Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur Not at all, but I did not explain what I meant as clearly as Stephen A. Lawrence did: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. Prager has attempted to remedy this, by providing them with a forum. As for media complicity, Horner mentioned My Weekly Reader (Scholastic Publications) and National Geographic. Which have continued to publish this fiction and feed the hysteria. Horner mentioned several instances of their doctoring the data and graphs in order to support their agenda. As for corporate complicity, Horner recounted his experiences with Enron which was counting on something like this. As for global cooling. The earth, and the rest of the planets were warming up, then we went into a period of solar quiescence, and (according to him) the planet started cooling. We just had a really cold long winter, OTHO, it seems that other areas are hotter than usual. Perhaps I'll hear the interview again and I'll take notes, or one of you can read his book. Albert Gore (of all people!) is masterminding them. Algore is a major player in this, but a mastermind he isn't. As for keeping secrets, we (conspiracy theorists) have known about the Oligarchy and the mechanisms which have allowed them to accomplish their evil ends. Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow was written 20 years ago, nothing significant has been added since then. It (our knowledge) hasn't made any difference. I don't don't have a high opinion of Algore. Leftists are smart enough, but they have an insanity which makes them unable to see the error of their ways. Specifically, they seem unable to overcome the effects of this insanity, even in the face of the fact that their ideas have never worked, and that they destroy the population's humanity. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
The author of this book is almost certainly a professional liar or deluded or - giving him the most benefit-of-the-doubt possible - he is seriously misled and is not capable of making a valid rational assessment of data and evidence in the face of the glaringly obvious. He uses cherry picked phases taken out of context, misleading logical fallacies and well established black propaganda techniques. Although people like this are definitely consciously using exactly the same tactics that the tobacco industry once used (to try and avoid liability for the fact that they were knowingly killing their customers) they misrepresent (they lie about) their position as being one of scepticism. It is not. They are impervious to information that conflicts with their position (most of it!) and they deliberately select and twist and misrepresent that small portion that is ambiguous. This is nothing like climate change scepticism, this is out and out denial and lying. Author Chris Horner: http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_Horner Horner's basic modus operandi is functionally identical to Rush Limbaugh's pernicious drivel. Here is a sample Limbaugh quote Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming. This is a an example of a Big Lie (actually a colossally gigantic lie) taken straight from the 101 handbook of deception and propaganda as used by Goebbels. The Heartland institute deniers conference has just taken place where these Big Lies were ten a penny and objective truth and analysis were conspicuous by their absence. This took place (probably not coincidentally) more or less simultaneously with the Copenhagen conference of genuine climate scientists which sketches out an uncomfortable future. http://www.climateark.org/CopenhagenClimateConference/ Heartland Institute funded their deniers conference. Heartland has a long history of being well-funded by the tobacco industry and fossil fuel companies. Not that Heartland discloses which corporations and foundations fund its operations; it, like many think tanks, prefers secrecy. Heartland president James L. Bast recently claimed that by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue. Probably enough said! Here's a pdf file about general denier tactics http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/global%20warming%20denial%20industry%20PR%20techniques%20report%20March%202009.pdf An excerpt: There is a long and well-documented history of the development of very effective public relations techniques that are used to create doubt about the realities of scientific conclusions that threaten to impose government regulation on corporations. Most of these techniques were developed and honed by public relations professionals working on behalf of the tobacco companies to downplay the harmful health effects of cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's. For the last ten years or so, these same PR techniques have been used very effectively by free-market think tanks and fossil-fuel funded organizations to sow public doubt about the realities of climate change in the hopes of delaying government action on the issue. Thomas Malloy is fond of implying that liberals and environmentalists and anyone he perceives as being left of him are actually suffering from mental illness. He has been note to quote some bonkers source that claims this exact point. Thomas said today: Leftists are smart enough, but they have an insanity which makes them unable to see the error of their ways. Specifically, they seem unable to overcome the effects of this insanity Does this remind anyone of the situation of the loony in the asylum telling anyone who will listen that they're the only one who is sane and everyone outside in the world is mad? Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
From Mark Iverson: This sounds too good to be true... a wind generator that doesn't need any wind! http://pesn.com/2009/03/11/9501531_Boswell_windless_turbine/ -Mark Exerpt: Strange Phone Calls Jim said he has tried to contact media, motor and government officials from local to national, but that so far the response has been essentially null -- at least directly. Indirectly, he said he's started getting threatening phone calls saying things like stop building your equipment, letting him know they know how many kids he has, etc. One night, someone was trying to break into his garage, and he scared them off with his '45. Since then, for security purposes, he's dismantled the fuelless motor technology; but the patented wind turbine is still powering his home. Though he's wanted to have these things be a Made in U.S.A. product, he's met mostly deaf ears in the United States; but has garnered a lot of interest in China, Japan, and South Korea. I agree with Mark. Sounds too good to be true. After reading this article the device and the convenient and also intriguing story that is told, it reads like a classic scam operation, at least to my sensibilities. Every dangnabit time I read about these claims there's ALWAYS a conspiracy of some ilk involved! I just bet if anyone attempts to gather the slightest bit of proof, like a monthly energy bill from Mr. Boswell's home they will come away empty handed. I hope I'm wrong. Id love to be wrong! But I'm not going to hold my breath. Like the old lady in the burger commercial: Where's the proof! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. Okay, but my point is that it does not matter where the CO2 comes from; CO2 is CO2. It has the same effect on the atmosphere regardless of origin; it mixes evenly throughout the atmosphere; and you can measure the total amount. The interactions of the various chemicals in the atmosphere are themselves simpler and smaller in number than the interactions within living systems (such as protein folding). My other point is that the physics of the atmosphere must be well understood because weather prediction is remarkably good these days. The point is well taken that bacteria or some other species may suddenly release an unpredictably large amount of CO2 or some other chemical that affects the atmosphere. That is unpredictable, and dangerous. However, once that chemical enters the atmosphere the effects it will probably have are not as complex or unpredictable as the circumstances that caused the bacteria to release it in the first place. An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. Yes, this is common knowledge. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. On the contrary, these people probably get proportionally more mainstream press coverage than conventional planetary scientists do. Just about every article on the subject mentions them. (I mean that they are probably less than ~1% of the total, so only 1 in 100 articles should mention them, to make things proportional. That's a rather silly analysis, I will grant.) Compare this to the fraction of cold fusion scientists represented in the mainstream press: 0%, even though they far outnumber the cold fusion skeptics. This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks This sounds too good to be true... a wind generator that doesn't need any wind! [JB:] I am told by an associate in the Fresno area that you magic windmill guy is well-known there as a political hack and nut case with no credibility. In general, you simply cannot trust this kind of story on PESN - ... and must realize that Sterling Allan is too often an unquestioning advocate of every claim - and does not even try to vet most of his articles for the simple reason that he, like almost everyone in alternative energy is understaffed and underfunded - and mainly because there are always going to be many more skeptics for what he publishes, than believers - and yet he wants to give anyone at least initially - the benefit of the doubt. When he gets personally involved, and after a long struggle - as with Perendev - even he will realize that he has been duped - and only then will offer some negativity - but often that takes many months. This is not intended as criticism of his efforts - it is what it is. Caveat emptor. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Greetings, all, Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. Usually, though, these perplexing and often frustrating human-based situations are the result of inadvertent patterns of interaction and cognitive limitations. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. As I see it, influence is solely dependent on having access to the person or group that one wants to influence. If one has access, then only the interpersonal and communication skills of the 'good guy' will determine the outcome. Does this make sense? -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:45 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies thomas malloy wrote: The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that The point of my posting these reports is that there is a dissident group of planetary scientists who question AGW. Yes, this is common knowledge. You won't hear their voices in the main stream media because it is controlled by the Oligarchy. On the contrary, these people probably get proportionally more mainstream press coverage than conventional planetary scientists do. Just about every article on the subject mentions them. (I mean that they are probably less than ~1% of the total, so only 1 in 100 articles should mention them, to make things proportional. That's a rather silly analysis, I will grant.) Compare this to the fraction of cold fusion scientists represented in the mainstream press: 0%, even though they far outnumber the cold fusion skeptics. This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
From Jones: ... ... Sterling Allan is too often an unquestioning advocate of every claim - and does not even try to vet most of his articles for the simple reason that he, like almost everyone in alternative energy is understaffed and underfunded - and mainly because there are always going to be many more skeptics for what he publishes, than believers - and yet he wants to give anyone at least initially - the benefit of the doubt. When he gets personally involved, and after a long struggle - as with Perendev - even he will realize that he has been duped - and only then will offer some negativity - but often that takes many months. This is not intended as criticism of his efforts - it is what it is. Caveat emptor. Jones I hope Mr. Allan never ever looses his quest to dream the impossible dream, to look under every rock. Of course he is going to come up empty handed - every time... That's what the cynical and the jaded (like me) learned from the school of hard knocks. And still, all it takes is jut one discovery to turn my paradigms upside down. I wouldn't mind that at all. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks [ I hope Mr. Allan never ever looses his quest to dream the impossible dream, to look under every rock ... [JB:] There are dedicated sites for wind energy. The first place any legitimate windpower inventor would go, would be there. The claim of 100 windmills in operation is a giveaway - a red flag the size of China that this guy is a fraud BTW in looking on a legitimate wind site to see if there was any report of this Boswell-BS (there was not) the following tidbit did offer a little surprise: A little less than three months into the year, the dust is still settling on the largest batch of new wind power construction the U.S. has ever seen. In 2008, the U.S. wind industry activated over 8,300 MW of new capacity, swelling the U.S. cumulative total by 50% to over 25,000 MW and pushing the U.S. above Germany as the country with the largest amount of wind energy capacity installed. Pretty encouraging for real wind-power, no? Of course the tax credits made most of this happen - but they are nothing in comparison to the oil depletion allowance- the biggest wealth giveaway in US history Jones
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. The situations with cold fusion and global warming denial do not seem complicated or unseen to me. I don't know much about global warming politics, but I know who is denying cold fusion, and what motivates them. It is not because they work for big oil or anything like that. One of the infuriating things about this situation is that the main reasons people attack cold fusion are trivial, and personal. Opposition is mostly driving by people and institutions who went out on a limb denying it back 1989. Most are too lazy or stupid to take a second look. Lemonick, the guy at Time, is so dumb he could not understand a simple cold fusion paper. (He really is astoundingly stupid, as you see from the letters I posted in the News section. You wonder how he ended up as science editor at a major U.S. magazine!) A few, such as Robert Park, are so ego driven they don't want to take another look because they fear being ridiculed if they admit they were wrong. Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. It is hard to know what motivates a guy like Charles Petit. I think he is just telling the audience what they want to hear. Bashing defenseless people is a good living: cold fusion researchers can't bash him back. No editor will criticize him for attacking people that everyone knows are wrong. He probably has convinced himself that cold fusion is more like a hobby than science as he told me. I am sure he does not care what effect his article has on public opinion. His attitude toward me is friendly and nonchalant, as if none of this matters any more than last week's golf tournament scores. I do sense that people like him see this sort of thing as a political game: who's up and who's down. The fact that it might solve the energy crisis and that people like him are preventing that from happening never seems to have crossed his mind. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. I agree that cold fusion researchers have done a poor job of public relations, but you have to cut them some slack. They are researchers. They have no experience in public relations or politics. They have absolutely no influence! The opposition is made of influential people who are specialize in public relations, and who know little or nothing about science, such as magazine hack writers and congressmen. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
Jones Beene wrote: In 2008, the U.S. wind industry activated over 8,300 MW of new capacity . . . Equivalent to roughly 3 average nuke plants after converting nameplate apples to oranges. I'll bet it was way cheaper than building 3 nukes. Faster, too. At the peak of nuke plant construction in the late 1960s, I think I recall 3 to 5 plants were built per year. They built about 100 over ~20 years. They provide roughly 20% of U.S. electricity. So we could have 10% to 20% of electricity from wind a generation from now. That's about the limit with present-day technology and wind availability. It is a shame they can't build those things in Georgia or the rest of the southeast. We have no wind. But recent studies indicate that offshore wind resources may now be practical in Georgia. Georgia Power is getting ready to build another nuke. I favor building another nuke plus 1 nuke equivalent in offshore wind power, and then phasing out old coal plants ahead of schedule instead of maintaining them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
