RE: [Vo]:Global Warming
Here is an analysis of CRU source code used in some of the models: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html "But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result." -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Global Warming >From Jeff Fink: > THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM > > There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that > the scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming > agenda have been suppressing and altering data. ... Speaking of "agendas", read: "THE FAMILY, The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+family+the+se cret+fundamentalism+at+the+heart+of+american+power&sprefix=The+famil http://tinyurl.com/ykhqfve The author, Jeff Sharlet, was interviewed on NPR last night. He had inside access to this "family". What he had to say was both chilling (No pun intended) and bizarre. Here's one tiny example: The inner-most core within this "family" believes Jesus's fundamental message was not about love and understanding. They believe Jesus was really into absolute Power, and he whom possesses it. This "family" also doesn't believe the masses can't stomach the truth of Jesus's true message, so they don't "preach" it and instead spoon feed the masses drivel about love and tolerance while they scheme away in back rooms while attempting to influence our top lawmakers. Apparently, they have had some success. For example, there are U.S. senators who apparently subscribe to this belief and who have been helped along in their careers by this "family." What a nice thought. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.82/2525 - Release Date: 11/25/09 07:31:00 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.82/2525 - Release Date: 11/25/09 07:31:00
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
> >From: Jed Rothwell >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 10:48:20 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper > >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > >This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear >reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that it would be necessary to >prove that cold fusion is truly impossible in order to convince the cold >fusion researchers to give up. > >Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove >something is impossible, only that it is possible. Couldn't you say the amount of excess heat "proves" it is impossible to be chemical in origin? Harry __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
- Original Message > From: Harry Veeder > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Thu, November 26, 2009 12:27:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable? > > > > > > - Original Message > > From: Michel Jullian > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 6:02:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable? > > > > I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets > > was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM > > that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an > > improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But > > it doesn't leave room for free will either. > > > > Just this random machine's opinion ;-) > > > > Michel > > > > A deterministic theory is not a problem as long as the theory is open to > revision. > > Both mechanics and quantum mechanics suffer from _predeterminism_, because > they > have both been presented as the last word. When mechanics appeared on the > scene > the spirit had to accept that there was only one possible way for the > universe > to unfold. When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that > there > is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this > list > is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the > list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! > > Harry The moral of the story is this: A TOE will turn into a curse unless it is open to revision. Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
- Original Message > From: Michel Jullian > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 6:02:31 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable? > > I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets > was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM > that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an > improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But > it doesn't leave room for free will either. > > Just this random machine's opinion ;-) > > Michel > A deterministic theory is not a problem as long as the theory is open to revision. Both mechanics and quantum mechanics suffer from _predeterminism_, because they have both been presented as the last word. When mechanics appeared on the scene the spirit had to accept that there was only one possible way for the universe to unfold. When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this list is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! Harry __ Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address now! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
Horace Heffner wrote: > Very few labs have the ability to even attempt to examine the correlation > accurately, and the studies which have been done have error bars which I > think are too large to establish the actual mechanism by which the fusion > occurs. > The error bars are big and I gather some theorists agree they are too big to establish the mechanism. But the data does prove the correlation. Especially Miles' dataset. Whatever those error bars are, the ratio of heat to helium is pretty close to plasma fusion, if not bang on. I mean, it is not off by a factor of a million or a billion, the way neutrons appear to be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear > reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that it would be necessary > to prove that cold fusion is truly impossible in order to convince the cold > fusion researchers to give up. Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove something is impossible, only that it is possible. This is a good summary. Better, I think, than the longer summary under "Labinger paper, more detailed commentary." You should sent this version to the profs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper, more detailed commentary.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I think this article deserves a closer look. It relies heavily on Simon, a > very good source. I *loath* Simon's book. Hate it, hate it, hate it! He looks at people's opinions and counts papers instead of evaluating calorimetry. Meta-analyses are mostly bunk, and they are complete bunk when the experimental evidence itself is clear cut, and in some cases a single experiment produces definitive, stand alone proof. Simon reminds me of Lord Dorwin in Foundation: . . . Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?’ Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. ‘Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?’ ‘To get the information firsthand, of course.’ ‘But wheah's the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah now, I’ve got the wuhks of the mastahs -- the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I weigh them against each othah -- balance of the disagweements -- analyze the conflicting statements -- decide which is pwobably cowwect -- and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method.. . . > Certainly it was true, then, and possibly now -- though far less clear -- > that CF was considered a "stumble." In fact, don't we agree on that? No me. I agree with Fleischmann's view expressed on the day of the press conference: they were doomed. They would surely be driven out of the university. Their enemies had it in for them from day one, and they were determined to destroy reputations, derail and suppress the research. Even if some small portion of the blame was Fleischmann and Pons', and they stumbled for not revealing more early on, they were more sinned against than sinning. Nobody currently thinks that that first press conference was a great idea. I see nothing wrong with it. Look at the video. They made no unreasonable or unsupported assertions. It was sober and level headed. Everything they claimed was proved to be true within a year. The discovery was important, and not to hold a press conference for something of this magnitude would be absurd. Scientists in any other field would have held a press conference. The plasma fusion scientists hold them for trivial accomplishments that everyone knew they would accomplish months earlier, and they hold these press conferences long before they publish a paper -- not on the day the paper comes out. The people who criticize the press conference are hypocritical or ignorant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
