RE: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
/snip/ If you had a smart person like me as leader of the country back in 1989, we'd already have LENR as our main energy source if it is real... Well, both private businesses and the government have wasted trillions on a lot of stupider things... /endsnips/ Thanks for the laugh. Now, please move this crap to vortexb-l. Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all! From: oldja...@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:48:53 -0600 CC: scott...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The problem with all of that is the ones who work the least are the ones with the most money. Do you think Buffet really worked a million times harder than the average person? Socialism does not mean equality, but I really don't think Buffet deserves to make a million times more just because he can shuffle stocks around. Socialism just means government ownership of business which is a lot of times more efficient than private ownership. Engineers and scientists should get paid more while lawyers and doctors should get paid less because they are more important for society. Here's a question for this professor. If the majority of people are stupid enough to vote for Obama, do you think they could manage their own finances or run their own businesses? If you had a smart person like me as leader of the country back in 1989, we'd already have LENR as our main energy source if it is real. There are not many private businesses willing to touch cold fusion, but the government can invest in it if they were smart. And if LENR is not real(which I don't think is the case)? Well, both private businesses and the government have wasted trillions on a lot of stupider things. I am not in favor of welfare, but government ownership of business and investments is much more efficient than private ownership. The problem is not government itself. It's the CURRENT government made up of incompetent people, picked by incompetent people. On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Wm. Scott Smith wrote: SOME IDEAS ARE SO STUPID ONLY INTELLECTUALS BELIEVE THEM. George Orwell When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen! image001.jpg An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.
Re: [Vo]:Dick Says Yes To $1M Counter Offer By Defkalion
The point in the agreement which requires the compensation to go to an individual, and not to a corporation, would cause me to back out if I was the CEO of Defkalion. Defkalion is doing this for the money, not to enrich some individual's personal pocket. Craig Manchester, NH On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: It's High Noon in LENR land as Dick accepts Defkalion's offer of the same testing Rossi turned down. http://ecatnews.com/?p=2054
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
This is a political topic which, as Robert pointed out, should be moved to vortexb-l. However I would like to make some apolitical comments which I hope will not be considered controversial. I am a big fan of capitalism. I think I made that clear in my book. It is not perfect, but no system is. It must be regulated. Some things, such as building roads and health care are best handled were paid for by the government because of the nature of the technology. it just happens that was early 21th first century healthcare costs are very high for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the technology of healthcare is changing rapidly. The pace of change will slow down in the future and medical equipment cost will fall. Anyway, people cannot afford to pay for catastrophic healthcare themselves. This was not true 100 years ago and it may not be true 100 years in the future. Perhaps I am the proverbial man with a hammer who sees all problems as a nail, but from my point of view technology is both the source of many of our problems and the cure. Many problems which politicians and opinion makers assume must be solved with social policy or tax policy should actually be solved by inventing new technology, or by forcibly abandoning old technologies such as coal-burning generators. Obviously cold fusion is most dramatic example of a solution that will obviate the need for sacrifice, difficult choices, wars for oil and so on. People are seldom aware of how important technology is or how much we have benefited from it. They take things for granted. When personal computers first appeared they seemed miraculous to most people. The ability to type a document without retyping seemed wonderful to people who were used to typewriters or pen and paper. nowadays we take them for granted and we complain about their shortcomings more than we appreciate their benefits Even though I appreciate what capitalists have done, I believe engineers and scientists have contributed more. Steve Jobs was a great businessman, but we can thank Woz for the Apple. Woz and the people at Xerox Parc. If cold fusion succeeds, I predict that in the long view of history, Fleischmann and Pons will have contributed more to our happiness and to the survival of the human race and the ecosystem than all 20th century capitalists combined. Fleischmann, Pons, Mizuno and most other cold fusion researchers are not motivated by capitalism. They are driven mainly by curiosity, an instinct far more ancient and fundamental than acquisitiveness. Curiosity is exhibited by animals as small and simple as the guppy, a creature which certainly cannot conceive of ownership and probably has no sentience or sense of self. (A cricket cannot distinguish other individual crickets from one another, or even from a plastic cricket held by a biologist.) - Jed
[Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
Jed should like this 1912 book below. http://www.archive.org/details/wonderbookofknow00hillrich In 1912 technology offered hope to solve all problems. The two world wars had not drained society. The British has the greatest sense of being the leaders of the world. The emergence of cold fusion and antigravity could restore this hope. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
Antigravity? 2012/2/17 fznidar...@aol.com Jed should like this 1912 book below. http://www.archive.org/details/wonderbookofknow00hillrich In 1912 technology offered hope to solve all problems. The two world wars had not drained society. The British has the greatest sense of being the leaders of the world. The emergence of cold fusion and antigravity could restore this hope. Frank Znidarsic -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:1 MW customer
The question was eventually asked, and skirted on Rossi's journal-of-nuclear-physics.com: Q: Bill Conley February 16th, 2012 at 10:27 AM Mr. Rossi, Several months ago you said that although your first 1MW plant client wished to remain confidential, a second client was willing to be publicly identified and we would hear about them soon. Several months have passed and we have heard no more about this second client. Can you give us an update. We would love to be able to hear the experience of a real E-Cat user, something that we can only dream about at this point. Thanks and best wishes on your very important work. A: Andrea Rossi February 17th, 2012 at 9:27 AM Dear Bill Conley: With the puppet snakes, the greek clowns and other vultures around I have to protect our Customers from any kind of internet assault, so I have to be very closed in this period. Our Customers are working in peace, we too, our patents are going through, and when we will put our product in the massive market, well protected by our patents and by very cheap prices, your dreams to see an E-Cat working in your house will be reality. In this moment I would just give free information to the hordes of wannabe competitors. Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580#comments Just to be clear, there is no problem proposing the initial question on vortex. Sometimes, everyone forgets the minutiae, and deadlines pass unchallenged. I'd honestly forgotten about Rossi's claim to a public customer until it resurfaced recently. /pulling out soapbox/ It is asking the same question repeatedly, demanding an answer, that quickly devolves into general sneering. Though it may not be obvious at first glance, there is a wide spectrum from belief-to-skepticism here. Especially with Rossi. Everyone weighs out the evidence on their own, and comes to their own conclusion. More recently, some expect to save everyone from mass delusion, but fail the simple task of querying the vortex archive to see if the issue has been previously addressed.
Re: [Vo]:1 MW customer
There is a fun website that generates random Berlusconi (the former Italian prime minister obsessed with power, money and women) talk. He has a very characteristic talk with typical sentences about how he is the best in every field and who is attacking him has to be a communist, gay or Muslim. I'm thinking to make a similar webpage for Rossi talk. It will randomly generate paragraphs filled with snakes, puppets, clowns working together to curtail efforts in any area of relevance in mankind progress. I think it could be very enlightening and a lot of fun. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The question was eventually asked, and skirted on Rossi's journal-of-nuclear-physics.com: Q: Bill Conley February 16th, 2012 at 10:27 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580cpage=3#comment-185724 Mr. Rossi, Several months ago you said that although your first 1MW plant client wished to remain confidential, a second client was willing to be publicly identified and we would hear about them soon. Several months have passed and we have heard no more about this second client. Can you give us an update. We would love to be able to hear the experience of a real E-Cat user, something that we can only dream about at this point. Thanks and best wishes on your very important work. A: Andrea Rossi February 17th, 2012 at 9:27 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580cpage=3#comment-186127 Dear Bill Conley: With the puppet snakes, the greek clowns and other vultures around I have to protect our Customers from any kind of internet assault, so I have to be very closed in this period. Our Customers are working in peace, we too, our patents are going through, and when we will put our product in the massive market, well protected by our patents and by very cheap prices, your dreams to see an E-Cat working in your house will be reality. In this moment I would just give free information to the hordes of wannabe competitors. Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580#comments Just to be clear, there is no problem proposing the initial question on vortex. Sometimes, everyone forgets the minutiae, and deadlines pass unchallenged. I'd honestly forgotten about Rossi's claim to a public customer until it resurfaced recently. /pulling out soapbox/ It is asking the same question repeatedly, demanding an answer, that quickly devolves into general sneering. Though it may not be obvious at first glance, there is a wide spectrum from belief-to-skepticism here. Especially with Rossi. Everyone weighs out the evidence on their own, and comes to their own conclusion. More recently, some expect to save everyone from mass delusion, but fail the simple task of querying the vortex archive to see if the issue has been previously addressed.
Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
You need to read my works. http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/320/Frank,%20Znidarsic Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 17, 2012 10:42 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope Antigravity? 2012/2/17 fznidar...@aol.com Jed should like this 1912 book below. http://www.archive.org/details/wonderbookofknow00hillrich In 1912 technology offered hope to solve all problems. The two world wars had not drained society. The British has the greatest sense of being the leaders of the world. The emergence of cold fusion and antigravity could restore this hope. Frank Znidarsic -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
If based on zero point energy even indirectly like the HUP induced chaotic motion of gas then one would presume this anomaly is bidirectional. This means we could reverse engineer a drive that forces gas through this same anomalous Ni geometry and it would interact with virtual particles to displace the device without any reaction mass. Even more speculative would be the required state of the hydrogen.. would it need to be in a plasma state and or a Rydberg state to establish such a linkage? The concept relies heavily on LET even while many scientists still oppose the idea of an ether. For myself I am convinced it exists and passes through our plane in the form of virtual particles traveling at a rate we will always perceive locally as C which is why a stationary observer will only perceive a Pythagorean fraction of a spaceships velocity as it approaches C. Fran From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope Antigravity? 2012/2/17 fznidar...@aol.commailto:fznidar...@aol.com Jed should like this 1912 book below. http://www.archive.org/details/wonderbookofknow00hillrich In 1912 technology offered hope to solve all problems. The two world wars had not drained society. The British has the greatest sense of being the leaders of the world. The emergence of cold fusion and antigravity could restore this hope. Frank Znidarsic -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Supply and demand in market economy
It is theoretically very important to differentiate supply and demand. Almost without exception theoretical discussion on economics revolves around the supply side. People pay always attention that there are enough capital to make new investments. I think that this is wrong, but we should look more about the demand side of the economic coin. I would say that it is far more important and especially it is now, because supply side is expanding ever increasing pace, but consumers has not enough purchasing power to meet the supply. Of course this has problem that prices are dropping, but I think that the drop in price only drives weakest manufacturers out of the market and those are winning, who can produce with cheapest costs. And today it always means misusing cheap labour force in developing countries. Therefore I would say that it far more important to boost demand side as much as possible. This gives the actors in the market better opportunities for honest choice, where also quality and ethical foot print are also evaluated. Not always the cheapest price is the best option for economic growth developing new innovations. Also when demand side is optimised, there is more room for different competitors to push into market, because there are also more niches for different producers. When cheapest price is the strongest denominator, there is little room for competition, because the economy of scale will triumph the market. And more importantly, if demand side is high, supply side will always meet the demand, because production and selling products is more profitable. Therefore finding capital is not the problem. And last, but certainly not the least argument is, that if there are too much wealth used for investments, it goes without saying, that there are huge amounts of misinvestments occurring. But if markets are controlled by demand side, then probability for misinvestments is greatly reduced.That is mostly because new entrepreneurs are starting with low capital, but they can quickly accumulate capital by selling products into market that are rich in demand. This gives successful enterprises huge potential for accumulating capital and thus, they do not even need investors for supplying initial capital to the company. This free market economy side is often neglected although it is a polar opposite to more commonly discussed capitalistic side of the economy. We have very simple means to optimise the demand in the market. And up to 1970's United States had world's highest relative demand in the market. But these days are now gone and demand side of the economy is ever decreasing and Europe is rapidly catching America's, because here we have higher emphasis for demand side. Although I think that this is a problem also here in Europe, because demand is relatively shrinking, but not as rapidly. –Jouni For reference, here is the well known and very scary graph how demand side has fallen in the expense of supply side in USA: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28230378/family_income_median_income_growth_productivity1.png On 17 Feb 2012, at 17:07, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a political topic which, as Robert pointed out, should be moved to vortexb-l. However I would like to make some apolitical comments which I hope will not be considered controversial. I am a big fan of capitalism. I think I made that clear in my book. It is not perfect, but no system is. It must be regulated. Some things, such as building roads and health care are best handled were paid for by the government because of the nature of the technology. it just happens that was early 21th first century healthcare costs are very high for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the technology of healthcare is changing rapidly. The pace of change will slow down in the future and medical equipment cost will fall. Anyway, people cannot afford to pay for catastrophic healthcare themselves. This was not true 100 years ago and it may not be true 100 years in the future. Perhaps I am the proverbial man with a hammer who sees all problems as a nail, but from my point of view technology is both the source of many of our problems and the cure. Many problems which politicians and opinion makers assume must be solved with social policy or tax policy should actually be solved by inventing new technology, or by forcibly abandoning old technologies such as coal-burning generators. Obviously cold fusion is most dramatic example of a solution that will obviate the need for sacrifice, difficult choices, wars for oil and so on. People are seldom aware of how important technology is or how much we have benefited from it. They take things for granted. When personal computers first appeared they seemed miraculous to most people. The ability to type a document without retyping seemed wonderful to people who were used to typewriters or pen and paper.