From Jones: [JB:] There are dedicated sites for wind energy. The first place any legitimate windpower inventor would go, would be there. The claim of 100 windmills in operation is a giveaway - a red flag the size of China that this guy is a fraud BTW in looking on a legitimate wind site to see if there was any report of this Boswell-BS (there was not) the following tidbit did offer a little surprise: A little less than three months into the year, the dust is still settling on the largest batch of new wind power construction the U.S. has ever seen. In 2008, the U.S. wind industry activated over 8,300 MW of new capacity, swelling the U.S. cumulative total by 50% to over 25,000 MW and pushing the U.S. above Germany as the country with the largest amount of wind energy capacity installed. Pretty encouraging for real wind-power, no? I keep hoping there is still serious RD working on the technology to harvest wind energy from 10,000 - 15,000 feet, where the jet stream blows faithfully 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and at several times the ground speed. Yeah, yeah, I know... I know... it's a crazy idea! Too impractical! Too dangerous! Where would the jets fly! Crazy enough to work. Of course the tax credits made most of this happen - but they are nothing in comparison to the oil depletion allowance- the biggest wealth giveaway in US history Jones This brings up an issue what worries me the most. The need to maintain stable tax credits for the long term. We have a fickle congress when it comes to these matters. Everyone complains about congress not doing enough, especially when gas was flirting with the $4.00 a gallon mark. But then, a couple of months latter when gas prices tank, the same individuals could just as easily start complaining to congress about why their hard earned tax dollars are being spent on some weird pork barrel project - to grow algae. ... I ain't goina pay for some government scientists to grow Green slime! Without sufficient guarantees of financial stability to fund RD for the long term I fear we will not be able to develop mature AE sources. Cheap fossil fuels will continue to trash the most promising AE efforts as voters (and clueless politicians voted into office) take the easy exit. From past experience our nation's commitment to these kinds of long term tax credits has been dismal. The trashing of AE RD happened in the 80s. It could just as easily happen again in today's environment where cheap fossil fuels once again stroke the pocketbooks tax payers. But then, there's always The Rapture to look forward to. It could happen! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks [ I keep hoping there is still serious RD working on the technology to harvest wind energy from 10,000 - 15,000 feet, where the jet stream blows faithfully 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and at several times the ground speed. Yeah, yeah, I know... I know... it's a crazy idea! Too impractical! Too dangerous! Where would the jets fly! Crazy enough to work. [JB:] The jet stream is much higher - more like 30,000-40,000 ft. A tether to ground is totally impractical with present technology - graphite fiber. However, this does not necessarily doom the idea, since we are only interested in the relative (harvestable) wind speed- and not the absolute speed, relative to ground. At some point in human history, there will be enough cooperation between nations so that a procession of gigantic kites could be employed for this, beaming the electricity down via microwaves to a succession of ground based receivers. If the average absolute speed, relative to ground were say 150 mph; and if we could design use a large drift kite moving at half that speed, but fully controllable (steerable) via computers to follow the ideal path of the jet stream -- then we could theoretically harvest the other half of the air speed (relative to ground) - and a constant 75 mph (relative to the kite) ain't half bad... awkshully it's half good ;-) ... plus if we can also use the a long antenna-tether as the ballast i.e. as the required drag mechanism against the absolute wind speed (in addition to the drag of the collection airfoils or propellers), then that long tether (half mile long??) which is a conductive wire, can serve a double purpose - make that: attempt to harvest the slight charge differential and slight ionization caused by tribology friction at that altitude. I have a hunch that this free-charge harvesting could possibly be more fruitful than the differential wind speed, or that there would be synergy there ... ...but sadly this kind of concept would take bazillion$$ to develop. Jones
[Vo]:promoting CF
Jed, On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better. Remember, this is science, not selling soap. Only certain methods are acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other promoters have done, much to their discredit Science requires claims be published. This has been done and attempts are regularly made to reach a wider audience. Science requires the work be replicated. This has been done. In addition, contact has been made with the Media and with the general scientific profession by giving talks at regular APS and ACS meetings. Contact has also been made with the government. Success of these efforts depends on the willingness of the listener to accept the information. Until the effect can be explained in a way that is acceptable to a normal scientist and the effect can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. Nevertheless, how would you suggest the field be better promoted? Ed
Fw: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it - Original Message - From: thomas malloy temall...@usfamily.net To: Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies Nick Palmer wrote: The author of this book is almost certainly a professional liar or deluded or - giving him the most benefit-of-the-doubt possible // Thomas Malloy is fond of implying that liberals and environmentalists and anyone he perceives as being left of him are actually suffering from mental illness. He has been note to quote some bonkers source that claims this exact point. Thomas said today: /Leftists are smart enough, but they have an insanity which makes them unable to see the error of their ways. Specifically, they seem unable to overcome the effects of this insanity/ Does this remind anyone of the situation of the loony in the asylum telling anyone who will listen that they're the only one who is sane and everyone outside in the world is mad? You hit the nail right on the head Nick, one of us is insane. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
(By the way, this list now includes fpur or five Stephens of one spelling or another, and either two or three Stephen Lawrence's.) Jed Rothwell wrote: Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. The situations with cold fusion and global warming denial do not seem complicated or unseen to me. I don't know much about global warming politics, but I know who is denying cold fusion, and what motivates them. It is not because they work for big oil or anything like that. One of the infuriating things about this situation is that the main reasons people attack cold fusion are trivial, and personal. Opposition is mostly driving by people and institutions who went out on a limb denying it back 1989. Most are too lazy or stupid to take a second look. Lemonick, the guy at Time, is so dumb he could not understand a simple cold fusion paper. (He really is astoundingly stupid, as you see from the letters I posted in the News section. You wonder how he ended up as science editor at a major U.S. magazine!) A few, such as Robert Park, are so ego driven they don't want to take another look because they fear being ridiculed if they admit they were wrong. Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do. Those who just parrot Wikipedia are never guilty of believing we didn't go to the Moon, or there is no global warming, or the world is actually hollow and we live on the inside, or any of a host of other totally idiotic beliefs which crop up repeatedly and which are supported by a host of totally off-base web pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it's really rather good. It presents the mainstream point of view, and that is nearly always a good place to *start* when learning about any field. Unfortunately Wikipedia is frequently treated as a final authority, which it isn't; no encyclopedia is. Set your expectations for Wikipedia by what you find in the Encyclopedia Americana, and you will probably not be disappointed. And that appears to be the conventional model which those running Wiki are trying to follow. Their iron rule about no research is extremely significant in this regard; it sets off Wikipedia from nearly all normal websites. Ruling out anything which smacks of research seems to be typical behavior for a conventional encyclopedia, but it would be totally weird for Wiki to do that if they thought of themselves as any sort of super-journal. All sorts of journals, newspapers included, are happy to go the research route now and then. If, instead of the Americana, you compare Wikipedia to the Final Encyclopedia in Gordon Dickson's stories, you will, of course, be sorely disappointed.