--- On Wed, 11/25/09, William Beaty wrote: > From: William Beaty > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice > To: "Vortex-L" > Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 7:13 PM > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner > wrote: > > I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I > have little time > > at the moment. However, it seems this might be a > future topic of > > interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for > Eaton, Sokol, > > and Allan. > > Who besides the inventor has achived closed-loop? Doesnt seem possible, but other factors... > > My impression was that HHO devices are only sold by > dishonest scammers, > because while they work as claimed, the sellers hide the > fact that they > shorten your engine life through hydrogen > embrittlement. Has someone > solved this problem? Or am I wrong? The ratio of hydroxy mixture to that of the fuel mixture is so low those problems are only cited. The hydroxy booster extracts oxygen and hydrogen gasses from distilled water in a stainless steel container installed in the vehicle. The unit uses a little of the vehicles excess energy (in the form of electricity from the alternator, which isn't actually excess energy) to produce just the right amount of hydrogen catalyst to blend with the existing fuel source, enhancing the combustion of fuel. The benefit of hydroxy injection is that because hydroxy has a higher flash point then petrol its self igniting temperature is around 550 degrees Celsius. Petrol ignites from 280 degrees onward, depending on the grade of fuel. This causes a complete burn of all the fuel in the combustion chamber. So therefore there is minimal pollution out of the exhaust. [And logically an increased efficiency of power output, translating to more miles/gal] (Luckily in this case I am in a Ohio County that requires emmission testing so these claims can be verified when our first prototype is installed in a vehicle. There are stories of people having hydroxy units that produced emmission standards so low that the testing unit indicates malfunction. Incredibly Bob Boyce at least (who has more or less pioneered the hydroxy engine concept) says that they asked him to disconnect the unit so that they could obtain a test result that falls within the parameters of their test equipment. This can become a protest issue, say for example they wish to do that for my case, if I refuse to take the test under their conditions, this can become an issue of great publicity) It has been known for some time (since a 1974 paper by the Jet Propulsion Lab of the California Institute of Technology) that the addition of hydrogen in fossil fuels, burned in internal combustion engines will increase the efficiency of that engine. This study has been validated by a number of papers published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, (SAE). The hydroxy boost process is effective with any fossil fuel (diesel, gasoline, propane, natural gas) or bio-fuel (ethanol) though it is most effective in diesel engines. The presence of hydrogen alters the initial stages of the unfolding combustion dynamic, altering the kinetic chemical pathway which the combustion follows. The net effect is to alter the time at which heat energy is released relative to the power cycle. The end result is to increase the adiabatic efficiency of the engine, which in turn means decreased fuel consumption, decreased emissions, improved horsepower and torque, and decreased maintenance expenditures. (From Panacea Inst.) http://www.panaceuniversity.org/Hydroxy%20Boosters.pdf HDN >
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper, more detailed commentary.
History of Science Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion** Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger* http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf I think this article deserves a closer look. It relies heavily on Simon, a very good source. It's also possible to misinterpret Simon, I've seen that on Wikipedia. For our second study we have again chosen two stories that appear to be about as disparate as one could possibly arrange. One, the overthrow of the theory of phlogiston, dates from the origins of modern chemistry, and is now universally considered a central development therein. The other, the cold fusion episode, is only 15 years old, and is now generally (though by no means universally) considered as just a stumble in the long historical march of chemistry. Why have we paired them? Because we feel that, as with the previous study, closer examination reveals certain connections that are instructive for a general understanding of how controversies play out and, in doing so, serve as a powerful engine for the advancement of science. The question of what counts as evidence is important here as well, but we will focus in particular on the persistence of belief, associated with the difficulty of demonstrating the non-existence of a theoretical or hypothetical entity. This was written in 2004, before the DoE review came out, which they anticipate. Certainly it was true, then, and possibly now -- though far less clear -- that CF was considered a "stumble." In fact, don't we agree on that? We just have, perhaps, a different understanding of exactly what the stumble was. Many sources have, in fact, regretted what happened in 1989-1990, with even skeptics acknowledging that the reaction to CF was exaggerated and even "believers" acknowledging that Pons and Fleischmann had made mistakes. Nobody currently thinks that that first press conference was a great idea. But, seriously, were the attorney's wrong to insist upon it? Yes, it turned out to be an error, but based on the knowledge that they had at the time, was it? Pons and Fleischmann were hot on the trail of a tiger, and it looked like they might have it by the tail. But even though they saw the tiger, and were able to record some of its characteristics, it got away. The attention, however, caused many to start looking for tigers where nobody had looked before. It's easy to imagine that the attorneys, and P&F, though that with more funding, which did arrive as a result of the announcement, they'd soon have the tiger in a cage. It was a gamble, in hindsight, and even when a gamble is a good bet, it's still a gamble and can fail. I read this symmetrically, whether the authors intended that or not. The persistence of belief is a real phenomenon that affects scientists as well as others. Everyone, really, for persistence of belief is necessary to a degree. It is only when we lose context and mistake belief for evidence and proof that we go astray. Proofs are based on assumptions, and assumptions can be incorrect. Certainly that is what happened with cold fusion and the theory used to reject it. Theory was applied outside the realm where it was well-established, on the margins. Imagine if somehow relativistic phenomena had been overlooked, so Newtonian mechanics reigned supreme. Then, as would be inevitable, eventually, some experiments moved into the realm where relativistic effects would be measurable. And it was found that measured acceleration no longer was equal to force divided by mass. It would be pointed out, it's easy to understand, that this violated the law of conservation of energy, a law that, by that time, would be thoroughly well-established. But it doesn't violate that law; the assumption of violation would be based on assumptions proceeding from experience at lower velocities. It was known that quantum mechanics was an approximation, but had it been proven that the approximation was adequate to predict fusion cross-section under all the different possible conditions in condensed matter, which might involve configurations of matter not even contemplated? Had anyone ever calculated, using quantum field theory, what would happen under various conditions of confinement of multiple deuterons? I don't think that happened until the 1990s. And the results were different than expected, and confirmed, as a possibility, what Fleischmann had observed. This theory is still not demonstrated to be the mechanism behind cold fusion, but I raise it to show the reason why theory should lead to caution, but should not completely trump experiment, ever. The application of theories is based on assumptions, and we don't know what causes experimental results until we have much more information than we may initially have. What P&F found looked, to them, like "deuterium fusion." But it did not have the stri
