone mentioned the wall in 2012, and remote viewing. That was before I heard about Hal Puthoff's role in the development of remote viewing, 2012 seemed a long way off at the time. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]: Water Vortex Video
I had said I would make a video of my water vortex generator and have been putting it off. This morning I remembered I had made a video record for my self. It has plenty of good footage in it to show that the vortex is strictly a downward flow in the center, as evidenced by the air bubbles being dragged down. I hope you like Creedence. If you don't, just turn down the volume. There is no narrative as this was intended for my own personal enjoyment. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8468890437369216439 Dave
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
thomas malloy wrote: Suppose you want to recharge a dozen cars at one time, ten times per hour (six minutes each) during the peak rush hour. That's 120 I have a simple answer, you plug the car in when you shut it off. I'm talking about a garden variety, 20 Amp plug in. That's fine for short trips, but Mike Carrell is saying that on long trips over highways beyond the range of the batteries quick to recharge electric cars have a real problem. He is right. A recharge station similar to a 12 page gasoline station would require a large bank of super capacitors and also a 1 MB or 2 MB power supply -- like the kind used in a large hospital or hotel. This would surely cost far more than a conventional gas station. The problem is not insurmountable but it would be expensive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Mike Carrell wrote: I replied to Jed's earlier post before seeing this one. The number he uses 0.2-0.3 kWH/km is creeping in 'rush hour' traffic, not at expressway speeds . . . No, that's for highway speeds. The next idea is the battery swap, but who will trust that the swapped battery is fully charged and not defective? The swap method works pretty well on a national basis for propane gas in the US, and for all kinds of heating and cooking gas in Japan. The company distributing the tank owns it; you rent it. See, for example, the Blue Rhino Propane Tank Exchange: http://www.bluerhino.com/br/WHERETOBUY/index.html You can drop off your empty tank and pick a fresh, clean, inspected, precision filled and leak tested Blue Rhino ... wherever groceries, gas, or grills are sold. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Mike Carrell wrote: I have read that to propel a standard car at 60 MPH over a level highway takes only some 20+ horsepower delivered to the wheels. That's about 14 kW. Do that for three hours and you have 42 kWH. Right. 14 kWh per hour. 60 mph = 100 kph. (Okay, 97 kph to be exact.) Divide 14 kWh by 100 km and you get 0.14 kWh per kilometer, as I said. Actually the AC charge is 0.2 to 0.3 because of inefficiencies charging batteries. It takes 0.3 to charge the battery and in the end ~0.14 kWh is delivered to the wheels on the highway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
I wrote: . . . would require a large bank of super capacitors and also a 1 MB or 2 MB power. Mega-WATT not byte! Megabytes hardly count these days. They used to cost $1000 and now they cost 0.05 cents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: The Parasol Fix
thomas malloy wrote: As for your Parasol Fix to Climate Change, You should have posted it on a science fiction list Jed. They just spent $100 billion and 20 years to build the ISS. Based on that, just how many trillion $, over how many decades, do you think what your parasol project will cost? You missed my point. I said this could be done with a space elevator, which NASA currently projects would cost ~$6 billion. This would lower the cost per kilogram of putting material in orbit by a factor of thousand or more. Actually, I think it would be more like 100,000. Mylar space parasols would weigh ~7 g/m^2. Technology has drastically reduced the cost of other goods and services and there is every reason to think it can do the same for access to space. For you to claim that a parasol would cost trillions of dollars to deploy is like someone in the 1950s saying: A child will never use a gigahertz class computer to play games, because such computers are physically impossible with vacuum tubes, and even if you could build one it would cost $100 million. Nowadays, hundreds of millions of children have such computers, some with 3.2-GHz processors that cost maybe $20 to manufacture. Even science fiction authors back in the 1950s could not imagine such a thing. When the space elevator was first proposed 30 years ago, it was estimated that it would take 750,000 shuttle missions to deploy one. With present techniques materials it would take two shuttle missions to deploy one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Ah, I was wondering what that unit could be :) Battery swapping has been mentioned, why not just empty the gas station's full one into the car's empty one? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way? I wrote: . . . would require a large bank of super capacitors and also a 1 MB or 2 MB power. Mega-WATT not byte! Megabytes hardly count these days. They used to cost $1000 and now they cost 0.05 cents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Michel Jullian wrote: Battery swapping has been mentioned, why not just empty the gas station's full one into the car's empty one? That is what we have in mind when we talk about a bank of supercapacitors. With something like a lead-acid battery which takes a long time to recharge, swapping battery packs is probably a more practical technique. This is an old idea. I recall reading about schemes to swap batteries back as 1960s, in Popular Science. Compared to 1960, it would be easier and safer to implement a battery exchange scheme nowadays, now that we have RFID tags, computer networks and so on. I doubt that many people would steal the battery packs, any more than they steal propane tanks today. (No doubt a few drunk high school kids do steal propane tanks.) A battery pack might be damaged in an accident, but this sort of thing could easily be checked for with computer testing systems. The propane tanks are also dangerous when they have been damaged, so they are checked with automatic equipment to ensure safety. I think electric cars would be easier to implement than people realize, and most of the concerns about limited operating range are either unimportant, or they could easily be fixed. If the world had run short of oil back in 1960, you can be sure we would have implemented electric cars with battery exchanges by 1975, and everyone would take it for granted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Thanks to voice input and force of habit, I wrote: A recharge station similar to a 12 page gasoline station would require a large bank of super capacitors and also a 1 MB or 2 MB power supply . . . That is supposed to be a 12-bay gasoline station and a 1 MW or 2 MW power supply! Good grief. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Water Vortex Video
