Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. What's a PPD? Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Not deadly (I read somewhere that no casualty has ever been attributed to ozone), but it's very painful if you inhale too much of it, very much like inhaling bleach, no wonder it has a similar effect on microorganisms. How is the ozone laden air pressurized in the industrial units you're using, air pump upstream of the ozone generation I imagine? And what's the operating principle of the O3 generator itself, is it the AC operated glass tube type? Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. I doubt this makes the slightest sense to anyone except perhaps yourself, but hey this is Vortex :) We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 alone doesn't want to play fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual water process stream and have the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our Gasmastrrr units returned for service that have the UHMW rotating member What's this, your tank-bottom ozonized air bubbler? shot with electro-chem pitting Chem pitting more likely. I guess you mean electro-chem like pitting? that is a form of SL cavitation. What's this ? Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene does not pit.. we all know that. Very few materials are ozone resistant Richard. Have you checked the ozone resistance of this particular PE? Also some materials catalyze ozone destruction (reversal to O2), such materials in your ozonized air circuit would result in not much ozone reaching the water you want to treat. Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:25 AM Subject: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Blank Michael wrote.. Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard? Zachary wrote.. Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a commercial ozone unit won't provide? We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. The problems, the maintenance and the trouble mixing ozone beg for better technology. It seems that microwave may have some application considering the huge transformer banks required to boost voltage for the present technology, plus the problems with drying the air or the dangers of using pure oxy. Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Takes the finger nail polish off my nails grin Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 alone doesn't want to play fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual water process stream and have the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our Gasmastrrr units returned for service that have the UHMW rotating member shot with electro-chem pitting that is a form of SL cavitation. Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene does not pit.. we all know that. Richard
Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
- Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. What's a PPD? Ozone gas is measured in pounds per day .. PPD Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Not deadly (I read somewhere that no casualty has ever been attributed to ozone), but it's very painful if you inhale too much of it, very much like inhaling bleach, no wonder it has a similar effect on microorganisms. Very deadly.. a extreme oxidant. How is the ozone laden air pressurized in the industrial units you're using, air pump upstream of the ozone generation I imagine? And what's the operating principle of the O3 generator itself, is it the AC operated glass tube type? The incoming air is compressed, chilled and dried. The air enters the electric arc chambers 8 diameter pipe runs( depending on type) and mixed into the main process water . The air handling systems can be pressured or vacuum. Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. I doubt this makes the slightest sense to anyone except perhaps yourself, but hey this is Vortex :) Hey ! You're not in Kindergarten.. Vortex is for people with some elastic in their minds. We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 alone doesn't want to play fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual water process stream and have the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our Gasmastrrr units returned for service that have the UHMW rotating member What's this, your tank-bottom ozonized air bubbler? See .. www.gasmastrrr.comThe gas is discharged into large mixing tanks filled with water. The off-gas ozone that fails to mix is either recycled or is destroyed so Michel doesn't learn the hard way that the stuff can kill ya. shot with electro-chem pitting Chem pitting more likely. I guess you mean electro-chem like pitting? Electro-chem pitting description covers a range.. strange to see the results.. if you ever saw the results of propeller or pump impeller cavitation you would understand. that is a form of SL cavitation. What's this ? Here goes sonolumeniscense.. long for SL.. Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene does not pit.. we all know that. Very few materials are ozone resistant Richard. Have you checked the ozone resistance of this particular PE? Re-check you data.. excellent resistance to O3 at below 120 degrees.. maybe some swelling at 140 degrees. Also some materials catalyze ozone destruction (reversal to O2), such materials in your ozonized air circuit would result in not much ozone reaching the water you want to treat. Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:25 AM Subject: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Blank Michael wrote.. Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard? Zachary wrote.. Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a commercial ozone unit won't provide? We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. The problems, the maintenance and the trouble mixing ozone beg for better technology. It seems that microwave may have some application considering the huge transformer banks required to boost voltage for the present technology, plus the problems with drying the air or the dangers of using pure oxy. Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Takes the finger nail polish off my nails grin Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. We have been successful using this method
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio looks good in this one case, but it means nothing. 0.5W electrical in, 0.5W+2.5W=3W heat out? So this would be a COP of 6, why do you think it means nothing? It means nothing because no effort was made to control or maximize the COP. The COP is an engineering measurement that is only be relevant to a working device. Once the mechanism is understood and can be modified to maximize efficiency, the COP can be made very large. At the present time, the important parameter is the measurement of excess energy. Even the amount is not important as long as it is greater than the error in the calorimeter. The important issue is measuring and understanding the phenomenon, not making it efficient. The best and most complete heat measurements have been published by McKubre et al. However, similar results have been experienced in at least 157 independent studies. No, I was asking about a published excess heat experiment of yours, sorry if I was unclear. I tried to publish the 2.5 W measurement but this was rejected. As a result, I have stopped wasting my time publishing experimental work. I will probably describe the result at ICCF-13. Writing a book is a better use of my time and it cannot be stopped by skeptics. My last experimental publication was at ICCF-10. Ed Michel Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: I seriously doubt that the hidden costs of your use of electricity is completely covered by what you pay. That is correct. Want to pay more? Yes, I do want to pay more, and I shall, as soon as green electricity becomes available. I have signed up for it. Say, $500-600 per month more? No, the difference is nowhere near as large as this. At least not for someone who consumes as little electricity as I do. The hidden costs of gasoline are far greater than the hidden costs of electricity. In Georgia, the hidden costs are mainly for pollution and global warming caused by coal. Unfortunately, 63% of our electricity comes from coal. We have no wind resources and no untapped hydro, so the only alternative is more nuclear power (presently 27%). I would be happy to pay extra for all-nuclear power. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesga.html Much electricity is derived from oil, and almost all of it is from fossil fuels. No, only about 3% of electricity is derived from oil, and that includes fractions of oil that cannot be used for any other purpose. It is mainly used for peak generators in some rural areas, and even this is declining. Petroleum power generation was never large; it peaked in 1978 at about 22% of U.S. generation (365 billion kWH), and it has fallen to 3% (90 billion kWH, 2002 data). See the Annual Energy Review, EIA. You get no free ride either, buddy. But again, of course it is different when it is YOU. You are the one demanding a free ride, not me. No you do not. That's the problem. Your fuel costs you $2 per gallon and it costs the rest of us $3 extra in hidden costs. You are forcing the rest of us to bail you out. Buses and trains use fossil fuels as well. They use much less per passenger mile. That's the point. Plus they are flexible. In California, where only 1% of electricity is generated from coal, electric trains produce far less global warming than they do in Georgia or New York. As I said above, so does most electricity in this nation, and the world in fact...particularly the hell than is China...with their coal plants they must be accruing a SERIOUS hidden cost... maybe we should destroy that nation entirely for the good of the planet? They are destroying their own nation. If they would build wind and nuclear power generators instead, they will prevent this destruction. (They do not have much solar energy where the energy is needed.) Logic such as yours can be dragged out to ridiculous extremes. That is called the slippery slope logical fallacy. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html Again, you want to pay a few hundred extra per month for electricity? No? Then screw off attempting to control our lives. This is completely incorrect. In California, electricity costs only a little more than in Georgia or New York, and they produce far less pollution and carbon per kWH. If present trends continue they will produce no carbon at all 30 to 50 years from now, and the cost per kWH will be lower than our coal-based electricity. No it should not. It is a sure thing. You might as well debate whether cold fusion is real. Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They question what is going on. Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html I suppose you think they are all idiots. With regard to this subject, yes. People like Park feel the same way about cold fusion researchers. Yes, but they are wrong, and I am right. I have the facts and the science to back up my claims, whereas they do not. It is the same with your assertion that clean electricity would cost me hundreds more. That assertion can be checked against actual cost data from California, Germany, nuclear power in Georgia, and other sources. I can prove that clean electricity would not cost me hundreds. Therefore you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. You really don't get it do you? If you put that kind of tax on travel, you will DESTROY the US economy overnight. Nonsense. The U.S. is made of sterner stuff than that. We Americans accomplished great things in the past. We won terrible wars in 1860 (won and lost), 1918 and 1945. We can fix this problem too, and we can certainly live with a tax. Our economic competitors in Europe and Asia do. I for one do not think that Americans are weaker, stupider or less resourceful than people in Europe and Asia. I have been to these places, lived there, and I am not afraid to compete with them. People will starve, riot, the cities will
Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
- Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. What's a PPD? Ozone gas is measured in pounds per day .. PPD OK thanks, pounds must be some indigenous unit I guess ;) Seriously, that's a hell of a lot of ozone! Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Not deadly (I read somewhere that no casualty has ever been attributed to ozone), but it's very painful if you inhale too much of it, very much like inhaling bleach, no wonder it has a similar effect on microorganisms. Very deadly.. a extreme oxidant. Correct, I should have said deadly, but no casualty recorded (unless you know of any) How is the ozone laden air pressurized in the industrial units you're using, air pump upstream of the ozone generation I imagine? And what's the operating principle of the O3 generator itself, is it the AC operated glass tube type? The incoming air is compressed, chilled and dried. The air enters the electric arc chambers 8 diameter pipe runs( depending on type) and mixed into the main process water . The air handling systems can be pressured or vacuum. OK, that's how I imagined it basically. Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. I doubt this makes the slightest sense to anyone except perhaps yourself, but hey this is Vortex :) Hey ! You're not in Kindergarten.. Vortex is for people with some elastic in their minds. Indeed! We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 alone doesn't want to play fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual water process stream and have the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our Gasmastrrr units returned for service that have the UHMW rotating member What's this, your tank-bottom ozonized air bubbler? See .. www.gasmastrrr.com Nice! If that's your site there is a typo BTW :The MASTRRR COMPANY manufacture_r_s a variety The gas is discharged into large mixing tanks filled with water. The off-gas ozone that fails to mix is either recycled or is destroyed so Michel doesn't learn the hard way that the stuff can kill ya. Yeah, especially if Richard sneaks lethal O6 isotopes into it :) shot with electro-chem pitting Chem pitting more likely. I guess you mean electro-chem like pitting? Electro-chem pitting description covers a range.. strange to see the results.. if you ever saw the results of propeller or pump impeller cavitation you would understand. that is a form of SL cavitation. What's this ? Here goes sonolumeniscense.. long for SL.. So you observe light emissions from your rotating arm? In this case yes you probably have all sorts of ionic species in there, so your electro-chem description is appropriate. Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene does not pit.. we all know that. Very few materials are ozone resistant Richard. Have you checked the ozone resistance of this particular PE? Re-check you data.. excellent resistance to O3 at below 120 degrees.. maybe some swelling at 140 degrees. I never said I had checked any data, good thing you have. Don't take my casual comments as criticisms BTW, I was not supposed to know the extent of your knowledge in this field, it's obviously excellent, better than mine on some points, thanks for the interesting discussion. Michel Also some materials catalyze ozone destruction (reversal to O2), such materials in your ozonized air circuit would result in not much ozone reaching the water you want to treat. Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:25 AM Subject: [VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Blank Michael wrote.. Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard? Zachary wrote.. Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a commercial ozone unit won't provide? We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. The problems, the maintenance and the trouble mixing ozone beg for better technology. It seems that microwave may have