RE: [Vo]:Supply and demand in market economy
Automation is eliminating jobs everywhere and requires that we develop dramatically new approaches to distributing income. Here is one that restores the missing demand. The late Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) used by 11,000 firms in the USA, recognized the problem early on. He outlined what he called: The Second Income Plan, as a potential solution. See Second Incomes for All, on the Aesop Institute website. That proposed Capital Homestead Act would provide substantial investment income for almost everyone, without depending on savings. The book Binary Economics, by Robert Ashford and Rodney Shakespeare, provides the underpinning for an abundant economy. It grew out of the Kelso work. This new economic paradigm is every bit as important as cheap green energy. It inherently deconcentrates wealth in a manner that may prove acceptable to almost everyone. Kelso's goal was to make it possible to derive half of your income from investments at as early an age as possible. That would open a door to the most genuinely free society in human history. It can be adapted to all industrial nations. Mark Mark Goldes Co-founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute 301A North Main Street Sebastopol, CA 95472 www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: Jouni Valkonen [jounivalko...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Supply and demand in market economy It is theoretically very important to differentiate supply and demand. Almost without exception theoretical discussion on economics revolves around the supply side. People pay always attention that there are enough capital to make new investments. I think that this is wrong, but we should look more about the demand side of the economic coin. I would say that it is far more important and especially it is now, because supply side is expanding ever increasing pace, but consumers has not enough purchasing power to meet the supply. Of course this has problem that prices are dropping, but I think that the drop in price only drives weakest manufacturers out of the market and those are winning, who can produce with cheapest costs. And today it always means misusing cheap labour force in developing countries. Therefore I would say that it far more important to boost demand side as much as possible. This gives the actors in the market better opportunities for honest choice, where also quality and ethical foot print are also evaluated. Not always the cheapest price is the best option for economic growth developing new innovations. Also when demand side is optimised, there is more room for different competitors to push into market, because there are also more niches for different producers. When cheapest price is the strongest denominator, there is little room for competition, because the economy of scale will triumph the market. And more importantly, if demand side is high, supply side will always meet the demand, because production and selling products is more profitable. Therefore finding capital is not the problem. And last, but certainly not the least argument is, that if there are too much wealth used for investments, it goes without saying, that there are huge amounts of misinvestments occurring. But if markets are controlled by demand side, then probability for misinvestments is greatly reduced.That is mostly because new entrepreneurs are starting with low capital, but they can quickly accumulate capital by selling products into market that are rich in demand. This gives successful enterprises huge potential for accumulating capital and thus, they do not even need investors for supplying initial capital to the company. This free market economy side is often neglected although it is a polar opposite to more commonly discussed capitalistic side of the economy. We have very simple means to optimise the demand in the market. And up to 1970's United States had world's highest relative demand in the market. But these days are now gone and demand side of the economy is ever decreasing and Europe is rapidly catching America's, because here we have higher emphasis for demand side. Although I think that this is a problem also here in Europe, because demand is relatively shrinking, but not as rapidly. –Jouni For reference, here is the well known and very scary graph how demand side has fallen in the expense of supply side in USA: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28230378/family_income_median_income_growth_productivity1.png On 17 Feb 2012, at 17:07, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is a political topic which, as Robert pointed out, should be moved to vortexb-l. However I would like to make some apolitical comments which I hope will not be considered controversial. I am a big fan of capitalism. I think I made that clear in my book. It is not
Re: [Vo]:1 MW customer
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: I think it could be very enlightening and a lot of fun. You will have to supplement your dictionary with rossifarian words like 'clownerie'. T
Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Jed should like this 1912 book below. It is from 1921. A world away from 1912. The first article on the first page refers to the great European war and how it improved airplanes and submarines. I have heard that the post-WWI edition of Encyclopedia Britannica was profoundly influenced by the war. It was a cri de coeur wondering how it could have happened. We still wonder. A new WWI museum is just opening, which I have read is mainly a question mark. The last veteran of the war died the other day. The old certainties began to crumble, and the new world was first glimpsed, on the night of April 12, 1912 just a century ago, when the Titanic sank. We can never return to the spirit of 1900. We will never again have that kind self-assurance. Or hubris. But things will probably be okay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Keel, Nickel power, and Sunspots