Looks like you were going for an artistic/ecosystem approach. Have you considered using just the tapered cone for energy experimentation? Richard M. will be pleased with the nice tight helical channel in the cone, no doubt using less HP than he is using in his super-size-it water purifier. Google video has a lot of neat stuff under the vortex subject, but many of these vids try to blend-in too much cultish philosophy and alien-hocus-pocus for my taste... although admittedly the vortex itself, being a natural energy phenomenon (tornadoes, hurricanes) is a natural focal point for the merger of art, science and religion. We used to have an obsessive poster on Vo (should I say another obsessive poster) who kept haranguing the group with a constant flow of Viktor Schauberger proposals- so the meme behind all of this fascination must be something akin to a computer virus g right, Richard? For those interested in pursuing a practical low-energy-input chemical vortex-based reactor, check out the double V impeller which is shown about 30-40% through this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3626121571675604193q=vortex With something similar to the the double inverted V impeller [which can be easily made for much less$ than this company would like to charge you] one can make a single shaft mixer unit which serves double-duty by entraining lots of air into water, for instance. Why would anyone want that, you ask? Without giving out too much proprietary information, let's just say that [using biomimicry as a teacher] - and using raw materials consisting of air, water and a colloidal catalyst, but without heat input above ambient, and with two other low-energy features, a similar setup will allow the high volume [and very inexpensive manufacture] of a fairly potent monopropellant fuel. The lower impeller will keep a colloidal catalyst, such as a metal oxide, from agglomerating, and the upper impeller will force in the maximum amount of oxygen, so that you can continually make the product for an out-of-pocket cost of less than ~2 kWhr per gallon (45% enrichment). That is, if recurring bugs can be worked out. The trick is to remove the product continually in a dilute form, and enrich it in an adjoining vortex cascade -- as the catalyst being used is two-way and will function counter-productively over an equilibrium level. Ah... the multi-layered beauty of the vortex. Yes. I think that there is something almost genetically appealing in the nature of the generalized vortex-meme, including the newsgroup itself, which tends to bring out latent obsessive tendencies. Is that because DNA-helix is so similar? Or maybe, in the tradition of Vonnegut's strange take on life, it is because water is the ultimate source of intelligence in the universe and is just using so-called life as a vehicle for transportation? Jones Speaking of Strange Weather, smart-water, whether people should be allowed to smoke at home, and vanity face-creams: http://www.alternet.org/story/15939/ David Thomson wrote: I had said I would make a video of my water vortex generator and have been putting it off. This morning I remembered I had made a video record for my self. It has plenty of good footage in it to show that the vortex is strictly a downward flow in the center, as evidenced by the air bubbles being dragged down. I hope you like Creedence. If you don't, just turn down the volume. There is no narrative as this was intended for my own personal enjoyment. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8468890437369216439 Dave
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Michel Jullian wrote: Now try another impersonation. Imagine yourself in the place of a hypothetical CF experimenter who realizes years later that his past overunity claims were erroneous for some unobvious reason, but still believes (rightly so maybe) that there must be a way to make CF work. Would you endanger the whole field -and therefore the world- by admitting your error, or would you keep quiet? I would say the likelihood of this is roughly equal to the likelihood that scientists will discover that copper and gold are the same element, or that the world is only 6000 years old. The over unity claims are not based on a researchers' opinions. They are based on replicated, peer-reviewed experimental evidence, fundamental laws of physics, and instruments and techniques that have been used in millions of experiments and industrial processes since the mid-19th century, such as calorimetry, autoradiographs and other x-ray detection, spectroscopy, tritium detection techniques and so on. These techniques have been used to confirm the results by hundreds of scientists in thousands of runs. If they could all be wrong for some reason, the experimental method itself does not work, and science would not exist. If a cold fusion researcher were for some reason to question his own high-Sigma result, he would be wrong. To take a concrete example, researchers at Caltech were convinced that they did not observe excess heat. They thought the calibration constant in their isoperibolic calorimeter was changing instead. However, I am sure they were wrong about that, and they did actually observe excess heat. Their opinions to the contrary count for nothing. Just because the people at Caltech cannot bring themselves to believe indisputable experimental proof of cold fusion, that does not give them leave to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics or to claim that an instrument developed by J. P. Joule in the 1840s does not work! Science is not based on opinions. It is based on what nature reveals, in replicated observations and instrument readings. The bedrock basis of the scientific method is that in the final analysis, all questions must be settled by experiment, and experiment alone. Experiment always trumps theory. When instruments show that a phenomenon occurs many times, in many different labs, with different instrument types, at a high signal-to-noise ratio, the issue is settled forever. It is beyond any rational doubt or argument. No better proof can exist in the physical universe. A scientist cannot choose not to believe the instrument readings, any more than a pilot can choose to pretend he is on the ground when the airplane is actually flying at 1,000 meters altitude. Let's push it further. Imagine you lack, unknowingly, the particular technical skill (some exotic subbranch of EE or plasma physics or statistics, whatever) which you would need to realize your error. Cold fusion results are not based on exotic skills or subbranches. They are based on 19th century science that only a lunatic or creationist would dispute. The excess heat and tritium results are sometimes subtle, but in other cases they are tremendous and far beyond any possible instrument error. Sigma 100 