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
On 3/11/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who pays the hidden costs of extracting that nuclear fuel, and cleaning up the radioactive crap belched out by these facilities? None of them are clean, they leak radioactive water into the environment all the time. Actually, for a given amount of energy, coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power: http://russp.org/nucfacts.html Terry
[Vo]: Negentropy - honed to a point
Subject: Negentropy - honed to a point I am hoping to ad this 'Subject line' to the prior thread, which went astray in cyberspace. Have we yet determined why this happens: the blank subject line? Does it have anything to do with the confluence of entropy and information g or is it something more carnivorous? Michel Jullian wrote, Heatless explosion, interesting, I had never heard of this although when you think about it there are well known chemical reactions where volume increases while heat is absorbed, namely evaporations, so if you combine any heat-releasing reaction, explosive or not, with an evaporation reaction absorbing exactly the same heat you get an explosion which doesn't release any heat. Elementary thermochemistry, doesn't violate any LoT I am afraid. Well, the devil is in the details, and there are aspects of this which are devilishly far from the simple Michel, and far from elementary I am afraid, except perhaps for those observers who do not wish to be challenged by the implications of a unique situation or look close enough for the anomaly. Let me explain. Or - you can avail yourself of pertinent literature directly: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=313817AFDE72404E29A1776595ABE980.tomcat1?fromPage=onlineaid=18687 If a liquid at ambient temperature such as water, is violently turned into steam, with no energy input - and that steam is expanded through a turbine, where work is done - then ostensibly free-energy has been seen. Aha, you respond- but this never happens, so it 'doesn't violate any LoT I am afraid.' However, Graneau et al. have shown that lowly water, at lest some types of H2O, *does* have an unexplained energy component which can be released. One of their papers also appears in Infinite Energy. And more importantly, if a liquid at ambient temperature such as HOOH, is violently turned into steam, with no energy input - and that steam is expanded through a turbine, and a surprising amount of work is done, then ostensibly free-energy has been seen. Aha, you respond- yes this does happen, but it 'doesn't violate any LoT I am afraid, since an equal or greater amount of work was involved in producing the HOOH.' This is reflexive response. But are you certain that HOOH cannot be produced from water and oxygen without an equal or greater amount of work than that which was is created on its expansion (explosion)? Cannot some of that input be of the Graneau variety? And even if that is not the case, does not a return of almost all of the energy employed, even ambient, upwards to 99% returned - doesn't that violate at least the intent of Carnot's insight as to heat engine efficiency? You see, now we have honed the situation down to where it as far from elementary thermochemistry as that field permits - and it is not at all clear to anyone who understands the intricacies of this situation that that overall system - even if it doesn't directly violate a LoT, at least as promulgated to fit the new situation, is definitely at least five times (COP=5) more efficient than if one attempted to shoehorn the results into the Carnot equations. Here is that Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine Yes everyone knows that Carnot's equations are still called a 'theorem' and cannot be elevated to a real law, since they only apply to limited kind of heat engine, but how can a HOOH engine violate the Carnot result by 500%? Of course, it is always a simple task to amend, or to reinterpret any sacrosanct law to account for hidden inputs like so-called ambient energy or in the case of Graneau, they suspect some kind of solar activation of water and this can be incorporated into the manufacture of an offending chemical, which is based on water. But that is the only way that this particular system, peroxide, doesn't violate any LoT, I am afraid. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They question what is going on. Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you?
Re: [Vo]: looking for long wavelength LED's
Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, Does anyone have access to a long wavelength LED = 1300 nm? If so then I would ***very much*** appreciate it if you could perform a simple voltage measurement experiment, or better yet I would be more than happy to purchase your mid-IR LED. Regards, Paul Lowrance I found a company that sells a 4500 nm LED, but I'll hold of on buying it since it's $108 for just one LED! Does anyone have any idea how they make these MID-IR LEDs? Photodiodes are perhaps easier to make. I know Lead Sulfide reacts to long wavelengths between 1000 nm and 3500 nm. Regards, Paul Lowrance
[Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
John Berry wrote: Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you? No, I never do. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an appeal to authority fallacy should more properly called an appeal to false authority. That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to say, I'm right and I do not need to tell you why he would be abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other experts do.) Quoting Nizkor: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. . . . Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. . . . I suggest you read this carefully. Please note that logical errors of this type are well established. Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as An Appeal To Authority (or Ad Verecundiam as they said in Ancient Rome ), Slippery Slope or Appeal to Tradition in a scientific discussion. It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily avoid these things with a little practice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/11/07, Kyle R. Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who pays the hidden costs of extracting that nuclear fuel, and cleaning up the radioactive crap belched out by these facilities? None of them are clean, they leak radioactive water into the environment all the time. Actually, for a given amount of energy, coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power I mentioned this in Chapter 2 of my book. We should note that Kyle Mcallister is quite right that there have been serious problems with radioactive water leaking from nuclear reactors. The worst case in recent years in the U.S. was the Connecticut Yankee fiasco. However, properly designed and maintained nuclear reactors do not leak radioactive water, whereas even a properly designed coal plant spews radioactive garbage everywhere, along with carbon dioxide. The radioactive garbage has been reduced, but it cannot be eliminated with present-day technology, or reduced to levels as low as that of a properly designed and maintained fission reactor. Perhaps it is possible to design a coal plant that does not do this, and there are even designs for plants that capture and sequester the CO2, but I do not think these coal plants could be made cost-effective. I expect fission reactors would be cheaper per kWH. In geographical areas where wind or intense sunlight are available, these sources are already cheaper than fission reactors, and far cheaper than coal when you take into account hidden costs. Unfortunately, as I said, we do not have wind or cheap solar resources in Georgia. A nagging problem with fission reactors is that when something does go drastically wrong -- as happened with TMI, Connecticut Yankee, Rancho Seco, Brown's Ferry and so on -- the consequences can be severe. These incidents each cost billions of dollars to clean up. Years ago there was a lot of debate about whether the nuclear power surcharge will be enough to decommission and clean-up nuclear plants. I think this debate has subsided, because several plants were decommissioned and satisfactorily cleaned up, so we now have a better handle on how much it costs. We can be fairly confident that the trust fund is large enough. Also, some of the old mines were cleaned up. However, some experts still dispute this. The cost of long-term storage of nuclear waste is a huge question mark, but I believe this problem is mainly politics rather than a fiscal problem. Once the political and scientific issues are settled I do not think it will cost much to bury the waste. (I mean it will be cheap per kWH. The actual sums will be tremendous.) - Jed