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
Jones Beene wrote: ... plus if we can also use the a long antenna-tether as the ballast i.e. as the required drag mechanism against the absolute wind speed (in addition to the drag of the collection airfoils or propellers), then that long tether (half mile long??) which is a conductive wire, can serve a double purpose - make that: attempt to harvest the slight charge differential and slight ionization caused by tribology friction at that altitude. I have a hunch that this free-charge harvesting could possibly be more fruitful than the differential wind speed, or that there would be synergy there ... ! Hey, that sounds like it has real potential (no pun intended)! Remember the tethered satellite fiasco? Nasa launched a tethered satellite from the Shuttle and, in very rough terms, the voltage difference between the satellite and the Shuttle blew the connecting cable to bits. IIRC this was blamed on the motion of the Shuttle across the Earth's magnetic field. It's also been mentioned as a problem for the space elevator. But one person's problem is sometimes someone else's solution. It's bugged me ever since I read about it that there's no way to turn this particular problem into a solution! Now, a free-flying kite (or, perhaps more practically, a balloon) would be moving at a few hundred MPH, while the Shuttle is moving at a few thousand MPH, so the generator effect is going to be much smaller for our hypothetical air-breathing power station. But with a half mile of wire there might still be enough of a jolt there to produce an interesting amount of power just from the B-field; tribo-electric generation, which seems much dicier to me, could be a possible additional source of power. As to harvesting the altitude voltage differential (as a third power source), I'm not sure how much power is available there. Lots of volts, but not sure of the capacity. Anybody know? I'm also afraid you might find you needed a really whopping big kite to produce a low enough resistance coupling to the air, conductivity of air being what it is (vanishingly small).
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. Okay, but my point is that it does not matter where the CO2 comes from; CO2 is CO2. It has the same effect on the atmosphere regardless of origin; it mixes evenly throughout the atmosphere; and you can measure the total amount. The interactions of the various chemicals in the atmosphere are themselves simpler and smaller in number than the interactions within living systems (such as protein folding). My other point is that the physics of the atmosphere must be well understood because weather prediction is remarkably good these days. The point is well taken that bacteria or some other species may suddenly release an unpredictably large amount of CO2 or some other chemical that affects the atmosphere. That is unpredictable, and dangerous. However, once that chemical enters the atmosphere the effects it will probably have are not as complex or unpredictable as the circumstances that caused the bacteria to release it in the first place. An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. What youse guys are trying to get a handle on is the fractal, chaotic -- dialectical -- nature of the whole thing. The Earth's climate and bacterial metabolism are operating on different, but self-similar scales which all feed back into each other and produce emergent behavior. And reaching any 'tipping point' means climbing out of the basin of whatever chaotic attractor our climate happens to be spinning around in phase space right now -- and falling down the other side into who-knows-what- state... - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * * http://www.buynothingchristmas.org Buy Nothing Christmas * * http://www.aflcio.com/corporateamericaExecutive PayWatch * * [splitURL] /paywatch/ceou/database.cfm Database * * http://www.africaaction.orgAfrica Action * * http://www.msf.org Doctors Without Borders * * http://sweatshopwatch.orgSweatshop Watch * * http://www.maquilasolidarity.org Maquila Solidarity Network * ** Revealed Truth pales in comparison with the method of Science *** GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5VX4ACgkQXo3EtEYbt3H/dgCaAsHCmU2/URsOXTg3RxhIu8qz QOEAoIrrIjC/mAaBl3GMD91rTNIr3jak =7MjO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:How To Make Your Own Books From Wikipedia
http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm Terry On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-your-own-books-from-wikipedia/ http://tinyurl.com/c9l3lg How'bout a primer on CF? steve -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is a shame they can't build those things in Georgia or the rest of the southeast. We have no wind. We have plenty of wind in GA from January to April, when the legislature is in session. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: IIRC this was blamed on the motion of the Shuttle across the Earth's magnetic field. Was it? I thought it was due to the difference in potential of the earth gradient and the failure was due to insulation breakdown. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: IIRC this was blamed on the motion of the Shuttle across the Earth's magnetic field. Was it? I thought it was due to the difference in potential of the earth gradient and the failure was due to insulation breakdown. The failure was due to insulation breakdown, it's true -- they had actually planned on the voltage difference and if all equipment had functioned properly it would (probably) have been fine. None the less the voltage they were insulating against is the thing we're interested in here. I also recall seeing claims that it was the earth gradient at fault but I didn't think that was considered conclusive -- and, in fact, I thought the expected value of the earth gradient was swamped by computed values for the dynamo effect. But I could be all wet. Terry
RE: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence ! Hey, that sounds like it has real potential (no pun intended)! Remember the tethered satellite fiasco? [JB:] Yes, that is what I had in mind Now, a free-flying kite (or, perhaps more practically, a balloon) would be moving at a few hundred MPH, while the Shuttle is moving at a few thousand MPH, so the generator effect is going to be much smaller [JB:] Not so sure that it would smaller - in fact it could be more robust of a generator effect, not less, since the friction of the atmosphere is so much greater at lower altitude, and that tribology can be manipulated from wing to wing in a vertical array - it all depends on creating or maintaining a large charge bias with a steerable structure. The amperage would be a function of the surface area of the airfoils and that could run up to a square km! Here is one of many articles on the charge layers which exist BELOW the ionosphere http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ebro.conf..375M My basic idea would not work with a balloon at all, as all indications are that it must be steered or maneuvered fast and accurately. Either a strong kite or a ladder mill of very light long carbon fiber wings might be best. Remember the wings on the Daedalus ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_powered_flight Imagine 100 of these wings, each extended by an order of magnitude in length and arranged to pull carbon cables in a loop:i.e. arranged as a ladder mill: Check out the last illustration on this page, but transpose it from ground operation to the stratosphere, with the bottom being a modified glider (the structure closest to the ground being a much larger glider plane which enclosed a giant crank wheel) and with the entire arrangement, which could be several km long - being maneuvered up or down so that there is maximum charge differential between the top wing and the bottom wing, and so that there is current flow in addition to the torque of the mill. Each wing must be individually controlled (via an Xbox ;-) http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wind:Ladder_Mills That's kinda where the general pie-in-the-sky idea is headed -- up -- as in the cost is going through the roof ... way up there into the stratosphere... ... but at a lesser rate than the cost of OPEC gasoline... Jones