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner wrote: > I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time > at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of > interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol, > and Allan. Who besides the inventor has achived closed-loop? My impression was that HHO devices are only sold by dishonest scammers, because while they work as claimed, the sellers hide the fact that they shorten your engine life through hydrogen embrittlement. Has someone solved this problem? Or am I wrong? OT: I never knew that Andrija Puharich ever was into FE devices. But apparently he had a maverick H2-splitting theory, and in the 1970s he was driving around an RV with an onboard high-freq hydrogen generator. http://www.puharich.nl/Links/links.htm http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm Also see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Eaton_FC/ http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Eaton_Water_Fuel_Cell_by_HybridTech_Energy (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either. Just this random machine's opinion ;-) Michel 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy : >> No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a >> thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- >> there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules >> obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. > > Oh well. Let's put it the other way around: what remains to be proved is > that the Universe is completely governed by the rules of physical systems. > If the Universe is an organism, all our actual suppositions regarding its > essential physical nature would be wrong, or incomplete. > > When I raise my hand, by example, you can express that movement precisely > with the aid of the physical laws. But that does not mean my hand is only > a physical system, because my hand is connected to my body through the > limbs, and my whole organism would be unable to exist in isolation. > Now you should be able to extrapolate that to a planetary body, by example. > > The fact that the actual science of Physics does not contemplate or > embodies these possibilities, tell more about the actual status of the > physical sciences, than about the underlying nature of the Universe. > > Particularly, the ideas regarding the ultimate physico-mechanical reality > of the Universe were challenged, I would say definitely, by Gödel's > incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematics(formal systems) are > not complete and consistent at the same time, that is, that truth is not > at the same level or category than that of comprobability or > deductibility. > > In recent (and not so recent) times, our gradual comprehension that the > physical laws are in the end no more than approximations of the real > phenomena, and that they are in a very real sense unable to grasp the > ultimate behaviour of physical systems, due to, by example, the problem of > imponderable quantities, are confirming, more than denying, this line of > thought. > > Mathematics and physics are fundamentally unable to grasp ultimate > physical reality. Think about that. It's not only a practical limitation, > related by example to the accuracy of the measurements. It is an essential > one. > > And man, with all its complexity, including free will, is a product of the > Universe, that is, he does not exist in isolation. So, the Universe is at > least as complex and subtle as one of its creatures. And probably more. > > Best regards, > Mauro > >> >> Michel >> >> 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy : 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy : > Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately > be > human free will Then there is no problem is there? >>> >>> Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the >>> outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. >>> trying >>> to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected >>> ones. That's why I have quoted the word. >>> >>> If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, >>> or >>> the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about >>> them. >>> >>> Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension >>> of >>> eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mauro >>> >>> >> >> > > >
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Horace, My comments below, some things are still wrong 2009/11/25 Horace Heffner : > Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at the > moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of this > experiment, though decades ago, and it is interesting how the concentration > gradient wanders, it doesn't follow what you would expect for any kind of E > field. > > > On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html >> >> I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! >> >> Supplies: >> <<- One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. >> Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated >> nickel wire in our catalog. >> - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. >> - A 9 volt battery clip. >> - A 9 volt battery. >> - Some transparent sticky tape. >> - A glass of water. >> - A volt meter.>> > > It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No > matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate > power, it is merely to generate a voltage. > > I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire > and mesh might be: > > http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ > > > >> H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the >> bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the >> electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) >> >> 1/ The article features nice "explanations" of how it works, but how >> does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) >> phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb >> "uphill" from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can >> explain this miracle? ;-) >> >> 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) >> rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen >> absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and >> by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is >> not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating >> support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive >> electrode at the surface of the water or just below? >> >> Michel > > The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible > reactions, not recombination. > > Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume > between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration > gradients. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface > layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. > > I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not > consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. > > In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water > around the *anode* is preferentially filled with H3O+ ions, as the OH- ions > release their electrons and form O2 and H2O2, and the volume around the > *cathode* is filled with OH- ions as the H3O+ ions present at the cathode > surface are electrolyzed. This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute > electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in > acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the > (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. Connect the battery. To view > the creation and migration of OH- ions: add a little bit of boric acid to > the water, and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte > turns pink in the vicinity the *cathode* (- electrode) once the electrolyte > settles down. Boric acid was chosen because it is commonly available from > pharmacies. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions add a little > bit of lye to the water and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the > electrolyte is pink, but when the electrolyte settles down you can see the > volume around the *anode* (+ electrode) gradually turing clear. It can take > a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work > quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly > visible pace. I agree with the above paragraph now, but putting it right has broken your explanation for the generating phase two paragraphs below. > You can demonstrate the reversibility of the reactions by reversing the > battery. Note, however, that the diffusion occurs in a somewhat random > manner. It doesn't typically blossom out in a perfectly spherical or > cylindrical manner (depending on the electrode shape). Reversing the > reaction is thus not a perfect process either. I tried some of this decades > ago in a feeble attempt to make a display technology. I got a nice red > stream of ions coming from a copper anode in a basic solution. > > In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the po
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:48:14 -0900: Hi, [snip] >I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time >at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of >interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol, >and Allan. [snip] "According to the plans text, the cell is a 12.5 volt design that produces a copious 5 liters per minute using less than 15 amps and requiring no electrolyte. In previous testing, the temperature has not reached over 88 degrees. " ...I'm a bit curious as to how they manage 15 A @ 12.5 V DC through distilled water, and unless I have miscalculated, according to Faraday 15 A would only produce about 172 mL of gas / min at room temperature and 1 atm. Of course this could just be an indication that a process is involved that is creating extra gas. (E.g. consumption of the electrodes?; Hydrinos?; radiolysis following from alpha particles or fast electrons from CF?) According to my calculations 5 L / min of H2 O2 mixture would release 645 W when burnt, which is 645 / 15*12.5 = 3.4 rather than the factor of 10 that they claim. Of course this may also be an indication that the gas produced contains something other than H2 and O2. (E.g. Hydrinos which release even more energy during combustion in the generator). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The paper, to its credit, mentions the heat-helium correlation. The authors then attempt to toss cold water on it by raising, again, general theoretical objections, and appear to be unaware that this correlation exists across many reports by different research groups, and is statistically of high significance. I don't think that is true. Very few labs have the ability to even attempt to examine the correlation accurately, and the studies which have been done have error bars which I think are too large to establish the actual mechanism by which the fusion occurs. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Gad. It still isn't right! Corrections below. I have vertigo at the moment and can't think straight. I've actually done half of this experiment, though decades ago, and it is interesting how the concentration gradient wanders, it doesn't follow what you would expect for any kind of E field. On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/ fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: <<- One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter.>> It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate power, it is merely to generate a voltage. I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire and mesh might be: http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice "explanations" of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb "uphill" from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration gradients. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the *anode* is preferentially filled with H3O+ ions, as the OH- ions release their electrons and form O2 and H2O2, and the volume around the *cathode* is filled with OH- ions as the H3O+ ions present at the cathode surface are electrolyzed. This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. Connect the battery. To view the creation and migration of OH- ions: add a little bit of boric acid to the water, and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte turns pink in the vicinity the *cathode* (- electrode) once the electrolyte settles down. Boric acid was chosen because it is commonly available from pharmacies. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions add a little bit of lye to the water and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte is pink, but when the electrolyte settles down you can see the volume around the *anode* (+ electrode) gradually turing clear. It can take a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. You can demonstrate the reversibility of the reactions by reversing the battery. Note, however, that the diffusion occurs in a somewhat random manner. It doesn't typically blossom out in a perfectly spherical or cylindrical manner (depending on the electrode shape). Reversing the reaction is thus not a perfect process either. I tried some of this decades ago in a feeble attempt to make a display technology. I got a nice red stream of ions coming from a copper anode in a basic solution. In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the potential at the electrodes. It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more*
Re: [Vo]:Hints at direct solar to hydrogen technology
On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote: This is more Nocera "no-sera" nonsense ... He now admits: "It may not be anywhere near as efficient as some of the best hardware on the market" Nocera said, " it's off by about a factor of 10, in fact - but it's something that could be deployed even in countries without much in the way of a GDP." (due to low cost presumably?) I hate to break it to him, but cobalt is not that cheap ($40 a pound) ... and "off by a factor of 10" must means 2 % efficiency, since silicon is about 20% efficient, on average. BTW - it is true that Silicon "was" in short supply back in 2007, when Nocera made this over-hyped discovery, but recently it has dropped to about $18 pound ... and that seems to be a huge improvement over cobalt - so where's the beef? Somebody forgot to inform the professor that his entire cost rationale has disappeared. This guy Nocera, geeze ... he acts more like a publicity hound than scientist - and at any other place than MIT, wouldn't he be labeled as a scam artist ? I think you misunderstand. The inefficient thing at this point is the direct to hydrogen cell, which is under initial development. When developed it should be cheap and effective and appropriate for developing country use because it has the potential to create hydrogen using no electronics or ordinary photovoltaic cells at all. Cobalt is cheap compared to many photovoltaic cell (e.g. CIGS) ingredients, and its use is purely catalytic. High purity silicon semiconductor production is also non-essential, as is vacuum deposition, etc. Cobalt is not used up in the process and can be readily recycled. What is interesting about this article is it gives a hint at the direction in which the technology is being developed. Despite the hype, there are a lot of people involved, both at MIT and in private companies. It is preposterous to think a fraud could be covered up at this point. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/making-a-simple-hydrogen- production-system-even-simpler.ars http://tinyurl.com/yft53y6 " ... one potential route to simplifying things down: it might be possible to get rid of the photovoltaics entirely", " ... the cobalt phosphate catalyst can be made to form directly on the surface of a photovoltaic material, where it harvests the charge differences directly, rather than requiring that they be piped in as current from an external source." "The research was done with a rather unusual photovoltaic material: zinc oxide, better known as a component of some sunblocks." " ... the whole process of harvesting the charge separation, with its associated equipment and cost, could be done without-if the cobalt catalyst was placed in close enough proximity to the zinc oxide, it could directly harvest the charge differential from the surface to split water." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Michel, here I'll take another shot at getting things right. On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/ fuel_cell.html I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! Supplies: <<- One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated nickel wire in our catalog. - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. - A 9 volt battery clip. - A 9 volt battery. - Some transparent sticky tape. - A glass of water. - A volt meter.>> It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate power, it is merely to generate a voltage. I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire and mesh might be: http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) 1/ The article features nice "explanations" of how it works, but how does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb "uphill" from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can explain this miracle? ;-) 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive electrode at the surface of the water or just below? Michel The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible reactions, not recombination. Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration gradients. That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water around the *cathode* is filled with H3O+ ions, and the volume around the *anode* is filled with OH- ions. This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. Connect the battery. To view the creation and migration of OH- ions: add a little bit of boric acid to the water, and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte turns pink in the vicinity the *anode* once the electrolyte settles down. Boric acid was chosen because it is commonly available from pharmacies. To view the creation and migration of H3O+ ions add a little bit of lye to the water and stir. Repeat the process until you can see the electrolyte is pink, but when the electrolyte settles down you can see the volume around the anode (+ electrode) gradually turing clear. It can take a little fooling around with concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. You can demonstrate the reversibility of the reactions by reversing the battery. Note, however, that the diffusion occurs in a somewhat random manner. It doesn't typically blossom out in a perfectly spherical or cylindrical manner (depending on the electrode shape). Reversing the reaction is thus not a perfect process either. I tried some of this decades ago in a feeble attempt to make a display technology. I got a nice red stream of ions coming from a copper anode in a basic solution. In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the potential at the electrodes. It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to make H2O2 and *more* O2 at the site where O2 was generated prior. The meter is probably a 10 megohm meter, meaning registering the 2 V potential requires generating 0.2 microamps of current, and thus 0.4 microwatts of power. Not much of a fuel cell! It would be interesting to run the current for a while until a significant concen
RE: [Vo]:Hints at direct solar to hydrogen technology
This is more Nocera "no-sera" nonsense ... He now admits: "It may not be anywhere near as efficient as some of the best hardware on the market" Nocera said, " it's off by about a factor of 10, in fact - but it's something that could be deployed even in countries without much in the way of a GDP." (due to low cost presumably?) I hate to break it to him, but cobalt is not that cheap ($40 a pound) ... and "off by a factor of 10" must means 2 % efficiency, since silicon is about 20% efficient, on average. BTW - it is true that Silicon "was" in short supply back in 2007, when Nocera made this over-hyped discovery, but recently it has dropped to about $18 pound ... and that seems to be a huge improvement over cobalt - so where's the beef? Somebody forgot to inform the professor that his entire cost rationale has disappeared. This guy Nocera, geeze ... he acts more like a publicity hound than scientist - and at any other place than MIT, wouldn't he be labeled as a scam artist ? -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/making-a-simple-hydrogen- production-system-even-simpler.ars http://tinyurl.com/yft53y6 " ... one potential route to simplifying things down: it might be possible to get rid of the photovoltaics entirely", " ... the cobalt phosphate catalyst can be made to form directly on the surface of a photovoltaic material, where it harvests the charge differences directly, rather than requiring that they be piped in as current from an external source." "The research was done with a rather unusual photovoltaic material: zinc oxide, better known as a component of some sunblocks." " ... the whole process of harvesting the charge separation, with its associated equipment and cost, could be done without-if the cobalt catalyst was placed in close enough proximity to the zinc oxide, it could directly harvest the charge differential from the surface to split water." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Global Warming
>From Jeff Fink: > THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM > > There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the > scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have > been suppressing and altering data. ... Speaking of "agendas", read: "THE FAMILY, The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+family+the+secret+fundamentalism+at+the+heart+of+american+power&sprefix=The+famil http://tinyurl.com/ykhqfve The author, Jeff Sharlet, was interviewed on NPR last night. He had inside access to this "family". What he had to say was both chilling (No pun intended) and bizarre. Here's one tiny example: The inner-most core within this "family" believes Jesus's fundamental message was not about love and understanding. They believe Jesus was really into absolute Power, and he whom possesses it. This "family" also doesn't believe the masses can't stomach the truth of Jesus's true message, so they don't "preach" it and instead spoon feed the masses drivel about love and tolerance while they scheme away in back rooms while attempting to influence our top lawmakers. Apparently, they have had some success. For example, there are U.S. senators who apparently subscribe to this belief and who have been helped along in their careers by this "family." What a nice thought. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Hints at direct solar to hydrogen technology
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/making-a-simple-hydrogen- production-system-even-simpler.ars http://tinyurl.com/yft53y6 " ... one potential route to simplifying things down: it might be possible to get rid of the photovoltaics entirely", " ... the cobalt phosphate catalyst can be made to form directly on the surface of a photovoltaic material, where it harvests the charge differences directly, rather than requiring that they be piped in as current from an external source." "The research was done with a rather unusual photovoltaic material: zinc oxide, better known as a component of some sunblocks." " ... the whole process of harvesting the charge separation, with its associated equipment and cost, could be done without—if the cobalt catalyst was placed in close enough proximity to the zinc oxide, it could directly harvest the charge differential from the surface to split water." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Eagle-Research eNotice