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Anyway - let's hope it does not keel-over on us later this year... but... yes, to answer a lingering question - methinks the Maya would surely have been aware of Eta Carinae and its regular cycle. On occasion, it can be the brightest star in the heavens. And, coincidentally, is in the news again: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120216-great-eruption-eta-carinae-echoes-supernova-space-science http://goo.gl/biR31 T
[Vo]:Elemental Ovens
Where do the elements heavier than iron originate? http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-rare-earth-element-tellurium-ancient.html T
Re: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens
Honestly, when I first heard that the theory for the origin of heavy elements in this universe was super nova's, my reaction was, that's got to be at best a SWAG (silly wild ass guess). I can't imagine we have enough evidence to confirm such a theory. Just a lawyer's gut reaction. Ransom - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM Subject: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens Where do the elements heavier than iron originate? http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-rare-earth-element-tellurium-ancient.html T
Re: [Vo]:1 MW customer
Thank you. I've been following this for quite a while and have not seen anything mentioned about it. If I wouldn't have asked multiple times, it would have probably been ignored and never answered. You said you forgot about it. A good sign of a scam is distracting and delaying which is what Rossi's response looks like. I'm not saying it is a scam. Like I said, the only thing helping Rossi right now is Defkalion. I'll wait for their tests and form my opinion then. On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote: The question was eventually asked, and skirted on Rossi's journal-of-nuclear-physics.com: Q: Bill Conley February 16th, 2012 at 10:27 AM Mr. Rossi, Several months ago you said that although your first 1MW plant client wished to remain confidential, a second client was willing to be publicly identified and we would hear about them soon. Several months have passed and we have heard no more about this second client. Can you give us an update. We would love to be able to hear the experience of a real E-Cat user, something that we can only dream about at this point. Thanks and best wishes on your very important work. A: Andrea Rossi February 17th, 2012 at 9:27 AM Dear Bill Conley: With the puppet snakes, the greek clowns and other vultures around I have to protect our Customers from any kind of internet assault, so I have to be very closed in this period. Our Customers are working in peace, we too, our patents are going through, and when we will put our product in the massive market, well protected by our patents and by very cheap prices, your dreams to see an E-Cat working in your house will be reality. In this moment I would just give free information to the hordes of wannabe competitors. Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580#comments Just to be clear, there is no problem proposing the initial question on vortex. Sometimes, everyone forgets the minutiae, and deadlines pass unchallenged. I'd honestly forgotten about Rossi's claim to a public customer until it resurfaced recently. /pulling out soapbox/ It is asking the same question repeatedly, demanding an answer, that quickly devolves into general sneering. Though it may not be obvious at first glance, there is a wide spectrum from belief-to-skepticism here. Especially with Rossi. Everyone weighs out the evidence on their own, and comes to their own conclusion. More recently, some expect to save everyone from mass delusion, but fail the simple task of querying the vortex archive to see if the issue has been previously addressed.
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
I agree with you that science and technology is the most important for growth in society. The only way to improve the economy is to improve science and technology. Average people and average business owners don't see the benefits of improvements in technology. Average people can only think about the way it has always been done. This is why a government with good leaders can significantly increase funding in science and technology. This means a government with good leaders is much more efficient than what we are currently doing. On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is a political topic which, as Robert pointed out, should be moved to vortexb-l. However I would like to make some apolitical comments which I hope will not be considered controversial. I am a big fan of capitalism. I think I made that clear in my book. It is not perfect, but no system is. It must be regulated. Some things, such as building roads and health care are best handled were paid for by the government because of the nature of the technology. it just happens that was early 21th first century healthcare costs are very high for various reasons. One of these reasons is that the technology of healthcare is changing rapidly. The pace of change will slow down in the future and medical equipment cost will fall. Anyway, people cannot afford to pay for catastrophic healthcare themselves. This was not true 100 years ago and it may not be true 100 years in the future. Perhaps I am the proverbial man with a hammer who sees all problems as a nail, but from my point of view technology is both the source of many of our problems and the cure. Many problems which politicians and opinion makers