excess heat and tritium at a million times background are not debatable, and there is no chance they are caused by error or contamination. I said that people who do not believe what the instruments reveal are not scientists. Everyone knows that some working scientists do not believe cold fusion results, but they have temporarily stopped acting as scientists, just as a policeman who goes on a rampage and beats innocent people is not acting as a policeman. Skeptical scientists who reject cold fusion fall in two categories: 1. Those who have not seen the evidence, or who refuse to look at it. 2. Those who look at the evidence, agree that it is indisputable and then dismiss it anyway, such as the DoE reviewer who looked at Iwamura and wrote: The paper by Iwamura et al. presented at ICCF10 (Ref. 47 in DOE31) does an exhaustive job of using a variety of modern analytical chemistry methods to identify elements produced on the surface of coated Pd cold-fusion foils. . . . The analytical results, from a variety of techniques, such as mass spectroscopy and electron spectroscopy, are very nice. It seems difficult at first glance to dispute the results. . . . From a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions are not to be believed . . . http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#StormsRothwellCritique This person is not acting as a scientist, and the last sentence has no meaning. It is not a nuclear physics perspective; it is an imaginary prospective, or one based on a kind of faith, a cult, or superstition. If you cannot dispute replicated results -- meaning you cannot find a technical error -- then you must believe them. Without this rule, no technical argument can be
RE: [Vo]: Speed of light confirmed
Hi Stephen, Yeah, I'll probably fiddle around some more with this, just because it seems like the pre-ring is going the wrong way and I'd like to understand why. That's good. While the scope precludes you from doing any interesting shock wave experiments ( way too slow ) you can certainly do some faster-than-light type experiments using lumped constant transmission lines. As regards the wire impedence, use a 400ohm carbon film resistor as your termination. This is good enough for basement work. When I worked with this I used aluminum foil to make ground planes, suspending wire above it in whatever form was important. Google around a bit on the term time domain reflectometery and you'll learn about how to characterize the line more accurately. But again, the scope is too slow to work such a small physical structure. BTW, the rule of thumb with aircore xmission line is 1ns/ft. Easy to remember, and it's always nice to put the kings feet in there somewhere... While you're chewing on yesterdays comments, take a few moments to read that section in Feynmans QED, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html where he talks about the photon taking all possible paths from the sender to the receiver. Strange, huh? Now think about that experiment you just did and that precursor signal I pointed out. Not so strange now... K.
RE: [Vo]: Water Vortex Video
Hi Jones, Looks like you were going for an artistic/ecosystem approach. I built this a couple years ago and intended to be looking at it constantly. There are no mountain streams here in the middle of Illinois, so it was necessary to observe an engineered vortex in my house. Have you considered using just the tapered cone for energy experimentation? My primary interest was to see if there was anything to Viktor Schauberger's observations. I can say that I noticed some rather strange, subtle phenomena. The vortex in the original setup (as seen in the video) is strictly driven by gravity flow water, rather than pressure provided by a pump. Also, the water was treated with fish and circulated to organicize it. The rocks helped to condition the water, as well. It didn't take long for algae to develop on the rocks, however algae never became a problem in the tanks. This was good, as it indicated the water was healthy. To my surprise, it seemed as though the water could react to emotions. When there was a certain balance between the angular momentum of the water and the gravitational pull, I could look at the water and change its height by thinking different emotions. I also noticed that the vortex was firmer and stayed near the top of the funnel during vernal and autumnal equinox, but fell to the bottom in the middle of the summer and winter. I'm still trying to figure out what physiological change in the water would cause this, although I'm fairly certain that it has to do with the conductance of the water and the alignment of the Earth's angular momentum with regard to the Sun. These effects were consistent over a two year period of constant operation. This summer I will dismantle the whole set and build a structure solely for scientific testing (minus the fish). I will experiment by applying changing magnetic and electric fields to the water in various ways. I will also install remote sensing thermometers, a flow meter, and buy a water test kit. For a water supply, I have rigged a rain barrel to capture untreated water. It will still be slightly polluted from dust and volcanoes, but it will be the same water that falls anywhere else. Observing the water vortex daily for two years has given me the intuitive understanding of vortices I had hoped to obtain. I can now see how to engineer vortices in other media, such as air molecules and various fields. I have already begun collecting the materials to build a magnetic field vortex generator. I'm hoping that subtle vorticular rotating magnetic fields can be used to condition DNA molecules in living organisms, thus causing the body to rebuild itself in a younger and healthier condition. I am now convinced that water is a living entity of a different order of existence. It may not have the organs and tissues of plants and animals, but it does possess the ability to interact with its environment beyond mere chemical and inertial actions. In a book I wrote, Secrets of the Aether, I provide the mathematical foundation for a new system of physics, based upon the same empirical data as Quantum Mechanics. In this theory, I provide a rational basis as to why magnetic flux is the reciprocal of conductance, and not resistance. I also provide pre-existing evidence demonstrating that conductance is a unit, which is directly related to emotions and feelings. All matter throughout the Universe, and even the fabric of space-time possesses the quality of conductance. I can now provide a scientific basis for explaining much of the so-called psychic phenomena, which is really the art of being able to recognize and manipulate conductance. I'm aware of the tornado in a can and other experiments regarding vortices. However, I am not interested in high energy (read destructive) uses of physics. My primary interest is in finding harmony and balance with nature, not using it to feed my personal greed or cause destruction on other aspects of existence. I have found a sure, scientific path that allows me to systematically explore the subtleties of physical and non-material existence, thus providing me the ultimate pleasure to be found in this Universe. You might say that my video explored the artistic/ecosystem approach. As flattering as that is, I would add that it is also a fun, compassionate, and human approach. Thank you for watching it and giving your comments. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Dear Jed, This was a bit weak, I must say you did much better in your previous empathy exercise! I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?), only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero, can we go back to the if game? Imagine you're writing a SF book, which you're usually quite good at. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) Michel Jullian wrote: Now try another impersonation. Imagine yourself in the place of a hypothetical CF experimenter who realizes years later that his past overunity claims were erroneous for some unobvious reason, but still believes (rightly so maybe) that there must be a way to make CF work. Would you endanger the whole field -and therefore the world- by admitting your error, or would you keep quiet? I would say the likelihood of this is roughly equal to the likelihood that scientists will discover that copper and gold are the same element, or that the world is only 6000 years old. The over unity claims are not based on a researchers' opinions. They are based on replicated, peer-reviewed experimental evidence, fundamental laws of physics, and instruments and techniques that have been used in millions of experiments and industrial processes since the mid-19th century, such as calorimetry, autoradiographs and other x-ray detection, spectroscopy, tritium detection techniques and so on. These techniques have been used to confirm the results by hundreds of scientists in thousands of runs. If they could all be wrong for some reason, the experimental method itself does not work, and science would not exist. If a cold fusion researcher were for some reason to question his own high-Sigma result, he would be wrong. To take a concrete example, researchers at Caltech were convinced that they did not observe excess heat. They thought the calibration constant in their isoperibolic calorimeter was changing instead. However, I am sure they were wrong about that, and they did actually observe excess heat. Their opinions to the contrary count for nothing. Just because the people at Caltech cannot bring themselves to believe indisputable experimental proof of cold fusion, that does not give them leave to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics or to claim that an instrument developed by J. P. Joule in the 1840s does not work! Science is not based on opinions. It is based on what nature reveals, in replicated observations and instrument readings. The bedrock basis of the scientific method is that in the final analysis, all questions must be settled by experiment, and experiment alone. Experiment always trumps theory. When instruments show that a phenomenon occurs many times, in many different labs, with different instrument types, at a high signal-to-noise ratio, the issue is settled forever. It is beyond any rational doubt or argument. No better proof can exist in the physical universe. A scientist cannot choose not to believe the instrument readings, any more than a pilot can choose to pretend he is on the ground when the airplane is actually flying at 1,000 meters altitude. Let's push it further. Imagine you lack, unknowingly, the particular technical skill (some exotic subbranch of EE or plasma physics or statistics, whatever) which you would need to realize your error. Cold fusion results are not based on exotic skills or subbranches. They are based on 19th century science that only a lunatic or creationist would dispute. The excess heat and tritium results are sometimes subtle, but in other cases they are tremendous and far beyond any possible instrument error. Sigma 100 excess heat and tritium at a million times background are not debatable, and there is no chance they are caused by error or contamination. I said that people who do not believe what the instruments reveal are not scientists. Everyone knows that some working scientists do not believe cold fusion results, but they have temporarily stopped acting as scientists, just as a policeman who goes on a rampage and beats innocent people is not acting as a policeman. Skeptical scientists who reject cold fusion fall in two categories: 1. Those who have not seen the evidence, or who refuse to look at it. 2. Those who look at the evidence, agree that it is
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Why sure, but what I meant is that imagining we have the supercapacitor betteries, there would be no point in swapping them rather than transferring the juice. With such betteries swapping just wouldn't fit in the picture, although as you say there would be no other option for lead-acid batteries. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way? Michel Jullian wrote: Battery swapping has been mentioned, why not just empty the gas station's full one into the car's empty one? That is what we have in mind when we talk about a bank of supercapacitors. With something like a lead-acid battery which takes a long time to recharge, swapping battery packs is probably a more practical technique. This is an old idea. I recall reading about schemes to swap batteries back as 1960s, in Popular Science. Compared to 1960, it would be easier and safer to implement a battery exchange scheme nowadays, now that we have RFID tags, computer networks and so on. I doubt that many people would steal the battery packs, any more than they steal propane tanks today. (No doubt a few drunk high school kids do steal propane tanks.) A battery pack might be damaged in an accident, but this sort of thing could easily be checked for with computer testing systems. The propane tanks are also dangerous when they have been damaged, so they are checked with automatic equipment to ensure safety. I think electric cars would be easier to implement than people realize, and most of the concerns about limited operating range are either unimportant, or they could easily be fixed. If the world had run short of oil back in 1960, you can be sure we would have implemented electric cars with battery exchanges by 1975, and everyone would take it for granted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
