Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 11:55 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. Rothwell: Shoulders has never submitted a paper to me. As far as I know he has never written one about cold fusion. I do not think he or anyone else believes that his clusters have any connection with metal lattice cold fusion, although I gather he does believe they produce anomalous energy. With all due respect, this example of censorship at the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site is deaf, dumb and blind or ... disingenuous. Why would ANYONE think Dr. Shoulders had never written one (a paper) about cold fusion? For example at ICCF-10, Dr. Shoulders gave a paper on Low Voltage Nuclear Transmutation. It was nice to see him there, and not nice to see his paper's title censored at the site which purported itself worldwide to represent ICCF-10. . Given the presence of Dr. Shoulders at the ICCF-10 meeting with a paper relevant to the field, the question arises: exactly why does Rothwell think Dr. Shoulders goes to the International Conferences on Cold Fusion, and gives papers there? Ken has been doing that for almost two decades. Was it for his work on digital signal processing? on transistor circuits? No and no. Conclusion: Jed Rothwell and his co-censors/sappers are now caught and hoisted in their own petard. --- Rothwell: ..., the purpose of LENR-CANR is to help bring about the widespread acceptance of cold fusion, to spur research in the field. My goal is to bring energy to starving people, and to prevent catastrophic global warming. If I could accomplish that goal by ruthlessly censoring papers, I would do so without hesitation. As it happens I have only censored 2 or 3 papers, but if I had to censor 10,000 for political reasons, I would do it. Given that penultimate admission that the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site would indeed censor 10,000 papers for political reasons, there is only one thing possible left to say, and this would be: Conclusion: quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
Re: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
Imagine that there is a plasma, and it is cooled and compressed repeatedly. Eventually, we will not be able to compress the plasma any further, because the Exclusion Principle states that two particles cannot be in the exact same place at the exact same time. When in this state, since there is no extra space for any particles, we can also say that a particle's location is extremely defined. Therefore, since (according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) uncertainty in momentum × uncertainty in space = Planck's Constant/4π, then we must say that their momentum is extremely uncertain since the molecules are located in a very confined space. Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, the molecules must be moving very fast on average. This leads to the conclusion that if you want to compress an object into a very small space, you must use tremendous force to control its particles' momentum I quoted the above from the Wiki article on degenerate matter. I've never liked the Uncertainty principle (it always seemed like a rule of thumb due to inability to measure accurately, rather than an absolute property of Time/space) so I would like Vorts to tell me (as I don't know enough in this area) why this situation may not be an exception that tests the rule. If the positions of the particles are indeed well defined then maybe this is a situation where both the position AND the momentum can be established?
RE: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw!
How are you powering the demon door? PM fields. -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 10:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Maxwell's Demon, naw! Stiffler Scientific wrote: Maxwell's Demon, How to know he is working? Ambient Ta ~ 23.5 'C (input air temp) Air pump @ 4 PSIG, adds ~ 0.5 'C to air temp., giving working air temp of Tq = 24 'C Outlet (1) T1 = 24 'C Outlet (2) T2 = 24.6 'C (Demon door installed) How are you powering the demon door? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at LENR, this gives me an opportunity to clarify the criteria used to put papers on the LENR website. For the sake of this discussion, the website has two parts: a listing of over 3000 papers having some relevance to cold fusion and a collection of papers that can be read in full text. Papers are added to the listing if they have been published in some form that gives access to the general public. Readers are encouraged to suggest papers that might have been missed without an accusation of censorship. Thirty papers by Swartz are listed in the collection and are available from the author upon request. Full text papers are accepted provided three conditions have been met. 1. The paper is available in suitable electronic or physical form. 2. Permission by the author and/or the copyright holder has been obtained. 3. The paper meets a minimum level of professional competence. These are criteria used by all publications and journals, and are not considered censorship. The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. A significant number of papers in the cold fusion field are poorly written or do not advance an understanding of the subject. Occasionally, with the author's permission, Jed has attempted to make a paper more understandable. If an author can not or will not improve a paper and/or it is deemed to be unprofessional, it will not be put on the website in full text, even though it will be listed and would be available from the author upon request. Jed's use of the political argument for this approach is only a part of the issue. Like any source of information, the LENR website tries to maintain a standard of credibility and competence that reflects well on the field. As he argues, what we all publish and how we all describe the subject influence how well the subject itself is accepted. If Swartz believes a good paper has been overlooked, he is free, as are all users of the website, to bring this omission to Jed's attention without accusation. Occasionally, a good paper can not be provided in full text because the author will not give permission. Occasionally, the copyright holder will not give permission. And, occasionally we do not think the paper is suitable. This is not censorship, but instead two people trying to do the best they can to advance the field. Ed Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Dear Edmund, There are many untruths in your above statements (vide infra). Censorship at the misnamed LENR site is longstanding, and no-one gets any satisfaction as the two of you impair the community. Science is based upon truth and full reporting, Ed. 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. What a shame. His work is incredibly important. Proof: Sankaranarayanan Savvatimova Scaramuzzi Schreiber Schwinger Shamoo Shanahan Shrikhande Shyam Spallone Srinivasan Storms Stringham Szpak 2) Rothwell has already admitted censorship. At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell wrote to vortex admitting to censoring, but then purported it was for political reasons, such as not to upset some of his critics (ROTFLOL) so he will not get hit with by a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park. Rothwell: I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so political, but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations. 3) This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster: censor - to subject to censorship; an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material. 4) Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct. == from the late beloved Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological
Re: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