assume must be solved with social policy or tax policy should actually be solved by inventing new technology, or by forcibly abandoning old technologies such as coal-burning generators. Obviously cold fusion is most dramatic example of a solution that will obviate the need for sacrifice, difficult choices, wars for oil and so on. People are seldom aware of how important technology is or how much we have benefited from it. They take things for granted. When personal computers first appeared they seemed miraculous to most people. The ability to type a document without retyping seemed wonderful to people who were used to typewriters or pen and paper. nowadays we take them for granted and we complain about their shortcomings more than we appreciate their benefits Even though I appreciate what capitalists have done, I believe engineers and scientists have contributed more. Steve Jobs was a great businessman, but we can thank Woz for the Apple. Woz and the people at Xerox Parc. If cold fusion succeeds, I predict that in the long view of history, Fleischmann and Pons will have contributed more to our happiness and to the survival of the human race and the ecosystem than all 20th century capitalists combined. Fleischmann, Pons, Mizuno and most other cold fusion researchers are not motivated by capitalism. They are driven mainly by curiosity, an instinct far more ancient and fundamental than acquisitiveness. Curiosity is exhibited by animals as small and simple as the guppy, a creature which certainly cannot conceive of ownership and probably has no sentience or sense of self. (A cricket cannot distinguish other individual crickets from one another, or even from a plastic cricket held by a biologist.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
Von: Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:07 Freitag, 17.Februar 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all! I agree with you that science and technology is the most important for growth in society. The only way to improve the economy is to improve science and technology. Average people... Ahem. The only way to improve society is to improve societal skills and readjust goals, eg what 'growth' exactly is/should be. Science and technology are only tools. 'Average people' must be able to unterstand what is going on, else you get a multi-tiered society, ranging from the know-nothings to the know-alls, with the fraudsters in the middle. The 'economy' in the conventional sense is a normative setup, and not some Platonic idea. Scientists and engineers too often ignore that, because they are not interested, or by their mental structure are incapable to see the big picture, which is somehow tragic. The technocracy movement (see eg wikipedia) in the 1930s had some take on that, but seems long forgotten. Amen.
Re: [Vo]:1912 was a time of hope
There is nice book about this era: Lord, W., The Good Years: From 1900 to the First World War, (Harper Bros., 1960) I quoted from it in one of the papers at LENR-CANR.org: The spirit of an era can’t be blocked out and measured, but it is there nonetheless. And in these brief, buoyant years it was a spark that somehow gave extra promise to life. By the light of this spark, men and women saw themselves as heroes shaping the world, rather than victims struggling through it. Actually, this was nothing unique. People had seen the spark before, would surely do so again. For it can never die as long as men breathe. But sometimes it burns low, leaving men uncertain in the shadows; other times it glows bright, catching the eye with breath-taking visions of the future. We will never return to the innocence of that era, now that we have been through WWII and we have nuclear weapons. We will never unlearn how to make them. Despite Obama's best hopes, I doubt we will ever be fully free of the damn things. Even if the last one is disassembled, the knowledge of how to make them will be with us always, casting a shadow on events. I was reading essays by Oppenheimer the other day: http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Void-Science-Community-Princeton/dp/0691024340 This was written in the 1950s. He said some striking things that we now take for granted, but which must have seemed unearthly back in then. Such as the fact that the human race now has the ability to destroy all of civilization in a few hours. We have to decide how the world will be run and what the physical shape of the landscape will be, to an unprecedented extent. As they say in the comic book, with great power comes great responsibility and 35% taxes forevermore. High technology and high infrastructure costs are never going away. - Jed
[Vo]:More from S. Africa
Are we back online? Here is an curious anecdote from PESN that leads up to the recent South African reputed OU (Bedini-like) device: http://pesn.com/2009/11/12/Child_rides_on_free_energy_Boyce_watkykjy1/ A colleague had raised the issue of how the inventor could have been merely extending the range of a battery, if over a year he never recharged it from the grid but instead on 35 occasions he hooked it up to a Boyce hex-controller, which operates as a self-charger. This must be OU, correct? If not, what technique can provide more than 35 times as much energy as the rating on the battery? Having given this some thought (and you must watch all his videos to grasp all of this) - I think it is remotely possible to do this feat without invoking overunity - but only if the battery has actual chemical energy which is significantly more than its stated level when fully charged, and only if a novel way exists to optimize redox reactions of these reactants. In fact, such a novel way does exist, but can it be extended to this situation? This is a bit of a stretch but bear with me. It does involve one 'leap