[Vo]: LED's capturing blackbody radiation - An Important Request
Hi, Important email. If you don't like reading big emails then please scroll down till you see the header IMPORTANT. I know that an LED can capture some black body radiation and convert it to DC electrical energy. Unfortunately, as far as I know not until recently LED's were unable to emit or absorb any appreciable radiation near 4500 nm. A typical long wavelength IR LED is 950 nm with 50 nm BW. Somewhere I have the figures, but basically the amount of black body energy at room temperature between 925 nm and 975 nm is next to useless. On the other hand, the amount of black body radiation energy between 4400 nm and 4600 nm is significant. I have no idea how efficient these leading edge MID-IR LED's are at absorbing such radiation, but I for one *firmly* believe it's at least worth the effort to find out. Supposedly these 4500 nm LED's are efficient at emitting such radiation. My experiments demonstrate normal LED's act as a good photovoltaic cell. For example, take two similar LED's face to face. Apply ~1.5 volts on one LED while reading the DC voltage of the other LED. Some LED's are good enough to generate close to 1.5 volts. Now separate the LED's till you get 1 mV. Now double the distance and if done properly you'll see the voltage will drop by ~1/2. I just received a quote from such a leading edge LED company of $108 for one single LED! That should give you an idea just how leading edge these LED's are. I had an idea of trying to get that LED company to perform a simple test, rather than pay $108 + SH to buy one LED. Here's the idea -- IMPORTANT: If anyone has the time, could you *please* send an email to the http://deepredtech.com LED company requesting the following experiment, perhaps in your own words? I would like to give them the idea that collaborated physicists around the world are interested. And it's true, physicists would be interested if these leading edge ultra long wavelength LED's could indeed capture a part of the 460 Watts/m^2 blackbody radiation that's peak at ~15000 nm at room temperature. Now I have to admit, there's an appreciable chance this company does not have the appropriate equipment or patience to measure this noise, as the active area of these LED's are roughly 300 x 300 um^2. So the amount of voltage noise caused by black body radiation could be quite small. Here's the email I sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which you could use an an example. --- Hi, Thanks for the reply! Could you possibly have someone take a quick measurement on your LED46 since I did not see it in the datasheet? I would like to know the rms voltage noise the LED46 generates when it's pointed at a wall of the same temperature. So if the LED46 temperature is 300 Kelvin then the wall temperature should also be close to 300 Kelvin. If you do not have a sensitive rms meter capable of measuring down to 0.1 mV then even an eyeball reading of the peek to peek voltage over say 1 minute would be great. Actually I am hoping your LED46 generates a lot of noise. If your LED generates a lot of voltage noise then a great deal of physicists around the world that I'm in contact with and I would purchase the LED's. --- Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA I cannot think of any offhand. Most researchers do not report input electrolysis power for the reasons described by Ed. Mitchell Swartz is the only researcher I know who thinks the C.O.P. is important. I believe he has optimized for it, and achieved some high C.O.P.s. He has not contributed papers to LENR-CANR, and I do not find them elsewhere on the net, so I cannot cite an on-line example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? Or just that they don't use the term COP? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA I cannot think of any offhand. Most researchers do not report input electrolysis power for the reasons described by Ed. Mitchell Swartz is the only researcher I know who thinks the C.O.P. is important. I believe he has optimized for it, and achieved some high C.O.P.s. He has not contributed papers to LENR-CANR, and I do not find them elsewhere on the net, so I cannot cite an on-line example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus input. Of course there are papers that report all values. However, as Ed says, the input electrolysis power is generally considered irrelevant. It is a little like taking into account the energy consumed by the instruments used to measure the effect. (Of course you do have to do this when some of the instrument energy leaks into the calorimeter, for example when you use a fan inside a Seebeck calorimeter to make the inside air temperature uniform, you have to keep track of the fan input electricity.) Or just that they don't use the term COP? Now that you mention it, I see only two refs for it with the Google search box at LENR-CANR: Dardik and one other. Dardik is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I wrote: Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus input. Of course there are papers that report all values. Some papers report only the excess power normalized to volume of Pd, which is annoying. Especially when you have no idea what the volume of Pd is. See, for example, Table 10, p. 44 in this otherwise excellent paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf This is really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. This proves that some materials work much better than others but there is no telling how much power was actually involved. The column headings are: Source, the supplier who provided the Pd d, cm, diameter in centimeters V, cm3, voltage normalized to the volume of Pd. (And who knows what that was?) Px/V, W/cm3, excess power per volt or watts per cm3. (Apparently the same in all cases? This must be the maximum for all run, such as the 9 positive runs with JM Pd, row #5) There is no mention of COP in any of Miles' papers as far as I can recall. He does often discuss electrochemical properties and recombination, especially in the context of his papers about his disagreement with Jones et al. But the ratios of input electrolysis power to output power (the COP) is not discussed. Miles or any electrochemist will know many steps for lowering this ratio by improving efficiency electrolysis. They do not take these steps because there is no point or because the steps will interfere with the experiment. For example, everyone knows you can reduce electrolysis power by putting the cathode and the anode closer together. Having the anode and cathode too close together makes it difficult to assemble the cell and observe the reaction (with a glass cell) so they leave them far apart. You cannot let them touch. With a liquid electrolysis when the anode and cathode touch it is short circuit and game over. For that matter, you can reduce electrolysis powered by a factor of a thousand or more by using a solid-state gas loaded proton conductor. This brings the anode and the cathode so close they touch, and it eliminates almost all resistance. Mizuno, Oriani and others reported some success with this technique. Input power is trivial -- less than a milliwatt, as I recall, and the output range from about half a watt to a burst large enough power to melt the ceramic proton conductor and vaporize the silver power leads. (This was probably thousands of watts or so for a few seconds.) But unfortunately, while this technique did show promise it is very difficult to do and after several years of struggle they gave up trying to improve it. They simply did not have the resources to make progress. If that avenue of research had been properly funded it might have panned out by now. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Thanks Jed but IMHO a CF paper claiming excess heat which wouldn't state -or provide the data to derive- the values which were subtracted from each other to derive it, would be definitely incomplete. A proper description of such an experiment would obviously state not only the values found, but also the method used to measure them. So my question to Ed is, among such proper descriptions of your own excess heat experiments, as I am sure there are plenty, is there one you could recommend? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I wrote: Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus input. Of course there are papers that report all values. Some papers report only the excess power normalized to volume of Pd, which is annoying. Especially when you have no idea what the volume of Pd is. See, for example, Table 10, p. 44 in this otherwise excellent paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf This is really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. This proves that some materials work much better than others but there is no telling how much power was actually involved. The column headings are: Source, the supplier who provided the Pd d, cm, diameter in centimeters V, cm3, voltage normalized to the volume of Pd. (And who knows what that was?) Px/V, W/cm3, excess power per volt or watts per cm3. (Apparently the same in all cases? This must be the maximum for all run, such as the 9 positive runs with JM Pd, row #5) There is no mention of COP in any of Miles' papers as far as I can recall. He does often discuss electrochemical properties and recombination, especially in the context of his papers about his disagreement with Jones et al. But the ratios of input electrolysis power to output power (the COP) is not discussed. Miles or any electrochemist will know many steps for lowering this ratio by improving efficiency electrolysis. They do not take these steps because there is no point or because the steps will interfere with the experiment. For example, everyone knows you can reduce electrolysis power by putting the cathode and the anode closer together. Having the anode and cathode too close together makes it difficult to assemble the cell and observe the reaction (with a glass cell) so they leave them far apart. You cannot let them touch. With a liquid electrolysis when the anode and cathode touch it is short circuit and game over. For that matter, you can reduce electrolysis powered by a factor of a thousand or more by using a solid-state gas loaded proton conductor. This brings the anode and the cathode so close they touch, and it eliminates almost all resistance. Mizuno, Oriani and others reported some success with this technique. Input power is trivial -- less than a milliwatt, as I recall, and the output range from about half a watt to a burst large enough power to melt the ceramic proton conductor and vaporize the silver power leads. (This was probably thousands of watts or so for a few seconds.) But unfortunately, while this technique did show promise it is very difficult to do and after several years of struggle they gave up trying to improve it. They simply did not have the resources to make progress. If that avenue of research had been properly funded it might have panned out by now. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Negentropy - honed to a point
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:36:34 -0700: Hi, [snip] However, Graneau et al. have shown that lowly water, at lest some types of H2O, *does* have an unexplained energy component which can be released. One of their papers also appears in Infinite Energy. [snip] Since they use high voltage electrical discharges to accomplish this (AFAIK), it seems to me that their results can adequately be explained by Hydrinos, either formed in situ as a result of catalysis by O++ /or liberated from Faux D by the fast particles in the discharge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: LED's capturing blackbody radiation - An Important Request
In reply to Paul Lowrance's message of Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:58:36 -0800: Hi Paul, [snip] your LED46 generates a lot of noise. If your LED generates a lot of voltage noise then a great deal of physicists around the world that I'm in contact with and I would purchase the LED's. [snip] If this appeal doesn't work, then you might have more luck purchasing a few LEDs and sending them free of charge to researchers who you believe might be inclined to make the necessary measurements. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Jed but IMHO 'H'??? I have seen no evidence of this. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I wrote: Some papers report only the excess power normalized to volume of Pd, which is annoying. Especially when you have no idea what the volume of Pd is. See, for example, Table 10, p. 44 in this otherwise excellent paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf This is really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. . . . Come to think of it, the purpose of this table is to make a comparison, and the only way to do that is to normalize the values for different samples. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. So that was a dumb thing for me to say. Miles assumed that the volume of the Pd is the key factor. I think nowadays many people think the surface area is key. Ed Storms would say it is the NAE, but that is impossible to measure with our present state of knowledge. So normalizing against volume is imperfect but better than nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Negentropy - honed to a point
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: However, Graneau et al. have shown that lowly water, at lest some types of H2O, *does* have an unexplained energy component which can be released. One of their papers also appears in Infinite Energy. Since they use high voltage electrical discharges to accomplish this (AFAIK), it seems to me that their results can adequately be explained by Hydrinos, I was not trying to explain Graneau's findings, so much as to suggest that they have produced repeatable, believable results which are unexplained, and greatly in need of more RD. They think that the excess energy in water is derived from solar - and that seems likely. Instead of supporting this work, in our beloved USA -- it is deemed wiser to grant big oil, like Exxon, massive tax-breaks to go along with their obscene profits, and to support dead-end wasteful spending on hot fusion instead. Go figure. And any rate, if hydrinos are involved in the Graneau results, which is also the most likely explantion IMHO based on what we know - then there is no great conflict with your view, except that they are natural, solar-derived, and brought in with the solar wind - which is why they turn up in rain water, which gives the best results in that experiment. We may never know the answer, if big-oil has its way and can keep putting its minions in high office. Jones BTW Exxon has been posting the highest quarterly profits in history - why do they need tax breaks ? How long before they too can move corporate offices to Dubai to escape congressional scrutiny? $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year. If they had been forced to pay half of that for alternative RD ... Oh never mind. It is too painful too imagine the extent of our lost opportunities recently - to change the world for the better.