In a bettery future you'll be able to live life at your own pace, rather than at the average pace. This will mean more action for those who feel under-stimulated, and less action for those who feel over-stimulated. Harry - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way? Michel Jullian wrote: Battery swapping has been mentioned, why not just empty the gas station's full one into the car's empty one? That is what we have in mind when we talk about a bank of supercapacitors. With something like a lead-acid battery which takes a long time to recharge, swapping battery packs is probably a more practical technique. This is an old idea. I recall reading about schemes to swap batteries back as 1960s, in Popular Science. Compared to 1960, it would be easier and safer to implement a battery exchange scheme nowadays, now that we have RFID tags, computer networks and so on. I doubt that many people would steal the battery packs, any more than they steal propane tanks today. (No doubt a few drunk high school kids do steal propane tanks.) A battery pack might be damaged in an accident, but this sort of thing could easily be checked for with computer testing systems. The propane tanks are also dangerous when they have been damaged, so they are checked with automatic equipment to ensure safety. I think electric cars would be easier to implement than people realize, and most of the concerns about limited operating range are either unimportant, or they could easily be fixed. If the world had run short of oil back in 1960, you can be sure we would have implemented electric cars with battery exchanges by 1975, and everyone would take it for granted. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Michel Jullian wrote: I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?) Not just one! I know HUNDREDS of renowned scientists who have made huge errors for 17 years. They think cold fusion does not exist. People can always have wrong ideas. Throughout history most of our ideas have been wrong, and probably still are. Furthermore, experimental scientists often make mistakes. As Stan Pons says, if we are right half the time we are doing well. However, it is the experiments which are right, not the researchers. As I said, the researchers at Caltech did the experiment correctly, they got the expected result, but they misunderstood their own work and they do not realize it proves cold fusion is real. On average, scientists doing experiments get it right. That is why we can be sure that replicated results are real. If that were not the case, science would not work. Individual automobile drivers do have accidents, but when you randomly select a group of 200 drivers you can be certain they will not all have an accident the same morning. When you take a group of 200 electrochemists and have them do research for 17 years, they will not all get the same wrong answers. What scientists do is a form of animal behavior -- primate behavior. Like any other animal behavior, it works most of the time, or they would stop doing it. Cats are good at catching birds and mice. Even though a cat will often fail to catch a mouse, you can be sure that as a species cats successfully catch mice because otherwise they would go extinct. . . . only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. I do not judge claims according to whether I trust the scientists or whether they are skilled and not. I judge the claims to be correct when the experiment is good, and it has been replicated. I interpret it according to the laws of physics. I know how calorimeters work. I know a good calorimeter when I see one, and I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics are intact, so I can be sure that cold fusion produces excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. I do not trust researchers any more than I trust cats to catch mice. I do not need to have faith in cats. I know a dead mouse when I see it, and I know excess heat. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? First of all, that is impossible. No one can totally lack such skills and still get a degree in electrochemistry. All experimental scientists learn to use such instruments. Second, I have enough EE skills to recognize that a calorimeter is working -- or not. I recognize schlock research. Third, the the EE skills, instruments and techniques required to do cold fusion are not all that advanced. As I said, most of the instruments were perfected between 100 and 160 years ago. Of course even ancient instruments and tools can be difficult to use. Violins and axes were invented thousands of years ago yet they take skill to use correctly. I cannot play a violin, and although I have operated calorimeters, I have a lot to learn about them. But I can tell when someone else is using a violin or calorimeter correctly. If cold fusion called for advanced knowledge of complex instruments, and if the claims were extremely esoteric and subject to interpretation, or complex mathematical analysis, like the claims of the top quark, then perhaps hundreds of scientists working in one group might all be wrong. But hundreds of scientists could not have made independent mistakes measuring excess heat or tritium. If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero . . . The probability of 200 professional scientists making elementary mistakes day after day for for 17 years is as close to zero as you can get. It would not happen in the life of the universe. As I said, this would be like randomly selecting a group of 200 drivers every morning for 17 years and in every single case finding that all of the drivers you selected make a mistake and caused an accident every single day. 1,241,000 accidents in a row! Or, as I said, it is like randomly selecting 200 cats every month, and seeing every one of them starve to death in a country filled with mice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
I said imagine one CF experimenter, just one for a start, has been wrong and won't admit it, and you keep throwing various things at me to avoid the perspective. Why? Can't you question your beliefs even as a mere hypothesis? I am not saying this is so, just imagine. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) Michel Jullian wrote: I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?) Not just one! I know HUNDREDS of renowned scientists who have made huge errors for 17 years. They think cold fusion does not exist. People can always have wrong ideas. Throughout history most of our ideas have been wrong, and probably still are. Furthermore, experimental scientists often make mistakes. As Stan Pons says, if we are right half the time we are doing well. However, it is the experiments which are right, not the researchers. As I said, the researchers at Caltech did the experiment correctly, they got the expected result, but they misunderstood their own work and they do not realize it proves cold fusion is real. On average, scientists doing experiments get it right. That is why we can be sure that replicated results are real. If that were not the case, science would not work. Individual automobile drivers do have accidents, but when you randomly select a group of 200 drivers you can be certain they will not all have an accident the same morning. When you take a group of 200 electrochemists and have them do research for 17 