On Jul 22, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: Imagine that there is a plasma, and it is cooled and compressed repeatedly. Eventually, we will not be able to compress the plasma any further, because the Exclusion Principle states that two particles cannot be in the exact same place at the exact same time. When in this state, since there is no extra space for any particles, we can also say that a particle's location is extremely defined. Therefore, since (according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) uncertainty in momentum × uncertainty in space = Planck's Constant/4π, then we must say that their momentum is extremely uncertain since the molecules are located in a very confined space. Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, the molecules must be moving very fast on average. This leads to the conclusion that if you want to compress an object into a very small space, you must use tremendous force to control its particles' momentum I quoted the above from the Wiki article on degenerate matter. I've never liked the Uncertainty principle (it always seemed like a rule of thumb due to inability to measure accurately, rather than an absolute property of Time/space) so I would like Vorts to tell me (as I don't know enough in this area) why this situation may not be an exception that tests the rule. If the positions of the particles are indeed well defined then maybe this is a situation where both the position AND the momentum can be established? The article is at best self-contradictory: Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, the molecules must be moving very fast on average. This is probably caused by the author realizing the energy to heat the confined stuff has to come from somewhere, so therefore it must not be hot. The resolution to the author's dilemma is that uncertainty is fueled by, and in fact defines the zero point field (ZPF). The ZPF can be a source of a vast amount of energy. The state discussed above is that of a white dwarf, which is held up against collapse by the zero point field, which is thus logically the source of much of its radiant energy. It is energy from nowhere and thus unacceptable in the mind of the author. That's my guess. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 08:04 AM 7/22/2007 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: Storms: Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at LENR ... Projection and ad hominem. The ONLY obsession with censorship has been, and remains, from Ed Storms, himself. Rothwell even admitted that Storms has controlled the censorship at the (misnamed) LENR both in conversations and when he leaked it to vortex, to wit: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. So the 'obsession' with censorship, according to Rothwell, began with none other than Edmund Storms, himself. [In fact, Rothwell began this discussion, earlier in this thread, by impugning our engineering papers (again) which explained the error of the Rothwell 'kilowatt' that doomed the study of cold fusion in the early '90s.] As Dr. Mallove said, Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene Storms: The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. More untruth. There is no complaint, and most in the field no longer care about the past or continuing censorship, or even their evasions about it. Perhaps Dr. Storms ought consider stopping being disingenous about it, rather than blaming others for HIS myopia and/or need to censor. One last clarification. The issue was that until after the murder of Gene Mallove (~a year after ICCF10), Storms and Rothwell censored the TITLES of papers given at ICCF-10. This was already stated, and will not be discussed again. Titles of papers were censored in a site which purported to represents the community, and which claimed to represent ICCF-10. 5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored the TITLES of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers given at ICCF-10. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. As said before, over and over, for the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of Rothwell and Storms to do this because it is their choice, even if it has been counterproductive to the interests and good will of the general cold fusion community. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
One more important detail to add: We want to push the oscillation of the barbell to resonance at the same time as increase the amplitude of asymmetrical jerk (cross vector). Both of these two isotopes H and D - have a strong magnetic moment, but a significantly different moment, and also a very significantly different NMR resonance. This is a recipe for splitting at low energy. These atoms H and D have the single electron which if locked in one orbit is like a solenoid coil whose effective magnetic field can be calculated. As felt by the D nucleus - that field is 12.5 Tesla ! This assumes a perfectly planar electron spin orbital of course, and no one knows how this would actually look in Ice-X. The 3 frequencies of interest for the neutron, proton and the nucleus as a whole, in deuterium NMR are NOT dictated by the external field per se, in this situation - but by the close proximity of the (effective) 12.5 Tesla field from the atomic electron. When this electron is itself aligned by an external field, the nucleus only feels this closer field, according to Letts and according to logic. When sitting in this magnetic field created by the orbital electron, the nucleus becomes NMR resonant at 365 Mhz, 533 Mhz, and/or 82 MHz (for the neutron, proton and the nucleus as a whole). However, if there is any springiness at all in the barbell gluon linkage, then successive pulses of RF at 365 Mhz, followed very closely by a pulse at 533 Mhz (and then the sequence repeated either sequentially or randomly) will likely test the strength of that bond. When one end of the barbell is stimulated at its resonant RF and the other fells its different resonant frequency- will the bar - i.e. the gluon spring, as it were - ever be extended further (either axially or in another vector) than the short reach of the strong force (which BTW is not much further afield, in this nucleus than the furthest extremity of its normal elongation) ? Inquiring minds want to know... Jones BTW, Dennis Letts did invent a specific LENR cell - and co-authored a paper with John Bockris on how these same NMR frequencies of Deuterium might be used to trigger the cold fusion heat effect in Deuterated Palladium. The paper was peer reviewed and published in FUSION TECHNOLOGY in 1994 : Triggering of Heat and Sub-surface changes in Pd-D Systems. (Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski). Letts demonstrated the effect in 1993 in the laboratories of ENECO in Salt Lake City, in the presence of two PhD's: John Bockris and Gale Thorne. He was able to demonstrate a clear connection between the presence of a few milliwatts of RF at these frequencies and an increases of several watts in the thermal output of Deuterated Palladium systems but... get this ... he was never, thereafter, able to re-create the effect in Texas despite much effort !! Again - one wonders about three particular variables which are generally unaccounted for in LENR experiments: 1) Location - There are a number of peculiarities about Salt Lake City and other locations- high altitude, dryness, a large body of brine (giant capacitor ?) Fred Sparber has hypothetically connected this location to the success of the Moray device - as well as to PF. 2) The Heavy water itself: the ratio of 18O/16O and/or metastability 3) The Tiller effect. Is that effect heightened in an area where other strong beliefs are prevalent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Tiller To counter these 3: Perhaps cryogenics is the one additional factor which would nullify the importance of these unaccounted variables- which can make a marginally successful experiment seem more robust than it should...
[Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Bonjour George, Regular as clockwork, here I am with my biennial posting: It makes one hesitate to engage in a long conversation ;-) Why should the solar collector field not obey the same rules as say IT or Mobile phones? You're right, cost is bound to go down. Present cost and savings of residential photovoltaics (BP solar, silicon) can be estimated for US locations using this applet: Solar Economic Estimator http://www.bp.com/solarsavings.do?categoryId=3050475 Jones, how does it fare compared to the actual quotes you got for your place? I tried a few locations in California, the results depend on the location and on the installed power, but in some cases the annual savings are around 10% of the capital cost which makes the scheme economically viable, even with good old silicon technology. Michel - Original Message - From: George Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap solar a couple years away? Greetings Vorticists! Regular as clockwork, here I am with my biennial posting: That Horace, he done hit the spot. Done remind me of that stuff that ol' RC serves up in that so-called saloon: don't taste too perty but it sure done hit the spot!...and after a few more it done don't matter whut it tastes like Why should the solar collector field not obey the same rules as say IT or Mobile phones? The prices will come down as more manufacturers realise the market potential and all the other factors that apply elsewhere. These guys aren't doing it for amusement: http://www.ferreiraconstruction.com/news/HunterdonDemocrat_10_12_2006_.html More and more will follow...quite soon; _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
[Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Ed and Jed, one can't help noticing that the reasons invoked for not uploading Mitchell's papers to the LENR libraries keep shifting. Initially the reason was a file format problem. A solution was suggested, which if it is good enough for Google Books and Amazon should be good enough for LENR. Now the reason invoked is one of contents. This brings support to Mitchell's allegations of censorship I am afraid. Why don't you just upload those papers so that people can make their own opinion? Also Mitchell, why don't you upload those papers to your own website? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment ... Full text papers are accepted provided three conditions have been met. 1. The paper is available in suitable electronic or physical form. 2. Permission by the author and/or the copyright holder has been obtained. 3. The paper meets a minimum level of professional competence. These are criteria used by all publications and journals, and are not considered censorship. The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. ...
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Michel Jones, how does it fare compared to the actual quotes you got for your place? An installed cost of $ 51,000 is about right for that output minimuim they call it - for those with an existing south facing roof - but the generous State tax credits of a few years ago are no longer in place, and the rebate - HA! this is nonexistent. Therefore you can figure the net cost for that size array at about $50,000 and the savings to be an annual $ 1,800 - at the very most, and that is with the PGE buy-back credits - which the Utility company is trying to get reduced. The Estimator has overestimated the bill savings situation for much of urban coastal CA where home air conditioning is seldom needed, and the summer bills are lower than winter - which is usually gas heat, so the panels do not help much. OTOH most homeowners would opt for a smaller output array - but the savings for that are not proportional. The panels themselves may represent 40% of the installed cost. Independent electrical contractors here make $50/hour minimum and unionized can be twice that; and building code enforcement is stricter than elsewhere, especially for electrical. Even if they gave away the panels, the installation cost is too high, especially if you want to add battery storage. The Estimator has ignored maintenance costs. They have ignored the higher insurance rates to protect this investment against such things as occasional hail or high winds, etc. All-in-all this is a poor (financial) investment for the CA urban home-owner who does not install the panels and wiring himself, and who does not need the vanity or green-consciousness boost (since maybe they already got that from a Prius ;-). I do not think this will change much. But falling prices for solar panels may indeed make good financial sense for companies or businesses with large flat roofs, where depreciation and maintenance make those costs deductible, and where air conditioning must be used, especially if electricians are on the payroll. That is where the solar panel industry should focus their efforts. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: Ed and Jed, one can't help noticing that the reasons invoked for not uploading Mitchell's papers to the LENR libraries keep shifting. That is incorrect; you misunderstand the situation. Initially the reason was a file format problem. A solution was suggested, which if it is good enough for Google Books and Amazon should be good enough for LENR. It is not good enough, for the reasons I listed. The format problem with Swartz's papers can easily be fixed. I will not upload sloppy, unprofessional, blurry documents with spelling errors in them. That makes the field look bad. Now the reason invoked is one of contents. Incorrect. The content of the Swartz papers is fine. Storms mentioned that one or two other papers have been rejected on account of the contents. That's one or two out of 600. This brings support to Mitchell's allegations of censorship I am afraid. Why don't you just upload those papers so that people can make their own opinion? We have only rejected 2 or 3 papers. On the other hand, there are several thousand that I would not bother to OCR and upload. The OCR process takes me anywhere from 1 to 5 days. I only do that for papers that I think are worthwhile. I have copies of ~2000 papers sitting in my office, unconverted. If the authors of these other papers will submit them to me in machine-readable format, I would be happy to upload them. In some cases I would like to upload a paper, and I contacted the authors, but they did not respond with permission, so I cannot upload. Also Mitchell, why don't you upload those papers to your own website? He will never answer that! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Edmund Storms wrote: Occasionally, with the author's permission, Jed has attempted to make a paper more understandable. Actually, I have done that fairly often for authors who speak English as a second language -- with their permission and cooperation, of course! I have worked with authors from Italy, Russia, China, Iran and especially Japan. I have translated papers from Japanese into English. I have been editing and writing technical documents for 30 years, so this is second nature to me. If an author can not or will not improve a paper and/or it is deemed to be unprofessional, it will not be put on the website in full text, even though it will be listed and would be available from the author upon request. As I said, this has only happened 2 or 3 times, but on the other hand, there are thousands of papers I would not bother to OCR, and if the authors did submit them I would ask them to fix spelling mistakes and problems with English as a second language. I cannot think of a single author who objected when I suggested we correct spelling errors. (In case you are wondering how people make spelling errors with word processors, I think the problem is usually caused by a word processor set up for another language. For example, my version of Microsoft World will not find or fix errors in Italian or Japanese, and Mizuno's version of Word -- which I have used on his computer -- does not find English spelling errors. So you should try to use the right word processor.) Jed's use of the political argument for this approach is only a part of the issue. A very small part, really. The main political argument is that sloppy papers and spelling mistakes make the field look bad. So why not correct them? Sloppy papers are another way people in this field wear a KICK ME sign. Years ago, McNally said to me during an ICCF lecture, the ICCF organizers should enforce professional presentation standards, and not allow hand-written graphs and sloppy papers. He said that other physics conferences enforce professional standards, and ICCF conferences look amateur in comparison. He had a good point. I told him I agree but we have to cut some slack for some of the older authors who still draw graphs by hand, such as Oriani and Fleischmann. Like any source of information, the LENR website tries to maintain a standard of credibility and competence that reflects well on the field. As he argues, what we all publish and how we all describe the subject influence how well the subject itself is accepted. This is more important than you might think. It is a little unfair that some people reject a paper by Oriani because he uses a pencil and paper to graph data, but they do. They are even more likely to dismiss a paper with spelling and grammar errors. People judge by appearances. Now that I have groused about sloppy papers, let me mention that some authors, from some institutions, write superb papers. Not only is the content good, but the presentation, grammar and spelling are impeccable. The scientific symbols and terminology conform to NIST standards to the letter. For example, they spell out the names of elements except in formulas: in a sentence they write palladium instead of Pd. These authors generally come from National Laboratories in the U.S., Italy, India and elsewhere, U.S. military labs, especially the Navy, top rated universities, and places like SRI. Some of these authors have secretaries who fix their papers. (I have often worked with the secretaries.) Others write papers themselves. These people include, among others, Storms, Miles, McKubre, Szpak, Boss, Srinivasan, Beaudette, Oriani and De Ninno. It is a pleasure to work with their papers. As you see, these are among the most important researchers in the field. There is often a correlation between neatly-written papers and good science. Not always, but often. One surprising advantage to neat, properly written papers is that they come out of the OCR almost error-free. Even the computer finds it is easy to parse them. NIST standards for constants, units and uncertainty are here, and I wish more authors would read them: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/index.html - Jed
[Vo]:LENR-CANR does NOT represent ICCF10!!!