Re: [Vo]: Negentropy - honed to a point
I don't know the particular experiment you mention Jones, but what I do know for having done extensive work on the subject is that pulsed power such as can be found in electrical discharges, especially sparky ones, is extremely difficult to measure. I fully agree that much more of the big oil profits should go to alternative energy research, but I am not as certain as you are that hot fusion is dead-end wasteful spending. I believe it should have its chance, only other research should have its chance too which is not presently the case. Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Negentropy - honed to a point Robin van Spaandonk wrote: However, Graneau et al. have shown that lowly water, at lest some types of H2O, *does* have an unexplained energy component which can be released. One of their papers also appears in Infinite Energy. Since they use high voltage electrical discharges to accomplish this (AFAIK), it seems to me that their results can adequately be explained by Hydrinos, I was not trying to explain Graneau's findings, so much as to suggest that they have produced repeatable, believable results which are unexplained, and greatly in need of more RD. They think that the excess energy in water is derived from solar - and that seems likely. Instead of supporting this work, in our beloved USA -- it is deemed wiser to grant big oil, like Exxon, massive tax-breaks to go along with their obscene profits, and to support dead-end wasteful spending on hot fusion instead. Go figure. And any rate, if hydrinos are involved in the Graneau results, which is also the most likely explantion IMHO based on what we know - then there is no great conflict with your view, except that they are natural, solar-derived, and brought in with the solar wind - which is why they turn up in rain water, which gives the best results in that experiment. We may never know the answer, if big-oil has its way and can keep putting its minions in high office. Jones BTW Exxon has been posting the highest quarterly profits in history - why do they need tax breaks ? How long before they too can move corporate offices to Dubai to escape congressional scrutiny? $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year. If they had been forced to pay half of that for alternative RD ... Oh never mind. It is too painful too imagine the extent of our lost opportunities recently - to change the world for the better.
Re: [Vo]: LED's capturing blackbody radiation - An Important Request
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Paul Lowrance's message of Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:58:36 -0800: Hi Paul, [snip] your LED46 generates a lot of noise. If your LED generates a lot of voltage noise then a great deal of physicists around the world that I'm in contact with and I would purchase the LED's. [snip] If this appeal doesn't work, then you might have more luck purchasing a few LEDs and sending them free of charge to researchers who you believe might be inclined to make the necessary measurements. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk That should work. You have the right idea. For some time I've had a few experiments that interest a small percentage of scientists *if* they can see it, touch it, tweak it, and play with it. That's a live demonstration, and really the only method that seems to work. Although a lot of physicists are skeptical since present experiments are very sensitive and difficult to replicate. What I'm now trying to accomplish are a new set of experiments extremely simple to replicate and far more convincing. This should improve the skeptic -- believer conversion rate in live demonstrations, but who knows what will happen online. I have my own theory what's happening in the online free energy community. Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Sure, but then the COP can be calculated from the energy measurements, since both input and output are measured over the same duration. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. Regards, Ed Harry Veeder wrote: Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you would have if you had looked carefully Terry. As recently as today, I admitted humbly I had been wrong in stating that ozone was not deadly. I am the humblest person you can imagine, I even go out of my way to point out my errors even if noone else has found them or is likely to find them. Actually a humble person does not need to defend their humbleness. BTW, I will be in Montreal this week with some extra time on my hands. Are you the Dr. MJ from there? If so, can you recommend how I might spend some spare time other than exploring the Raelean Compound that is up for sale? Thanks in advance, T
[Vo]: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
There is an uproar rising among the conspiracy-theory-crowd over what is being labeled as yet another 9/11 smoking gun - but this time from across the Atlantic. Last week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the earth-shaking incongruence. A BBC reporter in Manhattan - the lady-talking-head at the center of this forming vortex - as she was reading the news to Brits - with the WTC 7 building actually still standing behind her in the live feed - announced the collapse of the 47 story Building a over 22 minutes BEFORE the actual collapse! Wow. This building, WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as the reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her (it is near the end of the video, so be patient). Then her live feed to England (evening News there) is mysterious clipped as the discovery becomes apparent - as if somebody in-the-know has realized the terrible mistake and that the script she had been given was a bit, shall we say- premature. Despite the fact the Google has reportedly censored and removed the initial internet premier of this vid, removing it totally from their US website, several independent mirrors picked it up overseas. Here is one from the notorious conspiracy-monger named Alex Jones. Was this vid somehow photoshopped? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm Some may find this video simply bewildering (me) or a coincident and harmless mistake, since it is conceivable that they just got things a bit confused at the teleprompter. That kind of coincidence is hard to swallow, however, in the midst of the other inconsistencies which are reverberating louder and louder amongst a vocal minority, many of them (former) supporters of W. This is not partisan politics any more. You can be your own judge, as the only thing which is sure about this is that some Vo's will reject it out of hand, and will choose not to even watch it, since they do not want to believe the implications ... not unlike the genius Bob Park when handed peer-reviewed papers confirming cold fusion. Jones BTW - the BBC, when shown this, claim that they lost the official tapes of their 9/11 coverage, and that it is a cock-up, not conspiracy. Not sure who they intend to finger as the bumbling rooster, as it is hard to deny something is seriously amiss here, if you can offer nothing official in response. Hmm... They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? Now that is harder to believe than that the video has been photoshopped. The BBC's general policy on media management states that the following components to be retained: · Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master · One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material · All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use · A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes · Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media Hmmm... come to think of it - Blair did seem to be in bed with W from day one. Absolutely zero hesitation on buying the war imperative. Is that because he had been forewarned of many details in advance? How could that have filtered over to the BBC so soon? Surely British pols do not trust the BEEB that much, to keep a secret, do they ?? The truth will out ... given enough time.