of faith' but no miracles, which is easier to swallow than massive overunity from LENR ! (at least 60% easier to swallow for the skeptics !) Lets imagine that an el-cheapo $13 SLA battery like this one powers the child's car: http://www.amazon.com/FB12-7-Batteries-com-Sealed-Battery-Electronics/dp/B00 099DV30/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1329504888sr=8-2 which is 12 volts and 7 amp hours or 84 watt-hrs. Let's say the child could get about 4-6 hours out of the battery in the toy car, spread over a few days of serious damage to furniture - and after this, she has drawn down the battery to a level where it needs a recharge. Yet- this scenario happens over and over on each of the 35 recharges for a year - and is never charged from the grid till then. In a year, this amounts to a putative gain of something greater than 35:1 based on the 'faceplate' of the battery ( 84 watt-hrs), since we must also deduct the amount of energy expended to recharge itself. After a year, we can imagine that it does finally require a full recharge from the grid. Yet we know the 84 W-hrs of the stated faceplate capacity is far less than the real chemical energy involved. But what is the highest chemical energy which is remotely imaginable - if (big IF) we have a novel chemical energy extraction method that goes beyond redox but not far beyond? To wit: let's imagine that in our example - this battery has within its capability when completely utilized in a novel manner - about 60% of the chemical energy of coal. This is more than lead should have, on paper, but do not forget we are extracting this energy in a novel way which is not limited by redox potentials as normally understood and is more Helmholtz and less Gibbs -still chemical in that it only involves valence electrons; but they are used in an optimum fashion which cannot be done by redox alone. The spiked reverse pulsing must also be used periodically or all bets are off. IOW, since Pb is heavy and does not normally have 60% of the energy of coal, our leap of faith in this example, is that the Bedini style of back-EMF pulsing on the reactants is able to derive chemical energy in a new way, but still using only valence electrons - so really we are more concerned on the bottom line with its actual mass than anything else. As long as net energy extraction does not exceed normal chemistry as epitomized by hydrocarbon combustion, then we are technically not invoking overunity, or LENR. Coal has about 870 W-hr per pound when combusted. We are thus imagining that lead when used in this new way has about 522 W-hr per pound. This battery has about 6 pounds of reactants and if fully extracted, its (hypothetical) energy would then be about 3.2 kWhrs IF this new method gives us 60% of the energy of a 6 pound mass of coal. This is a factor of about 38 times greater than the original faceplate capacity of the battery but is only 60% of the chemical energy which could be contained in the mass of the battery (when chemistry is employed). When a new method of extracting chemical energy from lead is employed, we can achieve this level and it violates no Laws or CoE. Get it? Can you spell R-A-T-I-O-N-I-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N in a more elaborate way? Dunno, but there is the odor of rat in there somewhere :-) Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Sterling Allan / S-African Free Fuel Generator FFG trip
http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/#Follow-up February 15, 2012; 10:45 pm MST I've been back home a day now. Had a nice Valentines evening with my family. I finished my first draft of a report on my visit prior to landing yesterday and sent that to the S. African company to review. The inventor has been hospitalized, expected to be released Friday. Mark Dansie arrived today in Johannesburg along with an electrical professional with a couple of suitcases filled with equipment to test the device. Due to some communication problems (including my inadvertently having conveyed an email address incorrectly), the S. African group didn't know when they were coming, so there has been some last minute scrambling to open up schedules. I plan on postponing my report until after they have finished their testing. -- - - - - - - - - February 17, 2012; 12:00 pm MST The inventor has been released from the hospital. The plan is to set up the test and run the test tomorrow (Saturday in Johannesburg), with the inventor present. It will take about 6 hours to set up the measurement equipment. And they plan to run the test for at least six hours. Then it will take about 3 hours to remove the measurement equipment. In addition to Mark Dansie will be his electrical engineer associate who is expert at making such measurements; along with another electrical engineer that accompanied the test when I was there.
[Vo]:Leonado Corp Ownership
[ This seems to be ancient news I don't know why he's resurrecting it .. ] Leonardo Corporation Buys E-Cat Rights from Rossi’s Wife http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/16/leonardo-corporation-buys-e-cat-rights-from-rossis-wife/ ... According to Swedish journalist Mats Lewan, Rossi and his wife, Maddalena Pascucci, each own 50 percent of the company. The SK continues to believe that a corporate address and a factory have to be co-located. New Energy Times has been unable to identify in which apartment the couple have their factory with the 300 E-Cat nuclear reactors. - - - - Steven B. Krivit says: February 16, 2012 at 22:15 Not verified. Just reporting the facts on record. I’m trying to wrap this investigation up and finish up the loose ends. In month 12 now. Has cost me more than $50,000 in labor and expenses. Has cost the field at least a one-year delay/interference in covering real science.