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Titles of papers were censored in a site which purported to represents the community, and which claimed to represent ICCF-10. We emphatically DO NOT represent ICCF-10!!! The web page says: This section includes the informal, on-line edition of the conference proceedings. Every paper has the following disclaimer at the top: This paper was presented at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion. It may be different from the version published by World Scientific, Inc (2003) in the official Proceedings of the conference. Peter Hagelstein, who was in charge of ICCF-10, wrote the disclaimer. He asked me to make it very clear that we do not represent the conference. That was fine with me. I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression about this. Swartz, on the other hand, has been vigorously campaigning to give people the wrong impression. Also, we never censored any titles. I overlooked a few at ICCF10, and lots more at ICCF12, and I did not include titles of papers of papers that were never published as far as I know. After Swartz complained I made an exception for his papers. I do not know if they ever were published, but it doesn't hurt to list them. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. There are lots of missing titles from LENR-CANR. I have dozens marked on paper which I intend to type into the database someday . . . That isn't censorship, it is lack of time and energy. If Swartz wants to type in a few hundred EndNote records and send them to me, he is welcome to do so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
On Jul 22, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Bonjour George, Regular as clockwork, here I am with my biennial posting: It makes one hesitate to engage in a long conversation ;-) Why should the solar collector field not obey the same rules as say IT or Mobile phones? You're right, cost is bound to go down. Present cost and savings of residential photovoltaics (BP solar, silicon) can be estimated for US locations using this applet: Solar Economic Estimator http://www.bp.com/solarsavings.do?categoryId=3050475 Jones, how does it fare compared to the actual quotes you got for your place? I tried a few locations in California, the results depend on the location and on the installed power, but in some cases the annual savings are around 10% of the capital cost which makes the scheme economically viable, even with good old silicon technology. The greatest benefits per dollar come from solar heat collectors, not solar photovoltaics. Solar hot water systems can be built for less than $0.50 a watt. Combined solar with computer control will provide extraordinay benefits when is integrated in construction. A solar roof, for example, one that is glazed or seamless, and replaces the cost of metal or shingles, has the offsetting benefit of initial cost and maintenance of the ordinary roof. The same goes for siding, especially in northern latitudes. Combined with insulation planning and other architectural considerations solar architecture can provide nearly grid free living - except for automotive. Retrofits won't be as economic but we are going to see plenty of retrofitting anyway because the price of energy is on its way up. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Become an Environmental Activist today !! Tree-hugger or not - if you really want to help out Gaia - the environment, and all that - forget solar panels for the home - here is a much brighter solution that saves tons of money and reduces tons of CO2. You can accomplish more with a single $20 bill then several orders of magnitude more $$ - spent on hyperbole. However, you local IBEW, local 42, might not appreciate the snub. A store in my area has a special on compact fluorescent light bulbs - an 8-pack of bulbs for $1.99. These are 23 watt draw with a light output equivalent to 100 watt incandescent (1600 lumens). I had already done this once, years ago when this kind of lightbulb was $4.99 *each*. Now the prices has dropped by a factor of TWENTY !! As an act of almost random kindness, I intend to replace the 30-40 light fixtures in a friend's house today. Wow, this is going to set me back about a tenspot, yet - save the homeowner, according to the Company (U Light America) $92 per bulb over the 10,000 hour expected lifetime or about $4000 total. If everyone in America did this ??? Jones BTW - I notice on the box, in the smallest of small print which these old eyes can read -- that the U Light America bulbs are ... yup ... Made in China. Wonder if there is some hidden toxic surprise...
Re: [Vo]:Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
On 7/22/07, Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I quoted the above from the Wiki article on degenerate matter. Hopefully, it's not as dangerous as protomatter: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Protomatter Terry
Re: [Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Reading everything that has been said, and a lot of things that haven't between the lines, I have come to personal conclusion (a conclusion which nevertheless could be inaccurate) that Dr. Swartz doesn't get along with either Mr. Rothwell and/or Dr. Storms. Or perhaps it's the other way around. What seems abundantly clear to me is that neither side is particularly fond of the other. I gather there is history between the principal parties, one that goes back a-ways. I gather this is just another flare-up, almost as if I was watching our sun flare-up in the midst of another eleven-year cycle. I don't get along with certain individuals at work as well due to my own peculiar set of peccadilloes. Why should Dr. Swartz, Mr. Rothwell, and Dr. Storms operate any differently. It does make us all interesting...human. Let me spell out the implications more clearly: If an individual for whatever reason feels they cannot trust the integrity of another individual who appears to be in the position of editing [tampering with] their personal material (their CHILD, so-to-speak!)...well, it is highly unlikely that there's going to be a lot of cooperation in this arrangement. It is highly unlikely that an agreement could ever be reached due to mistrust, the constant misinterpretation of the intentions and motivations of the other individual. There will be little desire to cooperate and/or compromise on any issue or principal. Seems to me that Dr. Swartz has made it abundantly clear that he distrusts the intentions, the underlying motivations of Dr. Storms and Mr. Rothwell. The feelings appear to be mutual on the other end as well. And there you have it. Perhaps it's time to move on. I gather few have been able to access the contents of Dr. Swartz's papers, specifically the ones in dispute, because as I understand it they aren't on-line ANYWHERE. Is this correct assumption, or have I erred? Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy. Is there a problem with this approach? Is there insufficient web space available at Dr. Swartz web site? In the greater scheme of things does it really matter WHERE the papers can be downloaded, just as long as they are accessible. My two cents Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