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you would have if you had looked carefully Terry. As recently as today, I admitted humbly I had been wrong in stating that ozone was not deadly. I am the humblest person you can imagine, I even go out of my way to point out my errors even if noone else has found them or is likely to find them. Actually a humble person does not need to defend their humbleness. Only when I am asked about it, otherwise I am quite humble about it. BTW, I will be in Montreal this week with some extra time on my hands. Are you the Dr. MJ from there? If so, can you recommend how I might spend some spare time other than exploring the Raelean Compound that is up for sale? No I am not him sorry, never been to Montreal. I am a real Frenchman, not a maple syrup drinking one with a funny accent living on an unhospitable continent :) Michel Thanks in advance, T
Re: [Vo]: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
On 3/12/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The truth will out ... given enough time. Hopefully it will be recognizable. Just to pheul your phire: http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/30/1 Terry
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No I am not him sorry, never been to Montreal. I am a real Frenchman, not a maple syrup drinking one with a funny accent living on an unhospitable continent :) \/,, ` Alors, merde. -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. Crichton. Je ne peux pas orthographier . T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Jed, who is humble too, wrote: ... So that was a dumb thing for me to say. Now, Edmund, could you please refrain your own humility and kindly recommend one of your FP excess heat experimental papers? I am not familiar with FP as you know. I am looking for good experimental papers on the subject, notably one of yours if you could advise me. Below is a list of those available in Jed's excellent library at LENR.org if I am not mistaken. --- Michel Storms, E. Measurement of Excess Heat from a Pons_Fleischmann Type Electrolytic Cell. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, Frontiers of Cold Fusion. 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Storms, E., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 261. Storms, E. Anomalous Heat Generated by Electrolysis Using a Palladium Cathode and Heavy Water. in American Physical Society. 1999. Atlanta, GA. Storms, E. Excess Power Production from Platinum Cathodes Using the Pons-Fleischmann Effect. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.
[Vo]: UHE electrolysis
There must be something in the air in Texas, lending itself to ultra high efficiency electrolysis. This one is at .9 volts. http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage7024.html AirGen’s technology has the potential to replace conventional water electrolysis as the most prevalent method of hydrogen production not reliant on fossil fuels as the feedstock. The foundation of the patent-pending technology uniquely utilizes reactions catalyzed by nano-sized colloidal metal particles. In testing, both thermal and electrical energy sources have been used successfully to regenerate the metal electrodes. This regeneration feature is an important benefit of the technology and enables a closed loop system whereby the only consumables are water and energy.