[Vo]:Stick(y) Alien Videos
I don't know what they are. They kinda look like the preying mantis types described by abductees: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=7439 Terry
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Edmund Storms wrote: On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better. Remember, this is science, not selling soap. THAT is your first mistake! This is not science. It is selling soap, and more to the point it is politics. Do you see any science in the Scientific American attacks, Charles Petit's article, or the annual plasma fusion program dog and pony show on Capital Hill? Only certain methods are acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other promoters have done, much to their discredit The plasma fusion people have been raking in a billion dollars a year in a scam, much to their discredit. No doubt they cry all the way to the bank. They took out the carving knives and eviscerated cold fusion within a few days of the 1989 announcement, in the pages of the Boston newspapers. They demand that you use only certain methods, while they play by the rules of hardball politics. Frankly, you people are good-natured patsies for going along with them. Science requires claims be published. This has been done and attempts are regularly made to reach a wider audience. Science requires the work be replicated. This has been done. In addition, contact has been made with the Media and with the general scientific profession by giving talks at regular APS and ACS meetings. Contact has also been made with the government. Yes, you have done everything that scientists are supposed to do. Yes, obviously, if this were a scientific dispute, it would have ended 19 years ago, and every scientist on earth would accept that cold fusion is real. Yet only a few scientists have been won over. You have done all that is required, while the opposition has done nothing. They have not published a single credible scientific paper disproving any major experiment. Therefore this process has nothing do to with science. You have made no progress treating this like science with traditional methods. Repeating the same actions for 20 years and expecting a different outcome is Einstein's definitizing of insanity. It is also unbecoming of experimentalists. Success of these efforts depends on the willingness of the listener to accept the information. And on the speaker's ability to shape the message. Until the effect can be explained in a way that is acceptable to a normal scientist and the effect can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. Not just difficult: impossible. If that is the test we must meet, we might as well give up. I do not think that cold fusion will ever become easy to replicate any more than cloning, open heart surgery, or making an integrated semiconductor will be. But I think that history shows this test need not be met. Plasma fusion, top quarks, lasers, masers, cloning the transistor effect circa 1952, airplanes circa 1908 and countless other effects have been more difficult to replicate than cold fusion, and they have met with as much political opposition as cold fusion, yet the researchers were able to overcome the opposition. An explanation is irrelevant in my opinion. Half of the explanations for conventional phenomena are probably wrong, or incomplete. Nevertheless, how would you suggest the field be better promoted? The same things I have suggested many times before: I would summarize it by saying you should learn a thing or two from the Obama campaign. Trust people and give them lots of information. Appeal to youth. Reach out. Find out what other scientists are doing these days to promote their research. Help qualified, friendly, professional scientists replicate. Set up an experiments somewhere they can come and look at it. Make better use of the data we have. Make far better use of the Internet. Publish more information. MUCH MORE, such as thousands of pages from complete data sets. In his 2007 review paper, Table 1, J. He estimates that roughly 14,700 experimental runs are reported in the literature. You will not find the complete data from a single one of these on the Internet. You will not find a detailed description of a single one. By that I mean schematics, photographs, a list of parts, and so on -- the sort of thing ATT published describing transistors as soon as they went public: the book Transistor Technology, two volumes, Sept. 1951, 791 pages, (a.k.a., Mother Bell's Cookbook) That's TWO VOLUMES of technical information! A person would have difficulty assembling 100 pages of that kind of specific, hands-on technical information from cold fusion papers published in the literature. The closest thing we have to a detailed description is your own work: Storms, E., The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. 2007: World Scientific Publishing Company. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion
Re: [Vo]:How To Make Your Own Books From Wikipedia
From Terry: http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm Terry See: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-your-own-books-from-wikipedia/ http://tinyurl.com/c9l3lg How'bout a primer on CF? Would it be worth it to translate the Student Guide into a Wiki version? Just wondering out loud. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Most others just parrot what they read in Wikipedia. Cold fusion aside, this is actually not a completely stupid thing to do. As much as I dislike Wikipedia, I must agree. Wikipedia is a good source of information about conventional subjects. It is not such a good source of information on complex scientific disputes such as cold fusion. All institutions have strengths and weaknesses. A friend of mine is still battling the skeptics at Wikipedia. Yesterday I wrote to him about a well-known skeptic there ScienceApologist who was temporarily banned from editing the cold fusion article: . . . [W]hy not let the fellow had his fun? His hobby is campaigning against cold fusion in Wikipedia. He does little harm. My hobby is campaigning in favor of cold fusion at LENR-CANR.org. The Internet is large enough to accommodate both of us. If the people at Wikipedia countenance his behavior why should you object? Let them run the place however they please. As you said, Wikipedia is dysfunctional [by our standards]. . . . But ScienceApologist like it the way it is. As you said it would be easy to change the rules at Wikipedia. You could just adapt the Citizendium model, which prevents most abuses. So: 1. It would be easy to adjust the rules. 2. The managers at Wikipedia have chosen not to adjust the rules. I conclude that the managers there approve of things the way they are. . . . So who am I to argue with them? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: This is not caused by an Oligarchy but rather by specific people such as the editor of the Scientific American, the science writer for Time magazine, and others who are well known to me. These people are not politically powerful Svengalis. They are not hidden manipulators of public opinion. They are inept, uneducated, self-important fools who happen to have landed in jobs that are way over their heads. Sort of like George W. Bush. A relatively small number of specific individual people are responsible -- not some amorphous Oligarchy or Hidden Conspiracy. The same is true of Holocaust denial, tobacco company denial that smoking causes cancer, Wall Street credit default swaps Ponzi schemes and other scams, and other irresponsible lies and misunderstandings. There is, in fact, an oligarchy in the U.S. (as most everywhere else) -- and they do indeed conspire against us all. 24/7. And they do indeed have paid minions who know what their job is: maintaining the status quo. Over how many dead bodies, etc., that takes. Where people get hung up about this is ascribing personal, venal, long-term motivations to this impersonal machine, which intends to relentlessly grind down all opposition. Which is not to deny that there are actually minions who _do indeed_ take your defiance VERY personally. And will act on that, with the power at their disposal. But it's not really part of their marching orders, generally, eh? - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM FIGHTBACK! *** * In advance of the Revolution: * Get facts get organized * * Fight the Man! * thru these sites movements * * http://www.infoshop.org/wiki Infoshop OpenWiki * *http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix The Matrix:Anti-Capitalist Wiki * http://risingtide.org.uk Greenwash Guerillas UK * * http://risingtidenorthamerica.orgGreenwash Guerillas * * http://www.ministrywatch.com MinistryWatch * * http://www.levees.org Levees.Org * * http://www.govtrack.us GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress * NEW-WORLD-ORDER-SPEAK: Law Order == Police State GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5eTYACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EiEQCgrJsx6EGzo03MLm32Cp3LLRAM 8rMAoN4GPeLbqtlp2yoSv05A9BelXvxa =tQmo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Lawrence de Bivort ldebiv...@earthlink.net mounted the barricade and roared out: Greetings, all, Yes. It is human nature when things are complicated and much unseen to conclude that the situation must be caused by a cabal or a conspiracy. Usually, though, these perplexing and often frustrating human-based situations are the result of inadvertent patterns of interaction and cognitive limitations. I would add another 'cause' of these situations -- and would include cold fusion and global warming in these -- the relative ineptitude of the 'good guys' (however you define them!) to communicate their PoV. Too often the 'good guys' resort to attack and invective. Advocacy is substituted for effectiveness, righteousness for influence. As I see it, influence is solely dependent on having access to the person or group that one wants to influence. If one has access, then only the interpersonal and communication skills of the 'good guy' will determine the outcome. Does this make sense? This is part of the mechanix of power, certainly. Not the whole part, of course. And of course: it's why challengers to the status quo are systematically frozen-out of the bourgeois mass-media, for instance. Sometimes by the crude application of physical force, if need be. i.e: this is not a natural phenomenon at work: there is _conscious agency_ at work here: an actual enemy/ruler who intends to maintain that rule. - -- grok. - -- *** SOCIALISM OR BARBARISM ? *** * Capitalism wraps itself in flags of convenience * Critical * * The latest one is religious obscurantism * Support only * STEM THE ASSAULT ON MATERIALIST SCIENCE * http://www.world-of-dawkins.com World of Richard Dawkins * * http://www.atheistnetwork.com Atheist Radio Network * * http://kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=33 Explorations archive * * http://www.secularism.org.uk UK National Secular Society * * http://njhn.org New Jersey Humanist Network * * http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/dinobase/dinopage.html DINOBASE * * http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/default_en.htm Dinosaur Museum China * * HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERIALISM: NEW FACE OF OLD EXPLOITATION * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5eqEACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FPkACgqcW2N2dcCB0QXqOUEFlGFEMO ivQAoKtPtOjsq2heeFK5bCDjS0Tg+SCq =kAnj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:29:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. [snip] The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. That means that in the time sense, B is also unpredictable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: On several occasions you have opined that people in the CF field have done a poor job of PR. Please explain how this can be done better. Remember, this is science, not selling soap. THAT is your first mistake! This is not science. It is selling soap, and more to the point it is politics. Do you see any science in the Scientific American attacks, Charles Petit's article, or the annual plasma fusion program dog and pony show on Capital Hill? The people who try to sell science like soap always fail. Hot fusion does not have to sell the reality of their product. They are only selling the practical application. Charles Petit and any other such examples are only repeating the myth, which was created before the CF field had anything to prove the myth wrong. Now we have the evidence but unfortunately the myth is in place. We can't counter the myth because the gate keepers to the media believe the myth. Nevertheless, occasionally accurate accounts are published or shown on TV, but with modest effect. Only certain methods are acceptable without making the claims look like a scam, which other promoters have done, much to their discredit The plasma fusion people have been raking in a billion dollars a year in a scam, much to their discredit. No doubt they cry all the way to the bank. They took out the carving knives and eviscerated cold fusion within a few days of the 1989 announcement, in the pages of the Boston newspapers. They demand that you use only certain methods, while they play by the rules of hardball politics. Frankly, you people are good-natured patsies for going along with them. Hot fusion is not a scam. The process is accepted by everyone in science and in government. The only issue is whether it can be made into a practical source of energy. However, we do agree that such a successful application is unlikely. This does not make it a scam. It is supported for three reasons - 1. It has a large economic and political inertia, 2. It promises a source of clean energy, and 3. It provides a way to investigate plasmas that keeps physics busy. Science requires claims be published. This has been done and attempts are regularly made to reach a wider audience. Science requires the work be replicated. This has been done. In addition, contact has been made with the Media and with the general scientific profession by giving talks at regular APS and ACS meetings. Contact has also been made with the government. Yes, you