I haven't looked at the referenced website yet, as I have little time at the moment. However, it seems this might be a future topic of interest on vortex-l, depending on how things go for Eaton, Sokol, and Allan. On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:09 AM, eagle-research.com eNotice wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WATER AS FUEL > FOR REAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have NOT tested this technology myself, but believe it is real enough that I ask for your assistance in making sure it is not suppressed. Action: Go to the url below. Download the preliminary plans. Action: Then keep an eye on the website to get the next stages of the plans as they become available. Downloading the information will, hopefully, protect this man's life … because he will no longer be the only holder of the information. It will also spread Freedom Technology to the public. The inventor (Dr. Steven Eaton, a Nuclear Physicist) has already refused a 'buyout' offer of millions of dollars and Jeff Sokol's and Sterling Allan's websites have already been attacked (as I write this notice the WaterAsFuel information has only been posted a few hours). http://pesn.com/2009/11/13/9501586_HybridTech-Energy_releases_water- fuel_generator_plans/ http://tinyurl.com/yey4hgn If the above links don't work, contact Sterling Allan for updated information. He's fighting to keep the information up on the internet for you. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Global Warming
Jeff Fink wrote: > There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the > scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have > been suppressing and altering data. > It shows that some of them have been doing this, to some extent, mainly in ways that are unimportant. In my experience many if not most scientists violate academic ethics. This is because there is no monitoring and no punishment for doing this. The violations of these researchers are trivial compared to the researchers who oppose cold fusion. For that matter, some of the cold fusion researchers are worse than these people. This is a tempest in a teapot, and it does not call into question the fundamental finding of the field, any more than the misbehavior of the plasma fusion scientists in opposition to cold fusion proves that Tokamak reactors do not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
At 09:33 AM 11/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: History of Science Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion** Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger* http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that it would be necessary to prove that cold fusion is truly impossible in order to convince the cold fusion researchers to give up. As you've shown, Jed, what *could* be done is to show that specific experimental results were probably artifact. There are aspects to the argument made which are valid; the problem is that these aspects either no longer apply or were misapplied in the first place, and then assumptions have existed that extrapolated possible criticisms of early work into general criticisms of all work. Let me start by making the arguments. I'll start with what is most true. Publication/reporting bias. If many people are looking for some phenomenon, and even if the phenomenon does not exist, if many experiments are performed, but only results tending to show a positive finding are reported, it can appear that there are many positive results and few or no negative results. Shotgun correlation. Many different phenomena are asserted to represent LENR. Specific and clear replications are relatively rare. So a series of disparate anomalies are asserted to prove a general class of phenomena without ever clearly showing and confirming *one* result. Cold fusion results are highly variable. This starts to get much less true. Some approaches are highly variable, some seem quite reproducible. The claim that better instrumentation always resulted in a reduction of the effect, quite simply, is false. That happened sometimes, sometimes not. When the "better instrumentation" was an independent replication failure, well, it was a replication failure, and replication failure, especially with the P-F approach, was the norm in the early days. It was quite a difficult experiment, and that was one of the big errors: presenting it as if it were easy, just plop some palladium rods in some heavy water, add something to make the heavy water conductive, and start the electrolysis. But science shouldn't be punished because of errors in a press conference, nor, in fact, for even more serious errors in reporting. That Fleishcmann incorrectly and clumsily reported neutrons, where he wasn't an expert, should have no impact on the credibility of his calorimetry, where, indeed, he was an expert. But the rejectors, by and large, were nuclear physicists, with no particular respect for Fleischmann's expertise. The paper, to its credit, mentions the heat-helium correlation. The authors then attempt to toss cold water on it by raising, again, general theoretical objections, and appear to be unaware that this correlation exists across many reports by different research groups, and is statistically of high significance. Extraordinary evidence, indeed. The weight they place on theoretical objection is way too high, in this case. Cold fusion did not actually violate heavily validated theory. The idea that low-energy nuclear reactions could not take place was never well-demonstrated by experiments that probed the edges, the unusual, and that's exactly what Fleischmann was doing, according to his later accounts. That the condensed matter environment could affect nuclear reactions was already known, in some unusual cases. The barrier between chemistry and physics wasn't absolute. What was also understood, in theory, was that quantum mechanics was an approximation, not accurate when applied to multibody problems, so the theoretical objection to cold fusion was weak. Fleischmann explained that he expected that he would find that differences between the predictions of quantum mechanics and reality (which would require, at least, the far more complex math of quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics, would be below measurability. He was wrong, and he was still working on the problem when patent issues forced premature revelation of his work. Various phenomena that may have been, in fact, cold fusion or low-energy nuclear reactions had long been reported, but always dismissed readily as impossible. To take the theory as requiring the rejection of reproducible experiment, though, is to fossilize science. So the issue boils down to reproducibility, generally. (Even without reproducibility, some rare phenomena can be and have been accepted. We can't reproduce earthquakes, to give Hoffmann's example to his pseudo-skeptical student.) To demand, as an example, commercial-level power production before considering LENR real, is to put the cart before the horse. What if it turns out that, at least with existing approaches, commercial power is impossible? No
Re: [Vo]:Global Warming
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Fink wrote: > THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM > > 11-24-09 > > > > There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. Actually, I believe they were hacked. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