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Didn't you mean Merde, alors (expressing one's surprise) rather? Merde, alors, tu n'es pas canadien? Alors, merde is generally used to express impatience: Alors, merde, ça vient? Michel Jullian, Of the proper use of the word 'merde' - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No I am not him sorry, never been to Montreal. I am a real Frenchman, not a maple syrup drinking one with a funny accent living on an unhospitable continent :) \/,, ` Alors, merde. -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alors, merde is generally used to express impatience: Alors, merde, ça vient? As stated, a quotation from a book. T
[Vo]: Re: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
Howdy Jones, The three views of happenings at 911 have been solidified. One view believes conspiracy One view believes the government report One view cannot decide. Beer drinkers at the Dime Box saloon don't care what happened. They can buy a tale of a 110 floor building pancaking down in 8-10 seconds. After enough beers some can buy TWO 110 floor buildings pancaking... but all the beer in the world ain't gonna convince 'em that THREE buildings did a Humpty Dumpty when the third building didn't even get hit with a Boeing jet. Course, drunks just like to argue and they don't matter to politicos but even a drunk, like a blind hog, can root up an acorn on occasion. For certain.. Halliburton announced today that they are moving their headquarters to Dubai from Houston.. Hmmm. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
R.C.Macaulay wrote: For certain.. Halliburton announced today that they are moving their headquarters to Dubai from Houston.. Hmmm. Richard Dubya's Dubai. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Frolov's energy machine
On Sunday 04 March 2007 00:33, thomas malloy wrote: Standing Bear wrote: Hmmm...let the buyer beware. Say Alex manages to sell the big casino, the one for over half a billion..thats billion with a 'b' sports fans.., I would think that any buyer with over half a billion simoleans to blow would be more than rich enough to have the connections to enact serious and ininvestigated 'retribution' on any who crossed him or her. Bear, I have no idea what your talking about. First of all, nobody with $1 billion would give it to Alexander. However, IMHO, if The Russian Science Fiction Author were ever to get his hands on $1 billion, he could buy plenty of protection from the Russian Mafia, the one headed by Putin. Russia has three generals who have never been defeated, distance, mud and cold. Please read the guy's post, and the referred to web sites on related posts. I don't have time now to look back, but I am sure I have them yet. Have very many old posts. Like this site and all the posters on it. Keeps life interesting. I did find a web site claiming to have these devices for sale. As for ole uncle Lubyanka Vladimir being a 'wise guy', I will leave that for those who claim special inside knowledge. I do know that 'Comrade Putin' saved thousands of apartment dwellers in Vladivostok a miserable death some years back when some local crooks were denying them heat and selling the fuel to heat their apartment blocks on the black market. As for Russia never being invaded, look up the Ghengis Khan family tree and the reign of the Golden Horde in present day Ukraina and regions east. Tamerlane did a fair job of carving up parts of Eastern Russia and Kazakhstan as well. Long before Borat got there. Cheers Standing Bear
[Vo]: Modified Double-Slit Experiment
More detail in this pdf file: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0702188 Harry http://www.physorg.com/news92937814.html Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein's Belief Work completed by physics professors at Rowan University shows that light is made of particles and waves, a finding that refutes a common belief held for about 80 years. Shahriar S. Afshar, the visiting professor who is currently at Boston's Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS), led a team, including Rowan physics professors Drs. Eduardo Flores and Ernst Knoesel and student Keith McDonald, that proved Afshar¹s original claims, which were based on a series of experiments he had conducted several years ago. An article on the work titled Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality recently published in Foundations of Physics, a prestigious, refereed academic journal, supports Albert Einstein¹s long-debated belief that quantum physics is incomplete. For eight decades the scientific community generally had supported Niels Bohr¹s ideas commonly known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1927, in his ³Principle of Complementarity,² he asserted that in any experiment light shows only one aspect at a time, either it behaves as a wave or as a particle. Einstein was deeply troubled by that principle, since he could not accept that any external measurement would prevent light to reveal its full dual nature, according to Afshar. The fundamental problem, however, seemed to be that one has to destroy the photon in order to measure either aspects of it. Then, once destroyed, there is no light left to measure the other aspect. ³About 150 years ago, light was thought to behave solely as a wave similar to sound and water waves. In 1905, Einstein observed that light might also act as being made out of small particles. Since then physicists found it difficult understanding the full nature of light since in some situations it acts like a particle and in others like a wave,² Flores said. ³This dual nature of light led to the insight that all fundamental physical objects include a wave and a particle aspect, even electrons, protons and students.² Afshar conducted his initial theoretical and experimental work at IRIMS, where he served the privately funded organization as a principal investigator. He later continued his work at the Harvard University Physics Department as a research scholar, where he was able to verify his initial findings before going to Rowan. In 2004, Afshar claimed that he had devised an experiment that challenged Bohr¹s principle of complementarity. The Rowan team was formed to verify Afshar¹s claim at extremely low light intensity levels. Afshar, Flores and Knoesel conducted experiments at Rowan that validated Afshar¹s initial findings for single photons. In this modified double-slit experiment, a laser beam hits a screen with two small pinholes. As a particle, light goes through one of the pinholes. Through a lens system, the light is then imaged onto two detectors, where a certain detector measures only the photons, which went through a particular pinhole. In this way, Afshar verified the particle nature of light. As a wave, light goes through both pinholes and forms a so-called interference pattern of bright and dark fringes. ³Afshar¹s experiment consists of the clever idea of putting small absorbing wires at the exact position of the dark interference fringes, where you expect no light,² Knoesel said. ³He then observed that the wires do not change the total light intensity, so there are really dark fringes at the position of the wires. That proves that light also behaves as a wave in the same experiment in which it behaves as a particle.² The findings of the Afshar experiment were published online on January 23 in the Foundations of Physics, an international journal devoted to the conceptual bases and fundamental theories of modern physics, biophysics and cosmology, with several distinguished Nobel laureates on its editorial board. The print version was published in the February 2007 edition and is now available in libraries throughout the world. ³The important new contribution is that light carries both wave and particle aspects at all times, and future experiments will further clarify the nature of each component.² Afshar said. Flores continued, ³It is interesting to note that even after 80 years we can still gain a better understanding about the nature of light using refined measurement techniques and creative ideas and therefore are able add to the vast insights of former scientists.² Citation: Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality, Shahriar S. Afshar, Eduardo Flores, Keith F. McDonald and Ernst Knoesel, Foundations of Physics, 23 January 2007, DOI 10.1007/s10701-006-9102-8 Source: Rowan University
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
What makes you sure that COP measurements are not vital to understanding the phenomena? Harry Edmund Storms wrote: As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. Regards, Ed Harry Veeder wrote: Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Yes...assuming they are measured over the same period of time. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Sure, but then the COP can be calculated from the energy measurements, since both input and output are measured over the same duration. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
Jed Rothwell wrote: John Berry wrote: Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you? No, I never do. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an appeal to authority fallacy should more properly called an appeal to false authority. That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. It is not just their authority they want you to accept. It is the authority of their holy scripture, i.e. the laws of physics. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: People will starve, riot, the cities will burn. and engagements will be called off. Harry