years, they will not all get the same wrong answers. What scientists do is a form of animal behavior -- primate behavior. Like any other animal behavior, it works most of the time, or they would stop doing it. Cats are good at catching birds and mice. Even though a cat will often fail to catch a mouse, you can be sure that as a species cats successfully catch mice because otherwise they would go extinct. . . . only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. I do not judge claims according to whether I trust the scientists or whether they are skilled and not. I judge the claims to be correct when the experiment is good, and it has been replicated. I interpret it according to the laws of physics. I know how calorimeters work. I know a good calorimeter when I see one, and I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics are intact, so I can be sure that cold fusion produces excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. I do not trust researchers any more than I trust cats to catch mice. I do not need to have faith in cats. I know a dead mouse when I see it, and I know excess heat. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? First of all, that is impossible. No one can totally lack such skills and still get a degree in electrochemistry. All experimental scientists learn to use such instruments. Second, I have enough EE skills to recognize that a calorimeter is working -- or not. I recognize schlock research. Third, the the EE skills, instruments and techniques required to do cold fusion are not all that advanced. As I said, most of the instruments were perfected between 100 and 160 years ago. Of course even ancient instruments and tools can be difficult to use. Violins and axes were invented thousands of years ago yet they take skill to use correctly. I cannot play a violin, and although I have operated calorimeters, I have a lot to learn about them. But I can tell when someone else is using a violin or calorimeter correctly. If cold fusion called for advanced knowledge of complex instruments, and if the claims were extremely esoteric and subject to interpretation, or complex mathematical analysis, like the claims of the top quark, then perhaps hundreds of scientists working in one group might all be wrong. But hundreds of scientists could not have made independent mistakes measuring excess heat or tritium. If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero . . . The probability of 200 professional scientists making elementary mistakes day after day for for 17 years is as close to zero as you can get. It would not happen in the life of the universe. As I said, this would be like randomly selecting a group of 200 drivers every morning for 17 years and in every single case finding that all of the drivers you selected make a mistake and caused an accident every single day. 1,241,000 accidents in a row! Or, as I
Re: [Vo]: Water Vortex Video
On 2/9/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had said I would make a video of my water vortex generator and have been putting it off. This morning I remembered I had made a video record for my self. It was kewl. But it made me have to go pee. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Michel Jullian wrote: I said imagine one CF experimenter, just one for a start, has been wrong and won't admit it . . . No problem. Heck, I know many CF researchers who have been wrong and will not admit it. Just about everyone at the NHE lab was wrong. I know some false negatives such as CalTech, and false positives. I know a few people -- maybe 5 or 10 -- who found out after a long time that their experiments were wrong, and the excess heat is not real, but they never published a retraction. They just faded away and stopped attending conferences. You are correct that some of these people probably kept a low profile in order to keep from damaging the field. Or they were just embarrassed. Some claimed they lost interest. Of course it makes no sense to talk about damaging the field. A mistaken claim made by one researcher does not cast doubt on results published by Melvin Miles or Mike McKubre. . . . and you keep throwing various things at me to avoid the perspective. Why? Can't you question your beliefs even as a mere hypothesis? No, not these particular beliefs, because they are not hypothetical. They are observations based on experiments. Experiments are never wrong. Observations made by people thousands of years ago are as certain now as they were back then. For example, people found out by experiment that hammering hot iron makes it harder. There is no doubt about this. It is forever true, and beyond question. People found out circa 1985 that loading palladium with deuterium sometimes makes it generate non-chemical excess heat. That is a fact, now and forever. Only hypotheses, theories or conclusions can be wrong. You would have to be crazy or extremely stupid to accept cold fusion as a hypothesis, because it seems to contradict so much accepted theory. There is no hypothetical basis for it, as far as I know. Of course I have many other beliefs which are hypotheses. I can easily imagine that such notions, based on theory, hunch, or blind acceptance of widely held ideas are wrong. In fact, I expect nearly all are wrong! And the rest are inaccurate, oversimplified, or incomplete. Throughout history most people's notions have been wrong, and there is no reason to think we have reached the end of history. I am not saying this is so, just imagine. Trying to imagine that replicated experiments are wrong is like trying to imagine that 2+2=5. I find that simply unimaginable. That's like believing in miracles. You have to make a clear distinction between observed facts, and hypotheses. Of course in some cases it is difficult to separate them and know which one you are dealing with. (But not with cold fusion, fortunately.) They do get mixed together. Plus, theory and wishful thinking always inform observations, and often lead us astray. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some people doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. This is not the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go back to the lab and try again. In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole idea. That is the issue! Cold fusion needs to treated just like any other science, mistakes and all. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: I said imagine one CF experimenter, just one for a start, has been wrong and won't admit it, and you keep throwing various things at me to avoid the perspective. Why? Can't you question your beliefs even as a mere hypothesis? I am not saying this is so, just imagine. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) Michel Jullian wrote: I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?) Not just one! I know HUNDREDS of renowned scientists who have made huge errors for 17 years. They think cold fusion does not exist. People can always have wrong ideas. Throughout history most of our ideas have been wrong, and probably still are. Furthermore, experimental scientists often make mistakes. As Stan Pons says, if we are right half the time we are doing well. However, it is the experiments which are right, not the researchers. As I said, the researchers at Caltech did the experiment correctly, they got the expected result, but they misunderstood their own work and they do not realize it proves cold fusion is real. On average, scientists doing experiments get it right. That is why we can be sure that replicated results are real. If that were not the case, science would not work. Individual automobile drivers do have accidents, but when you randomly select a group of 200 drivers you can be certain they will not all have an accident the same morning. When you take a group of 200 electrochemists and have them do research for 17 years, they will not all get the same wrong answers. What scientists do is a form of animal behavior -- primate behavior. Like any other animal behavior, it works most of the time, or they would stop doing it. Cats are good at catching birds and mice. Even though a cat will often fail to catch a mouse, you can be sure that as a species cats successfully catch mice because otherwise they would go extinct. . . . only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. I do not judge claims according to whether I trust the scientists or whether they are skilled and not. I judge the claims to be correct when the experiment is good, and it has been replicated. I interpret it according to the laws of physics. I know how calorimeters work. I know a good calorimeter when I see one, and I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics are intact, so I can be sure that cold fusion produces excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. I do not trust researchers any more than I trust cats to catch mice. I do not need to have faith in cats. I know a dead mouse when I see it, and I know excess heat. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? First of all, that is impossible. No one can totally lack such skills and still get a degree in electrochemistry. All experimental scientists learn to use such instruments. Second, I have enough EE skills to recognize that a calorimeter is working -- or not. I recognize schlock research. Third, the the EE skills, instruments and techniques required to do cold fusion are not all that advanced. As I said, most of the instruments were perfected between 100 and 160 years ago. Of course even ancient instruments and tools can be difficult to use. Violins and axes were invented thousands of years ago yet they take skill to use correctly. I cannot play a violin, and although I have operated calorimeters, I have a lot to learn about them. But I can tell when someone else is using a violin or calorimeter correctly. If cold fusion called for advanced knowledge of complex instruments, and if the claims were extremely esoteric and subject to interpretation, or complex mathematical analysis, like the claims of the top quark, then perhaps hundreds of scientists working in one group might all be wrong. But hundreds of scientists could not have made independent mistakes measuring excess heat or tritium. If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero . . . The probability of 200 professional scientists making elementary mistakes day after day for for
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Edmund Storms wrote: Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some people doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. Right. And this is like saying that some programmers write programs with bugs, some doctors accidentally kill patients, and some people drive their cars into trees by accident. People in all walks of life make mistakes. This is not the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go back to the lab and try again. Right again. And programmers correct their mistakes. (Or at Microsoft, they declare that the mistake is a feature, they charge extra for it, and then they charge you to get rid of it.) In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole idea. That is the issue! Cold fusion needs to treated just like any other science, mistakes and all. Exactly. Just because some drivers sometimes run into trees, you do not declare that no one can drive, or that cars do not exist. I know perfectly well that some CF researchers are wrong, but it is inconceivable that all of them are wrong. The two assertions must not be confused. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
OK this sounds more sensible, we have gone even beyond the stage of a hypothesis (I myself have witnessed such bad CF experiments). CF presented in this more realistic light, mistakes and all, looks more like real science. A lot of weeding would have to be done, but that's another story. Best is to concentrate on the experiments which are thought/known to work, and validate them. Ideally they should pass the Earthtech test, after which they could go and claim the Randi prize without further ado. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) Edmund Storms wrote: Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some people doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. Right. And this is like saying that some programmers write programs with bugs, some doctors accidentally kill patients, and some people drive their cars into trees by accident. People in all walks of life make mistakes. This is not the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go back to the lab and try again. Right again. And programmers correct their mistakes. (Or at Microsoft, they declare that the mistake is a feature, they charge extra for it, and then they charge you to get rid of it.) In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole idea. That is the issue! Cold fusion needs to treated just like any other science, mistakes and all. Exactly. Just because some drivers sometimes run into trees, you do not declare that no one can drive, or that cars do not exist. I know perfectly well that some CF researchers are wrong, but it is inconceivable that all of them are wrong. The two assertions must not be confused. - Jed
[Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal
New Scientist - NEWS ALERT - $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal Come up with a system for removing a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and you could win the biggest prize in history, says its sponsor, Richard Branson, head of Virgin Group. The judges of the prize include former US vice president Al Gore, Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute and James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia theory. Read the full story here: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11146-25-million-dollar-prize- for-greenhouse-gas-removal.html Science and technology news and features updated daily at http://www.newscientist.com