> No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a > thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- > there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules > obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. Oh well. Let's put it the other way around: what remains to be proved is that the Universe is completely governed by the rules of physical systems. If the Universe is an organism, all our actual suppositions regarding its essential physical nature would be wrong, or incomplete. When I raise my hand, by example, you can express that movement precisely with the aid of the physical laws. But that does not mean my hand is only a physical system, because my hand is connected to my body through the limbs, and my whole organism would be unable to exist in isolation. Now you should be able to extrapolate that to a planetary body, by example. The fact that the actual science of Physics does not contemplate or embodies these possibilities, tell more about the actual status of the physical sciences, than about the underlying nature of the Universe. Particularly, the ideas regarding the ultimate physico-mechanical reality of the Universe were challenged, I would say definitely, by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematics(formal systems) are not complete and consistent at the same time, that is, that truth is not at the same level or category than that of comprobability or deductibility. In recent (and not so recent) times, our gradual comprehension that the physical laws are in the end no more than approximations of the real phenomena, and that they are in a very real sense unable to grasp the ultimate behaviour of physical systems, due to, by example, the problem of imponderable quantities, are confirming, more than denying, this line of thought. Mathematics and physics are fundamentally unable to grasp ultimate physical reality. Think about that. It's not only a practical limitation, related by example to the accuracy of the measurements. It is an essential one. And man, with all its complexity, including free will, is a product of the Universe, that is, he does not exist in isolation. So, the Universe is at least as complex and subtle as one of its creatures. And probably more. Best regards, Mauro > > Michel > > 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy : >>> 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy : >>> Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately be human free will >>> >>> Then there is no problem is there? >> >> Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the >> outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. >> trying >> to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected >> ones. That's why I have quoted the word. >> >> If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, >> or >> the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about >> them. >> >> Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension >> of >> eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? >> >> Best regards, >> Mauro >> >> > >
[Vo]:Global Warming
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM 11-24-09 There is interesting news as a result of leaked e-mails. It shows that the scientists who have been pushing the man made global warming agenda have been suppressing and altering data. Temperature data recorded over the last ten years has apparently indicated a global temperature drop rather than a temperature rise. These measurements refute the hypothesis that man's activities are causing an increase in global temperatures. This scam, perpetrated by prominent powerful people, must be dealt with. When considering the scope of the economic devastation these irresponsible people were about to cause to all of us, they should be charged with criminal conspiracy of the highest order. An essay I wrote awhile back. THE OTHER SIDE OF GLOBAL WARMING The headline in my newspaper of Saturday Feb. 3, 2007 said, "GLOBAL WARMING- If nothing is done to combat greenhouse gases, extreme weather could kill 1 million people by 2100. I am greatly concerned about the "global warming hysteria" that is being foisted upon the public. I recall a news caster six weeks before saying that Europe had just experienced the warmest autumn in 500 years. Do you realize what that means? It means that 500 years ago it was warmer, and that human activity had nothing to do with it! It is well known to some historians and scientists studying climate that the period from 900 to 1100 AD was also warmer than today by about three degrees, and human activity had nothing to do with that either! I have also read that Mars is getting hotter. I can't wait to be told what part of my lifestyle is causing the Martian heat wave! There are mammoths frozen in the Siberian tundra with flesh still intact, and tropical vegetation in their mouths. When discovered in the 1800's, the meat was still edible! The stuff in my freezer isn't fit to eat after five years. So, how old can these animals be? Clearly, Siberia was a tropical climate in the recent past. That warm period likewise cannot possibly be the fault of the human race. Hundreds of scientists worldwide know these things I'm saying here to be true, but they are being threatened to shut up about it. There are many scientists who disagree with the hypothesis that we are causing global warming, but they are becoming less vocal as they consider the loss of funding and loss of career if they continue to say what they really believe. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel recently said that any weather person who did not believe in "global warming" should be fired! The coercion continues! In the late 70's the media was scaring us with predictions from reputable researchers about a coming ice age. These scientists were not idiots. Why has this concern reversed itself in the past 20 yrs? Perhaps global warming is more conducive to a power grab than an Ice Age would be. Is there some kind of agenda here? There sure is! With our public school children forced to watch Al Gore's stupid movie over and over again, and his recent rant before Congress, he has herded the US leadership and general population into a vulnerable position. He can now, with his established business enterprises, extract billions of dollars from gullible people by selling them bogus carbon credits! We are being told that we must reduce our production of greenhouse gases, including CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Every creature exhales it. All plants and trees love CO2. They must have it to survive. They are starving for it! They would grow much faster if CO2 levels were two or three times higher. Nursery people know this and they inject CO2 into their green houses to dramatically increase growth rates. CO2 is the natural byproduct of combustion. It is a direct measure of a civilization's prosperity; the more controlled per capita production of CO2, the higher the standard of living. For us to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by conservation, we must dramatically reduce our lifestyle, quality of life. If we all did this, the resulting downward spiral of the world economy could ultimately cause more death and destruction than "global warming". Through the ages the sun heats up, the sun cools down, and there is nothing we can do about it. If the sun burps, we burn; if the sun sneezes, we freeze. We have recently experienced a natural warming trend that peaked in 1998. It is arrogance to think we caused it. If we are too puny to cause it, then we are definitely too puny to fix it. We shouldn't live in fear. As long as God has His hand on the sun's thermostat, we will be alright. But, we live in an age where much of the world's leadership believes that we ourselves are all the god we have, and all the god we need. We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization. When humans endeavor to solve god sized problems by our own inadequate efforts, we can only expect to create for ourselves a hell on earth. As the global wa
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. Michel 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy : >> 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy : >> >>> Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately be >>> human free will >> >> Then there is no problem is there? > > Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the > outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. trying > to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected > ones. That's why I have quoted the word. > > If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, or > the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about them. > > Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension of > eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? > > Best regards, > Mauro > >
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
> 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy : > >> Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately be >> human free will > > Then there is no problem is there? Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. trying to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected ones. That's why I have quoted the word. If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, or the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about them. Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension of eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?