Re: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens
given that thousands of scientists using billions of dollars in hydrogen and metal-hydride research (fuel cells and storage) have not stumbled upon E-Cat like processes for many years, I have to agree with you. unless, of course, the un-scientific evidence of Rossi was wrong to begin with. On Feb 17, 2012 11:41 AM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Honestly, when I first heard that the theory for the origin of heavy elements in this universe was super nova's, my reaction was, that's got to be at best a SWAG (silly wild ass guess). I can't imagine we have enough evidence to confirm such a theory. Just a lawyer's gut reaction. Ransom - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM Subject: [Vo]:Elemental Ovens Where do the elements heavier than iron originate? http://www.physorg.com/news/**2012-02-rare-earth-element-** tellurium-ancient.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-rare-earth-element-tellurium-ancient.html T
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
Technological development is very welcome, in part for the increase in productivity that it brings and for its connection to economic growth. But the introduction of significant gains in productivity is a two-edged sword. It can often lead to people's skills becoming irrelevant and their positions redundant. For long-term economic growth and increased purchasing power on the part of consumers, I don't see how you can get around an intelligent social policy of some kind, one that focuses on education and the development of skills needed for the workplace, including, of course, technological ones. I see a similar need for well-conceived energy and scientific research policies. Whatever inefficiencies there have been, governments have been central to driving change in these areas for many decades. Eric On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote: I agree with you that science and technology is the most important for growth in society. The only way to improve the economy is to improve science and technology. Average people and average business owners don't see the benefits of improvements in technology. Average people can only think about the way it has always been done. This is why a government with good leaders can significantly increase funding in science and technology. This means a government with good leaders is much more efficient than what we are currently doing.
[Vo]:OT: Uncovering fraud in a famous 92 yr old psychological experiment
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/a-new-twist-in-the-sad-saga-of-little-albert/28423 A New Twist in the Sad Saga of Little Albert January 25, 2012, 5:12 pm By Tom Bartlett A paper published this month in the journal History of Psychology makes the case that Little Albert was not, as Watson insisted, “healthy” and “normal.” He was probably neurologically impaired. If the baby indeed had a severe cognitive deficit, then his reactions to the white rat or the dog or the monkey may not have been typical–certainly reaching universal conclusions about human nature based... on his reactions wouldn’t make sense. The entire experiment, then, would be a case of a researcher terrifying a sick baby for no valid scientific reason (not that using a healthy baby would have been ethically hunkydory). But what makes it worse, the authors of the paper argue, is that Watson must have known that Little Albert was impaired. This would turn a cruel experiment of questionable value into a case of blatant academic fraud. Harry
[Vo]:1MW Customer
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XjyLGEdsMJM/Tz9AEkZYmjI/ABA/yUce73ufydQ/s400/ClownSnakeVulture.jpg _ After scouring the net, I believe that it may have been during the first Defkalion press conference, that Rossi grew wary of puppet-snakes, clowns, and vultures. See attached pic. _ /snip/ Andrea Rossi February 17th, 2012 at 9:27 AM Dear Bill Conley: With the puppet snakes, the greek clowns and other vultures around I have to protect our Customers from any kind of internet assault, so I have to be very closed in this period... Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580#comments /snip/
Re: [Vo]:Simple Genius: This Says it all!
It's a good thing that people's jobs become irrelevant. You know what you do when technology replaces jobs? You don't create more worthless office jobs, but you shorten the workweek while still getting paid the same. Technology should replace jobs. There is no need to work 40 hours anymore. Do you know what would create millions of jobs? Digging ditches with spoons, go back to 17th century farm techniques, and cutting down trees with an axe. Of course, doing this would be silly, but it illustrates that there is an increasing number of worthless office jobs. On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Technological development is very welcome, in part for the increase in productivity that it brings and for its connection to economic growth. But the introduction of significant gains in productivity is a two-edged sword. It can often lead to people's skills becoming irrelevant and their positions redundant. For long-term economic growth and increased purchasing power on the part of consumers, I don't see how you can get around an intelligent social policy of some kind, one that focuses on education and the development of skills needed for the workplace, including, of course, technological ones. I see a similar need for well-conceived energy and scientific research policies. Whatever inefficiencies there have been, governments have been central to driving change in these areas for many decades. Eric On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote: I agree with you that science and technology is the most important for growth in society. The only way to improve the economy is to improve science and technology. Average people and average business owners don't see the benefits of improvements in technology. Average people can only think about the way it has always been done. This is why a government with good leaders can significantly increase funding in science and technology. This means a government with good leaders is much more efficient than what we are currently doing.