RE: [Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal
FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removalIsn't that a big funny? If life is about to end because of global warming why is removal of Green House Gasses only worth $25Mil, yet a way to produce or filter water is worth $200 Billion? I doubt I would even start for $25 Million when 60% goes to the Feds. When I read who was involved I see why... -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal New Scientist - NEWS ALERT - $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal Come up with a system for removing a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and you could win the biggest prize in history, says its sponsor, Richard Branson, head of Virgin Group. The judges of the prize include former US vice president Al Gore, Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute and James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia theory. Read the full story here: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11146-25-million-dollar-priz e-for-greenhouse-gas-removal.html Science and technology news and features updated daily at http://www.newscientist.com -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM
[Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 9, 2007
-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Feb 9, 2007 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 9, 2007 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Feb 07 Washington, DC 1. SKIPPING AHEAD: BUSH SENDS CONGRESS HIS 2008 BUDGET REQUEST. Congress, however, is still trying to put together a 2007 budget. The 2008 request isn't great news for every field of research, but in physics, NSF, NIST and the DOE Office of Science did well. In the absence of a 2007 budget, agencies are still spending at 2006 levels. However, a resolution adopted by the House does call for 2007 increases at NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science. The Senate will presumably take up the House resolution soon. In any case, a 2008 budget won't pass Congress before October. Meanwhile, the Iraq War and the climate are both heating up, and the Democrats committed themselves to balancing the budget. This is not very promising for science funding. 2. SPACE STATION: LATEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN SPACE EXPLORATION. The space-exploration component of the request, got one of the largest increases. Exploration has come to mean exploration by astronauts, so we decided to let you know how exploration is going. The only space being explored right now is the orbit of the ISS, about 400 km above Earth. It was a big week on the ISS: The cooling system was overhauled. In the process, two records in space walking were set. NASA announced that station commander Michael Lopez-Alegria now holds the U.S. record, 61 hrs and 22 min, while astronaut Sunita Williams set the women's record at 22 hrs and 27 min. Way to go guys! The Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, of course, set records every day, but they don't count because they aren't people. On the positive side, robots never require psychological counseling. 3. COUNSELING: LOOK WHAT IT DID FOR TED HAGGARD IN ONLY 3 WEEKS. Pastor Ted resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals after he admitted buying meth from his male prostitute http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn110306.html . He has since undergone three weeks of intensive counseling overseen by four evangelical ministers, and emerged completely heterosexual. NASA might want to talk to his therapist. 4. THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE: ENFORCING POPULATION LIMITATIONS? Several readers last week took WN to task over the population question. Should we force abortions, they ask, or jail parents, or take even more stringent measures? That doesn't seem to be necessary. Among affluent and educated nations, native-born populations are stable or shrinking now. Their growth is almost entirely by immigration. All that's needed is to remove our legal obstacles to birth control, and raise the standard of living and educational level of impoverished nations. That would probably be enough. If not, reduce tax deductions and other fecundity incentives. A few will still behave irresponsibly, but society can tolerate them in the name of freedom as we do with those who are environmentally insensitive. 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: [Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal
FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal Stiffler wrote... Isn't that a big funny? If life is about to end because of global warming why is removal of Green House Gasses only worth $25Mil, yet a way to produce or filter water is worth $200 Billion? I doubt I would even start for $25 Million when 60% goes to the Feds. When I read who was involved I see why. Howdy Ron, Don't forget Ted Turner. He was in Houston touting the word..Ted has some serious money he could use if it isn't all going to Jane Fonda's alimony fund. Richard
Re: [Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal
The winning concept only has to look good on paper. At least that is my impression after I quickly scanned the competition's website http://www.virginearth.com . Harry Stiffler Scientific wrote: Isn't that a big funny? If life is about to end because of global warming why is removal of Green House Gasses only worth $25Mil, yet a way to produce or filter water is worth $200 Billion? I doubt I would even start for $25 Million when 60% goes to the Feds. When I read who was involved I see why... -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: FW: $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal New Scientist - NEWS ALERT - $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal Come up with a system for removing a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and you could win the biggest prize in history, says its sponsor, Richard Branson, head of Virgin Group. The judges of the prize include former US vice president Al Gore, Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute and James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia theory. Read the full story here: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11146-25-million-dollar-prize- for-greenhouse-gas-removal.html Science and technology news and features updated daily at http://www.newscientist.com
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Jed Rothwell wrote: I think electric cars would be easier to implement than people realize, and most of the concerns about limited operating range are either unimportant, or they could easily be fixed. If the world had run short of oil back in 1960, you can be sure we would have implemented electric cars with battery exchanges by 1975, and everyone would take it for granted. - Jed Anyone consider electric planes? Lifters? Harry