I sure hope incandescent bulbs will still be available. They have special uses such as heaters, ballast resistors, often making use of their non linear resistance characteristics, infrared sources, low EMI lighting, and a few other things I've used them for that I can't remember now. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away? On 7/22/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, you local IBEW, local 42, might not appreciate the snub. Connecticut's local is quite passive. IBEW local 3 however will toss you off a 40 storey building for using a screwdriver (electrician's tool). *You* probably should worry about IBEW local 6. They're doin' it downunder: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update66.htm and the EU is next. Ban the bulb! Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
- Original Message - From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question Harry Veeder wrote: Interesting thread. The reason I started it was because I'd like to know, suppose the earth started spinning faster, say 10 times it's present rotational speed, how much weight would I loose? your weight lost in newtons would be: mr(w^2)where m is your mass in kg, w is revolutions/second, and r is the radius of earth in meters. To convert newtons to pounds multiply by .225 Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Good for Oz. WE should do this arm-twisting in the USA! (bulb-twisting?) From the article: In the United States, an ingenious website called 18seconds.org (the name derives from the time it takes to change a light bulb)... [presumably this is by non-EEs who may, for professional courtesy, need to call in the brotherhood ;-} ...provides a running tally of compact fluorescents sold nationwide since January 1, 2007. As of early May, it totaled nearly 37 million bulbs, yielding a reduction in carbon emissions comparable to taking 260,000 cars off the road !!! That is damn near amazing - now, if they only knew that these bulbs are available: 8 for $1.99 ... the site also provides data on how many dollars are being saved and how much less coal is burned. Data are available on the website for each state, providing a convenient way of monitoring local progress in replacing incandescents. Terry Blanton wrote: They're doin' it downunder: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update66.htm and the EU is next. Ban the bulb! Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Jones Beene wrote: BTW - I notice on the box, in the smallest of small print which these old eyes can read -- that the U Light America bulbs are ... yup ... Made in China. Wonder if there is some hidden toxic surprise... It may be in the temperature of the light. If the bulbs are bluish then they are a major source of irritation for some people. It is worth the extra money to get the lower temperature light - which may mean more expensive phosphors. Also, some cheap Chinese bulbs don't do very well in lumens/watt. It pays to do the arithmetic. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: centripetal force question
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question ... Interesting thread. The reason I started it was because I'd like to know, suppose the earth started spinning faster, say 10 times it's present rotational speed, how much weight would I loose? your weight lost in newtons would be: mr(w^2) where m is your mass in kg, w is revolutions/second, radians/second actually (2*pi*rotations/second) and r is the radius of earth in meters. To convert newtons to pounds multiply by .225
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
Jones Beene wrote: But falling prices for solar panels may indeed make good financial sense for companies or businesses with large flat roofs, where depreciation and maintenance make those costs deductible . . . That is the key point in all of this. Even though solar is too expensive for general use, there are markets and geographic locations in which solar panels are cost effective. The same is true of solar-thermal and wind turbines. Instead of launching one million roof initiatives, the politicians and solar panel manufacturers should get together to target markets in which this technology makes sense. They can build from there to larger markets. As I mentioned here before, solar panels in Japan are selling like hotcakes. There was a large subsidy for a few years but it has been phased out, yet sales are higher than ever. Anyone can see why solar panels in south-western Japan are better than, say, New York state, but I do not know why the technology is more cost-effective in Japan than in southern California or Florida. Maybe the installation costs are lower? The panels look small to me, and I do not think they have batteries. Excess power goes to the grid, which is cheaper than a battery system. I do not suppose solar panels would be effective up north in Hokkaido, but I saw them everywhere in Hiroshima when I was there a few years ago. I saw quite a few small ones, about a meter square, which must be for some special, dedicated application. No idea what. Electric power costs are very high in Japan compared to the U.S. Solar water heaters are ubiquitous in Japan, and perfectly suited to the custom of drawing one large deep bath per day for the whole family. (People wash outside the tub; it is like a U.S. hot tub.) The water from these things is INCREDIBLY hot and plentiful. It is simple, stand-alone system. All the water goes directly into the bathtub only, not the rest of the house. Other hot water heaters in kitchens and bathrooms are the on-demand type used in Europe. At 7:00 a.m. in June the water from a solar heater is already hot enough to take a shower with. By afternoon it is hot enough to seriously scald you. U.S. solar water heaters are much more complicated expensive, because the water goes into a tank and is heated up more with gas, and distributed throughout all taps in the house. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap solar a couple years away?