have done everything that scientists are supposed to do. Yes, obviously, if this were a scientific dispute, it would have ended 19 years ago, and every scientist on earth would accept that cold fusion is real. Yet only a few scientists have been won over. You have done all that is required, while the opposition has done nothing. They have not published a single credible scientific paper disproving any major experiment. Therefore this process has nothing do to with science. I agree, the myth has nothing to do with science. The challenge is to overcome the myth. Science has always been directed by myths and these myths are always removed by obtaining the required scientific proof. Can you suggest any other method? Occasionally, big drug companies, for example, create myths about their products, but these are directed to sales not to proving that a drug works. But let's assume a person had enough money to put an ad in the NY Times or a similar paper claiming the reality of CF. Do you think this would have any effect? No scientists would be convinced. You have made no progress treating this like science with traditional methods. Repeating the same actions for 20 years and expecting a different outcome is Einstein's definitizing of insanity. It is also unbecoming of experimentalists. Success of these efforts depends on the willingness of the listener to accept the information. And on the speaker's ability to shape the message. How would you shape the message and where would you have this message published? Until the effect can be explained in a way that is acceptable to a normal scientist and the effect can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. Not just difficult: impossible. If that is the test we must meet, we might as well give up. I do not think that cold fusion will ever become easy to replicate any more than cloning, open heart surgery, or making an integrated semiconductor will be. I did not mean the reproducibility to be as extreme as you assumed. All of these examples can be reproduced by competent people. That is what I say is required of CF. But I think that history shows this test need not be met. Plasma fusion, top quarks, lasers, masers, cloning the transistor effect
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: An effect originating in complex phenomena may, in turn, cause a simple, predictable secondary effect. [snip] The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. That means that in the time sense, B is also unpredictable. Correct! However, in this case we are talking about a mixture of causes including one that is quite simple and predictable, and a secondary effect that is probably well understood. Let us be specific: 1. CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere by human beings. We know this for a fact. We can estimate how much is being added by tallying up the amount of fossil fuel being burned. We can measure how much is appearing in the atmosphere by monitoring CO2 concentration. CO2 mixes throughout the atmosphere so concentration will not vary from one location to another. That makes it easy to measure. The techniques used to measure it are accurate and reliable, and they are precise enough to correlate the increased amount with fossil fuel. That is, we can confirm that present increases come from fossil fuel. 2. CO2 is also being pumped into the atmosphere by bacteria and other species, and removed by plants and algae. In contrast to the CO2 from fossil fuels, this is complex and difficult to predict. It may suddenly increase. Or, plant life may bloom unexpectedly and it may decrease. We cannot predict what may happen in the future. But we can say with certainty what is happening: CO2 concentration is increasing, and the increase correlates roughly to the amount added by fossil fuels. At present, biological processes are not having a significant effect on CO2 concentration. 3. Our models of the atmosphere are increasingly accurate, as shown by weather prediction (as I said). These models predict that increased CO2 concentration should have already increased average temperatures. This has been confirmed by actual measurements. The models also predict that the problem will get worse in the future as the concentration increases. It is argued by skeptics that the models are not dependable. That is not in evidence; they are working already. It is argued that they cannot work because they are extremely complex, but (as I said) they are no more complex than models in other areas of science which are proven to work. 4. Skeptics argue that the models are not reliable because they describe phenomena on a large scale (a planetary scale). This is faulty reasoning. The scale of a phenomenon has no bearing on whether it is predictable or not, or whether it can be modeled or not. Equally complex models about large-scale phenomena in nature such as the behavior of stars and galaxies are reliable. Going down a similar number of orders of magnitude away from common experience, we find that models describing subatomic particles also work quite well. There is simply no reason to think that models about the entire earth's atmosphere are somehow unreliable because the Earth is large. 5. I reiterate that once the CO2 enters the atmosphere, the model of what happens next becomes relatively simple, and it is well tested and confirmed (unfortunately). 6. Perhaps some enhanced biological process may arise that removes CO2: something like an unexpected plant bloom, or what Russ George is trying to with iron oxide in the ocean. However, we cannot count on this occurring. It would be foolhardy to do nothing and hope that some biological process comes along and rescues us, or that some beneficial feedback mechanism is already at work. Obviously there will be some beneficial feedback and some plant blooms, but there is no evidence that a sufficiently large beneficial feedback mechanism exists. And there is some evidence that the opposite kind of feedback mechanism may arise which makes the problem much worse. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Just to summarize my previous message briefly -- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: The secondary effect is only predictable in the sense that one can say A will cause B. It is not predictable in the sense that one can say A will happen at such and such a time, and consequently B will happen also. This is because A arises out of complexity, and is thus inherently unpredictable without certain knowledge of the future. This statement is an incomplete description of the actual situation because A (in this case) arises out of both biological complexity and at the same time out of burning coal. The latter is dead simple, and easily measured. We have certain knowledge that it is occurring, and it will continue unless we stop doing it. van Spaandonk is correct about the biological contribution to A - Jed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Edmund Storms wrote: The people who try to sell science like soap always fail. On the contrary, they are doing quite well. They have sold opposition to cold fusion with no more credence than the 1950s soap advertisement -- without a shred of actual scientific content -- and they have succeeded completely. For that matter, people sell creationism and half the population buys it. You can argue that this is unethical or unscientific but it sure is successful public relations. And do not forget that other scientists are the ones who buy what the skeptics