2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy : > Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately be > human free will Then there is no problem is there? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
[This is very sloppy thinking. Here is a message I sent to Labinger.] Subject: Cold fusion is not a negative claim Greetings. I discovered your paper: "Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative? -- The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion." I have often heard your central argument. I find it intensely annoying. The way to disprove cold fusion is clear cut. Melich and I described it in an unpublished paper. This is a response to the DoE 2004 anonymous reviewer #15 who wrote: Claim 15.2. "As one of the reviewers stated, one can never disprove something and this is my feeling about 'cold fusion'." The notion that one "cannot disprove something" is preposterous, and negates the scientific method at many levels. Cold fusion can be conclusively disproved by the following methods: Show that several different calorimeter types used millions of times over the last 180 years do not work, and routinely give the wrong answer for the range of heat they are designed to measure. Prove that the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative. Prove that x-ray film, tritium detectors, mass spectrometers and the other instruments that have repeatedly been used to confirm cold fusion at high signal to noise ratios do not work correctly. Either prove these instruments and techniques do not work, or show why thousands of skilled experts have mysteriously failed to use them correctly over the last 20 years. The anonymous reviewers' comments are here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf In short, this is an experimental claim, and the methods of disproving experimental claims are well established. They do not include appeals to theory, or inventing new rules of science out of whole cloth, such as the notion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (C. Sagan, "Cosmos" television program). Skeptics have published 5 or 10 papers attempting to find errors in the instruments or techniques, but in my opinion these papers have no merit. You listed one of these papers: [38] D. R. O. Morrison, Phys. Lett. A 1994, 185, 118 129. If you find any others, please let me know. I suggest you review Fleischmann's responses to Morrison. You should have listed it in your paper. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Labinger paper
Nothing to write home about: History of Science Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion** Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger* http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery
Hi Horace, Your alternative explanation for the device doesn't work, see my comments in your text below. 2009/11/23 Horace Heffner : > > On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> See: http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html >> >> I had no idea an ultraclean rechargeable battery could be done so simply! >> >> Supplies: >> <<- One foot of platinum coated nickel wire, or pure platinum wire. >> Since this is not a common household item, we carry platinum coated >> nickel wire in our catalog. >> - A popsickle stick or similar small piece of wood or plastic. >> - A 9 volt battery clip. >> - A 9 volt battery. >> - Some transparent sticky tape. >> - A glass of water. >> - A volt meter.>> > > It seems to me a small amount of lye would help the reaction along. No > matter, the intent is apparently not to create a working cell, i.e. generate > power, it is merely to generate a voltage. > > I see they sell the wire for $14.41 plus shipping. A bulk source for wire > and mesh might be: > > http://www.gerarddaniel.com/ > > > >> H2 and O2 are produced by short electrolysis runs, after which the >> bubbles clinging to the electrodes are catalytically recombined by the >> electrode surface material (platinum) to generate electricity :) >> >> 1/ The article features nice "explanations" of how it works, but how >> does it _really_ work? In particular, in the generating (fuel cell) >> phase, they don't say what makes the positive hydrogen ions climb >> "uphill" from the negative electrode to the positive one, anyone can >> explain this miracle? ;-) >> >> 2/ It seems to me a much higher capacity (and perhaps even practical) >> rechargeable battery could be made by using a hydrogen >> absorbing/desorbing material e.g. Pd for the negative electrode, and >> by making gaseous oxygen available at the anode. Storing the latter is >> not required of course, O2 from the air is fine... maybe a floating >> support which would keep a grid or flat serpentine shaped positive >> electrode at the surface of the water or just below? >> >> Michel > > The explanation looks bogus to me. I think the cell works by reversible > reactions, not recombination. > Bockris states that conduction in an electrochemical cell in the volume > between the interface layers is almost entirely due to concentration > gradients. Gradients of charged particle concentration translate as E field. > That is because almost all the potential drop is in the interface > layers themselves. The E field in the bulk of the cell is very small. True, but it is non-null and has a direction, which would have to be (and indeed, is, I believe) the "wrong direction" IF indeed protons are travelling in the bulk from the (-) to the (+) electrode in the generating phase, agreed? > I expect the cell actually operates by creating even *more* bubbles, not > consuming the gas already there in the form of bubbles. > > In the course of the brief electrolysis by battery, the volume of water > around the anode (+) is filled with H3O+ ions, and the volume around the > cathode (-) > is filled with OH- ions. **Correct** (polarities added by me, to clarify things since polarities don't switch when switching from electrolysis to generating mode, contrary to anode/cathode names) > This can actually be viewed by use of a dilute > electrolyte, plus a pH indicator like phenolphthalein, which is colorless in > acidic electrolytes, and pink in basic solutions. To do this first add the > (liquid) phenolphthalein to distilled water. To view the creation and > migration of OH- ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of > hydrochloric acid to the water, and stir until it just turns pink. Adding acid can't make it turn pink (pink=basic), I guess you meant lye > When the > battery is connected the volume around the cathode (- electrode) will turn > clear. If it turns clear (=acidic), then it must be the water around the (+) electrode, where H3O+ ions are appearing. You see it's all the wrong way round, including the paragraph below, and if you put it back the right way round (as it was where I commented "**Correct**" above) you'll see that your explanation below for the scitoy device doesn't hold. > To view the creation and migration of H3O+ > ions: before connecting the battery add a little bit of lye to the water, > and stir. When the battery is connected the volume around the anode (+ > electrode) will turn pink. It can take a little fooling around with > concentrations to get the effect to work quickly and dramatically. The > diffusion occurs slowly but at a clearly visible pace. ... > In any case I doubt it is actually recombination that causes the potential > at the electrodes. It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in > solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected. > The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing > hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was gener