On Jul 22, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Ban the bulb! Terry Hopefully you mean ban the incandescent! I wonder how GE and Wal-Mart are getting along these days. GE was trying to buy time to fight off erosion of its incandescent light bulb business to compacts, and to develop an alternative: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/02/24/ge-developing- incandescent-light-bulb-that-matches-cfls-efficiency/ I have a feeling they didn't like the initial Wal-Mart compact incentive program that was to sell them at cost I think. I have this feeling there won't be a major policy push for compacts in the US until after the presidential elections. I wonder where I get these telepathic feelings from? Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
I concur with Judge Steven V. Johnson's conclusions. Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource, and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide them in the format you like most if he is not forced to. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) OrionWorks wrote: If an individual for whatever reason feels they cannot trust the integrity of another individual who appears to be in the position of editing [tampering with] their personal material (their CHILD, so-to-speak!)... That is what Swartz claims, but is it 100% pure, unadulterated garbage. I have told him a million times that if he supplies the paper in text Acrobat format, I will upload it as is, without changing a single comma. Heck, even if it has a few spelling errors I won't ask for a revision. I have told that to every author and I have repeated it here many times. I would never change the contents of his paper and upload a version that he does not approve! That's absurd. I gather few have been able to access the contents of Dr. Swartz's papers, specifically the ones in dispute . . . There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. . . . because as I understand it they aren't on-line ANYWHERE. Is this correct assumption, or have I erred? You got it. Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy. That, he will never do. Is there a problem with this approach? Is there insufficient web space available at Dr. Swartz web site? That can't be the reason. Nowadays web space is cheap as dirt. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Hyd-gen tubes
On Jul 21, 2007, at 7:28 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Interesting arrangement and diameter of tubes he has used . He must have spent some time in trial and error in sizing the diameter of the tubes to achieve the effect by using a rotary pulse voltage frequency generator.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO15VGtKZo0NR=1 Richard I'd wondered this myself. Puharich alludes to that there is a trial- and-error sizing process. http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm It is my expectation that the size and frequency would have to be very well-matched to get an effect. But the heuristic method of discovery here suggests that the tube size is less important than the frequency - the latter of which is also more easily variable. I leads me to think in the direction that some manner of resonance is occurring, and that resonance has in it the effect of splitting the water. Zak
Re: [Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Now the reason invoked is one of contents. This brings support to Mitchell's allegations of censorship I am afraid. Why don't you just upload those papers so that people can make their own opinion? Actually, as I pointed out before, there is serious censorship here, but it goes the other way. Swartz has censored me! I once had a couple of Swartz's paper in the original electronic format. I can upload such papers in ten minutes. I asked Swartz permission to upload them but he denied permission. Naturally, I did not upload them, but I did upload the abstract from one paper here at Vortex. Big mistake. Swartz went bonkers and threatened to sue me! I erased the papers from my disk. You can review the Vortex archives to confirm this. I just did check and can find no such threat from Mitchell Swartz, only a reference to it from yourself. Was this a private threat, or maybe it was on spf? Was this around Sept. 20, 2005? What I did find regarding potential lawsuits was the following: Copy of post follows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On Sep 21, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Mitchell Swartz wrote: We are tired of Mr. Coviello's libel and selective memory. Here is our response to his libel. BACKGROUND: Mr. John Coviello is enraged that we excerpted his publicly posted review of the MIT Colloquium, which was posted on s.p.f., a public forum AND edited with corrections in part by ourselves at least twice per his requests (not attributed by him, but proven below by email excerpts). THE FACTS: 1. The Cold Fusion Times DID give Mr. Coviello full attribution by name above the edited excerpt, as he admits. Nonetheless, he continues public libel against the COLD FUSION TIMES with purported claims of plagiarism (which he misspells as plagarism (sic)). 2) We actually helped Mr. Coviello in his paper and he acknowledged it by email - twice (A, and B), and once on vortex in a public posting (C) A) Here Mr. Coviello acknowledges our first correction of his draft report which he publicly posted to spf and vortex. first email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - From: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Symposium Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:17:06 -0400 Mr. Swartz, Sorry, you're right, it was Prof. Peter Hagelstein. I had written the note about the iesiusa.com company in the column next to my notes on your conference comments. I do want to get it right who said what. I have heard of iesiusa.com before. Not sure what to think of them?!? Being from Las Vegas, NV kind makes me take pause. That is a town that is rife with swindlers and con artists. I've also heard of plenty of predictions of imminent commercial developments in cold fusion and other exotic energy fields, and knowing the tract record, I'll take a wait and see approach on this one. I kind of miss being young and naive about these things. But, age makes you wiser and more cautious. John C. end of email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - B) Here Mr. Coviello makes a second acknowledgement of our corrections to his draft report which he publicly posted to spf and vortex. Mr. Coviello requested this additional help by asking several questions by email. second email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - From: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Question for MIT CF Article, Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:39:22 -0400 Mr. Schwartz, Thanks for the quick response to my questions. They will be helpful in writing the article for NET (which will come out with the July 10th newsletter). I'm sorry, I did not mean to step on anyone's toes with my statement below. I certainly didn't think you were trying to prevent a discussion about cold fusion. I did get to ask two questions during the colloquium, as did others. But, the program did say that a panel discussion session called Future Developments in Cold Fusion would be held, and it was not. It seemed as if the non-cold fusion presenters took up the time that could have been used for such an important panel discussion. The diversion to non- cold fusion topics did, in essence, prevent such a discussion from occurring during the colloquium. I did enjoy the colloquium very much and appreciate your efforts in organizing it. I look forward to attending the 2nd colloquium later this year and having an opportunity to ask more questions. I am also very