are selling. Many scientists believe that cold fusion is not real. This is because they are as gullible as anyone and they fall for Madison Avenue techniques. Plus as Stan Szpak says, they believe anything you pay them to believe. Hot fusion does not have to sell the reality of their product. They are only selling the practical application. That's what I meant. I did not mean to suggest that plasma fusion does not exist! We can't counter the myth because the gate keepers to the media believe the myth. Nevertheless, occasionally accurate accounts are published or shown on TV, but with modest effect. I have not seen anything on television lately. But anyway, Obama showed that the gates are made of papier-mâché and the gatekeepers are asleep. . . . we do agree that such a successful application is unlikely. This does not make it a scam. It is supported for three reasons - 1. It has a large economic and political inertia, 2. It promises a source of clean energy, and 3. It provides a way to investigate plasmas that keeps physics busy. Right. So let's promise a source of clean energy. We are a lot closer to it than they are. Let us make more effort to be heard, and let us make more affirmative statements than scientists are accustomed to making. If the plasma fusion people do it, why cannot we? I agree, the myth has nothing to do with science. The challenge is to overcome the myth. Science has always been directed by myths and these myths are always removed by obtaining the required scientific proof. They are removed by a combination of scientific proof and public relations acumen, or luck. Scientific proof alone seldom suffices. Can you suggest any other method? Yes. Learn from history. But let's assume a person had enough money to put an ad in the NY Times or a similar paper claiming the reality of CF. Do you think this would have any effect? No scientists would be convinced. No one would be convinced. This would be a waste of money. 21st century methods should be used instead. This would like trying to ensure Obama's nomination in 2007 by putting ads in the New York Times. That is the sort of thing Guilani and Hillary Clinton did, to no avail. There is fundamentally no difference between selling a candidate, a brand of soap, or a scientific truth. Note that the product has to be good or it will not sell. No amount of PR will sell soap that does not clean or a lousy political candidate. And on the speaker's ability to shape the message. How would you shape the message and where would you have this message published? I would shape it with modern, Internet-based technology and idiom, which we have not done sufficiently. I would put it everywhere, as I have done. Until the effect . . . can be made so reproducible that any competent person can demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult. . . . I do not think that cold fusion will ever become easy to replicate any more than cloning, open heart surgery, or making an integrated semiconductor will be. I did not mean the reproducibility to be as extreme as you assumed. All of these examples can be reproduced by competent people. That is what I say is required of CF. I am sure that CF can be reproduced today with far less effort than cloning or open heart surgery! I think that present techniques could be explained in more detail allowing more replications -- assuming we can find people who want to try to replicate. We have not tried to explain, and not tried to look for people. Yes, in time. We also will overcome the opposition in time. On the contrary, based on actuarial trends the opposition is overcoming us. Unless these trends are reversed, we will die off, and cold fusion will be forgotten. In a few weeks Mizuno will retire and there will be only one cold fusion researcher left in Japan. You are suggesting the time can be shortened by using different methods. If I am wrong and the time cannot be shortened, then I expect there is no hope of success. In that case I have wasted most of my adult life. I refuse to believe that, and I absolutely refuse to give up. Churchill has nothing on me; see: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=423 (Read that, folks!) I'm asking which methods? As you suggest below, publishing every detail
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Snip Frankly, I am somewhat fed up from hearing from you -- and much more often from cold fusion researchers -- that nothing can be done and that we should not even try, and that I do not understand scientists or how science is done. Scientists are people, and I know a thing or two about people, and how to appeal to them, and convince them. Obama and I share that characteristic. You researchers should give me what I say I need, and let me take a shot at it, instead of insisting that I will fail and it isn't worth trying. As I said that, such attitudes are unbecoming of experimentalists. I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like study history. If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. I don't agree. As for me, my time is better spent getting the critical information I explained is needed by any promotional effort. Ed - Jed
[Vo]:I told you it was cold
According to a news report I just heard, Minnesota had a record low for March 12 this morning in Embarass. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed Rothwell wrote: ... If I am wrong and the time cannot be shortened, then I expect there is no hope of success. In that case I have wasted most of my adult life. I refuse to believe that, and I /absolutely/ refuse to give up. Churchill has nothing on me; see: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=423 (Read that, folks!) I am reminded irresistibly of ... ... Max Headroom, last episode. 'Nuf said.
[Vo]:alkalinize or die
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooksfield-keywords=alkalize+or+diesprefix=alkal --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Stick(y) Alien Videos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca mounted the barricade and roared out: To me it looks like a anorexic version of Gumby, especially in the second video. Harry I think I first saw THOUSANDS of these things when Disney's Fantasia came out in the theaters. - -- grok. - -- ** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS* Get your news analysis * * MASS-MEDIA:* from the Best on the Web * Critical endorsement only Most sites need donations * http://eatthestate.orgEat The State! * * http://www.sinclairwatch.netSinclair Media Watch * * http://www.americandreamradio.org American Dream Radio * * http://gadaboutfilmfest.com Gadabout Traveling Film Festival * * http://radioproject.org Making Contact * * http://www.soaw.org School of the Americas Watch * * http://www.taylor-report.com The Taylor Report * * FULL AUDIT OF THE U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE ITS OFFICERS * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm5y9EACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FfOQCfehTgGHP6vg39Dmkt/lGGXPXG 6CoAoMNQZU3QniRofPt9NY+XPzJ/o+zv =4ALq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We have plenty of wind in GA from January to April, when the legislature is in session. :-) I'd be willing to have some tax $ go to mounting wind generators vertically like ceiling fans in all state and federal Congressional and Senate chambers... Might as well get something useful out of all that hot air ;-) -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1996 - Release Date: 3/11/2009 8:42 PM