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Judge Johnson sez: Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy. To which Jed replies: That, he will never do. ... In another recent post Michel Jullian suggests: , and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide them in the format you like most if he is not forced to. To which Jed replies: The ball is already in his court. He can upload his papers to his own web site anytime he wants, in any format he likes. No one is forcing him to provide anything to me, in any format. ... As the librarian for lenr-canr.org I can appreciate your desire that the website's content maintains a professional appearance and credibility, that all papers are presented in a clear precise and readable format. I can understand Dr. Storms as well as your desire that all papers conform whenever possible to NIST standards – whatever this official NIST term really stands for cuz I really don't know! I also have no desire to dispute your claim that Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know from personal experience that no one has EVER bought a smudgy fuzzy piece of artwork from me. It is also true that not all brilliant researchers and scientists possess the capacity to format, to present their findings in the most logical visual manner, in a so-called professional manner. It's really not anyone's fault as we all possess unique assets as well as deficits when we came into this world. That is what professional EDITORS are for, including scientific editors. Professional editors often perform a thankless job as the requirements force them to EDIT [...to occasionally tamper with the most intimate details of another person's precious hard work]. This inevitably leads to potential disagreements as to intent and content of particular phrases and terminology used. If a writer, for whatever reason, does not trust the ability of the editor to edit his work faithfully, to accurately maintain the original content of what he/she is trying to say, explain or reveal, the WRITER/EDITOR relationship should be terminated ASAP to save everyone untold reams of grief. The interesting part as I see it in this recent dialogue is a reoccurring statement that Mr. Rothwell would upload Dr. Schwartz's papers as is, without changing a single comma, –IF- the ...paper [could be supplied to him] in text Acrobat format. Since Dr. Schwartz has to the best of my knowledge not yet clarified his reasons as to why the papers have not been supplied to Mr. Rothwell in a text Acrobat format, I am forced to speculate. Speculating on the motivations of another individual in the third person and with no feed-back is ALWAYS a dubious and dangerous position to get mired in. With that said, I will stick my vulnerable neck out and speculate that Dr. Schwartz simply might not be able to (for undisclosed reasons) fulfill Mr. Rothwell's seemingly simple request. I will not speculate as to what those reasons might be since this is, after all, sheer speculation on my part. The only suggestion I could offer Mr. Rothwell and Dr. Storms, which I want to make it clear neither has asked of me nor from anyone for that matter, might be to place a great big disclaimer next to the links to the disputed papers. Make it clear to anyone who might be considering retrieving the entirety of Dr. Schwarz's disputed papers that what they are about to retrieve might suffer from a collection of formatting issues, that it may be difficult to read portions of the text as well as make sense out of certain charts. Make it clear that lenr-canr.org cannot be held responsible for the readability, the content of the information. It seems to me that Lenr-canr.org would have at that point faithfully fulfilled its obligations and responsibilities to its readership in giving them fair warning. Nevertheless, due to what I assume must be strong interest in Dr. Schwartz's research the web site will cautiously go ahead and make the entire body of work available anyway, as-is – assuming Dr. Schwartz authorizes you to upload the original papers. The short answer: From what I can tell Dr. Schwartz does not appear to want ANYONE messing with his work in any form, shape or manner. He appears to want the entire body of his work presented in exactly the manner that he sent it in, such as to lenr-canr.org. It is up to lenr-canr.org to decide if they can accept those ground rules. In my own experience there appear to be few organizations, and far too few EDITORS who could tolerate such rigid ground rules, where there is no room for give-and-take. In fact, it might be impossible to fulfill, literally. Under the circumstances, and as I perceive it, most editors would simply suggest that the author upload the entirety of their research at their own web site as-is...and good luck. Complaining
Re: [Vo]:Re: Degenerate electrons, electron fugacity, and cold fusion
I wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yes, the total super-positioned E field nets to about zero, but the way that happens is by a change in charge distribution. That change in charge distribution has effects. The electron fugacity in the cathode builds. Looking at Fig. 3 in http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Szpak.pdf The E field is neutralized by the distribution of charges in the electrolyte changing, and by an increase in the electron charge density in the cathode. In the plastic the charge distribution changes by displacement of the nuclei from the atomic centers of charge. The increase in negative ion charges in the electrolyte near the plastic is offset by an increase in positive ion charges near the cathode (ion charge balances to zero in the electrolyte). We have a voltage divider. Initially most of the voltage drop is through the plastic. Beyond the plastic most of the voltage drop is through the 2 molecule thick interface. However, as electrolysis proceeds and loading reaches its peak, the conductivity of the top layer of the electrolyte diminishes. Much of the voltage drop starts to occur right in the cathode surface. At this time the fugacity of the electrons builds right there - in the cathode surface, but not very deep, provided the material is tough enough to sustain the voltage drop without diffusion losses. This place of high electron fugacity, high deuteron fugacity, low deuteron mobility, low conductivity, is the active zone for fusion. It takes a while to build in some electrode materials and is never achieved at all in many. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It seemed to make sense to me at the time I wrote it, but now I have serious doubts. It seems to me that a constant current power supply (used in many CF experiments) would drive up the voltage and thus electron fugacity as the electrode gained electrode resistance and the external E field would not have so much effect. Perhaps using a power supply floating on a high resistance would provide a higher negative potential for the electrode and cell as a whole, and a higher electron fugacity in the cathode. Electrolysis potential (+)--PowerSupply---(-) I I---resistor-- Ground -I--I- |I I| (++) |I I|Key: c |# I| c |# I| I - Electrolysis power wire c |# I| # - Platinum screen anode c |# I| g - Gold foil c |# I| s - Piezo substrate c | I| p - Deposited Pd c | ggg I| -| - Clear plastic cell wall c |pgsg| c - Copper foil HV electrode c |pgs | c |pgs | c |pgs | c |pgs | c |pgsg| c | ggg| c || c |# | c |# | c |# | c |# | c |# | c || c -- c c c c Foil 1 Fig. 4 - Diagram of Floating Power Szpak's cell Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
