date:20130126

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 

>>
>> We also need to look at how the entitlement programs are structured… I’ve
>> seen examples about how the rules are not structured to encourage one to
>> become self-reliant, but promote dependency… dependency is just another way
>> the control freaks (politicians) maintain control, and their power and
>> elitist positions.  I would have no problem if the programs ‘taught you how
>> to fish’ in addition to giving you some fish for a limited period of time.
>> Washington DC’s avg household income is now the highest in the country;
>> surpassing the Silicon Valley of California… that should tell you all you
>> need to know about politicians.  We need to go back to one-term, citizen
>> politicians; get rid of all lobbyists and corporate influence-peddlers in
>> DC.
>
>
> Yes, would not be surprised if dependency were a problem -- I have witnessed
> some of it myself.  But with that I have two reservations.  First, let's
> approach the problem empirically.  Are there existing programs out there
> that have a proven track record of helping people at the margins of society
> without encouraging dependency?  Let's copy what they're doing and see if we
> can tweak it.  Second, dependency is only a problem for those who can avoid
> it.  There are many people, incompetents among them, who are, by their
> nature, dependent.  There is no conceivable way that we will educate them
> out of it; they will simply either sink into the existing social darwinism
> or, if we can help them, they will lead out lives in dignity at a modest
> cost to the public.  I am persuaded that this will not only be satisfying in
> some ethical sense, but that we will all be better off economically as well.
>


The truth is everyone depends on something and/or someone to maintain
their way of being in the world.
Nobody exists in a state of independence. Dependency is not an
affliction or a sin. (For example, the self-employed, who often
portray  themselves as "independent" and therefore morally superior,
depend heavily on a system that can process monetary transactions.)

Everyone is entitled (can I say that?) to a degree of autonomy from
which they can choose how they prefer
to lean on the world and others and to give back to the world and others.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Meant people do NOT like paying taxes . . .

It is a shame we cannot edit these messages.


Krugman and others think this deficit issue has been hyped by people who
want to use it as an excuse to reduce programs they dislike. Right wing
people want to reduce social spending; left wing people want to reduce
military spending. I think that if you oppose an expenditure, you should
propose reducing it, and not point to the deficit as a reason.

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Harry Veeder  wrote:

Notably, F. Hayek, one of the greatest advocates of free market
> economics, argued that everyone should receive a basic income or (what
> he called a minimum income) regardless of employment.

He did?!?? I am amazed. How very sensible. I guess I do not know much about
him. I am familiar with him of course, but I have not read the book.

I'll bet none of his modern followers would agree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Notably, F. Hayek, one of the greatest advocates of free market
economics, argued that everyone should receive a basic income or (what
he called a minimum income) regardless of employment. See chapter 9
"Security and Freedom" in his book _Road to Serfdom_ .

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.286147002267.143173.676517267&type=1&l=e117e9f0c2

Harry

Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

Perhaps the proton's radius can be both increased and descreased under
certain conditions.
Does anyone know how (or if) in theory the proton's radius would
effect rates of fusion?
Would the proton have to be larger or smaller to increase rates of fusion?
Harry

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere,
> but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up
> here.  According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1],
> the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the
> proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm.  This
> would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of
> these values.  But the measurements are extremely accurate, and
> incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on.
>
> The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]:
>
> Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ?
>
> The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They
> cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are
> very high accuracy.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/
>
> “The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground]
> state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.”
>
> Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole
> structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can
> fuse with another hydrogen at will ?
>
> The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the
> proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice.
>
> I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble
> over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years.
>
> In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current
> understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons
> were wrong”
>
>
> So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring
> something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is
> Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different.
> Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the
> anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from
> whatever it is that is going on.  The Ars Technica article ends with this
> interesting comment: "The one option they [the research team] seem to like
> is the existence of relatively light force carriers that somehow remained
> undiscovered until now."  New force carriers is an interesting thought.
> Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction?
>
> Eric
>
> [1]
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/
> [2]
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365
>

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread Randy Wuller

Ed and others:  

The US net wealth after all debt is deducted is higher now than it has ever 
been in US history.  Print the money, default or make the citizens of the US 
pay it off, it makes almost no difference.  Debt is more or less an illusion.  
Picking one or the other of the above choices will cause different 
redistributions of wealth among the weathy of the world but will have almost no 
impact on overall product production. 

Those that claim otherwise do so principally to promote allocation of wealth to 
those protected by their policy approach.

Nothing is more  illusion than the concept of debt. (From the world's point of 
view).

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:11 PM, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
 wrote:

> I ranted:
> >> IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided
> >> belief that balancing the national budget is the most
> >> important thing, above everything else, that must be
> >> tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that
> >> "money" is nothing more than a contractual
> >> representation of the exchange of goods and services
> >> between individuals and legal entities.
>  
> Ed replied:
>  
> > No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is
> > that money has been lent to the US in various forms and
> > by various people and they want their money back
> > eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The
> > US is rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if the
> > interest rates rose to normal levels, we could not pay the
> > interest without shutting down significant parts of the
> > government. The US is presently printing dollars to cover
> > this expense.  As a result, the debt is growing because
> > this money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is
> > a private bank owned by individuals who want to be paid.
> > At some point in the near future, the debt will be so
> > large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is
> > in default, and the financial system of the world
> > collapses. This means starvation and civil strife.  The
> > problem is serous and can not be solved without great pain,
> > which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress
> > over the last 20 years have created a no win situation
> > that very few people understand.
>  
> I'm 100% in agreement with your debt analysis, Ed. I suspect we are probably 
> discussing the same issue, but from slightly different angles. And perhaps 
> with slightly different objective as well.
>  
> As we all know the nation is getting more and more in debt. However, as Jed 
> points out in a follow-up post, I also suspect this debt crisis is a 
> contrivance with a specific objective in mind. That objective being that 
> those with the most amount of money now stand to end up making even more 
> money in the future! This obviously can't continue. Such a scam will 
> eventually break system.
>  
> For me, this gets back to my prior comment that money is nothing more than a 
> contractual representation of the exchange of goods and services between 
> parties. The only thing that gives value to money is the generation of goods 
> and services the piece of paper attempts to represent at the precise moment 
> of the exchange. It's not due to the fact that we have printed up a fixed 
> amount of money that others then, through hard work, try to accumulate - as 
> if money itself has some mysterious kind of intrinsic magical value in itself.
>  
> Massive debt on the national level can only be created as a result of keeping 
> the amount of money that can ever be allowed in circulation maintained at a 
> fixed aggregate amount. There are those in power who want to keep everyone 
> worshipping the notion that the total amount of aggregate money in the system 
> must remain a FIXED amount. And they are ...duh...  those with the most 
> amount of money languishing about in their vaults. Under this convenient 
> arrangement the temporary illusion of extra cash that suddenly flows into the 
> macroeconomic system can only be generated by those who have more money than 
> they know what to do with who, in turn, generously LEND it back into the 
> system. And we all know what happens when it's finally time to pay the piper. 
> The rich end up with an even bigger slice of the entire pie while everyone 
> else ends up with less. This simply can't continue. Some archetypical form of 
> a Robin Hood scenario will eventually force itself upon the political area as 
> the only means left to help balance the books in a more equitable manner. 
> IMHO, the only means left to a nation rapidly growing its debt load would be 
> to start printing up more money - money which will not be paid for through 
> issuing more bonds. Printing up more “unaccountable” money would be the only 
> means left to a nation as a means to better redistribute slices of the pie.
>  
> If we don't, I think we will ironically sow the seeds of where the intrinsic 
> value of money will become de

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I have
> read and I read many.
>

Read Krugman.

> Raising taxes back to Clayton is not possible because the economy is not
> growing as fast as it was then so that the tax rate would have to be a
> bigger fraction of the income to provide the same amount of money . . .
>

I said we should raise the rates back, and then wait for the economy to
recover. I did not say we should raise total revenues back right away.

> . . .  which people resist.
>

People do like paying taxes, that's for sure.

> Also, the debt is much larger now.  We have passed the point of no return
> according to most analysts.
>

Hey, I can do arithmetic. I am good with spreadsheets. Assuming the economy
recovers, I can see that the debt will soon stabilize. As a percent of the
GDP it has not risen much. It may soon start to fall even with the present
tax rates. It is nothing to worry about. See:

http://www.progressinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/debt_gdp_dollars_percentage1.png

Note the "percent of GPD." That's what matters. The actual dollar amount is
unimportant. If the economy expands by a factor of ten and everyone's
income goes up by a factor of 10, it would make no difference if the total
national debt also increased by a factor of 10. We would be in the same
place.

That graph is from this article, which is partisan, but no one disputes
that data, which is from the government as noted in the second graph:

http://www.progressinaction.com/republicans/conservative-dishonesty-and-their-deficit-scare/

Seriously, I do not know which analysts you refer to but it seems they
cannot do arithmetic. This is not rocket science.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

I think that a competitive market-based system for most things results in
> the best price for the end-consumer, but for certain critical needs such as
> medical and basic research, some govt/industry cooperation is warranted.
> This goes with the caveat that the markets are truly competitive with NO
> collusion/favoritism from government, which is a rarity these days.
>

This makes a lot of sense.  I am not at all enthusiastic about enriching
the pockets of a few lucky subcontractors who have no incentive to find
efficiencies.

>
> For a hundred years after the country was founded, there were no
> ‘entitlement’ programs;  the only aid that the founders felt the fed’l govt
> was obligated to was caring for veterans injured in the line of duty… and
> that certainly makes sense.
>

I have only respect to the US founding fathers.  They had some great ideas
and put in place a remarkably stable democracy, and they had an allergic
reaction to paternalism and to an extractive UK mercantilist policy.  But I
don't think they were any wiser than you or I, or that we need to feel
bound by the solutions that they came up with to the problems of their
times.  Some of our problems are similar to what they were facing, and some
are a world apart.  We should look at the problems we face today and come
up with our own solutions.  This is what they would have done in our
situation, and what they would have recommended to us that we do.

> As far as other forms of entitlements, whatever happened to families
> taking care of their own; why is it the govt’s responsibility to care for
> people when they have family to do it! Or local charities, which are MUCH
> more efficient than any government program will ever be… How about giving
> tax-payers and companies generous tax breaks for contributing to local
> charities to provide enough incentive to adequately fund the town’s social
> welfare needs.
>

Saying that people should rely upon their families is effectively saying
we're content to ignore the problem.  Some people have no families.  Some
people are estranged from their families.  Those who can do so are no doubt
already relying upon their families.  That leaves all of the rest, who are
the ones I was thinking of.

At a deeper level, I think this gets down to what divides the US -- what
the basic social contract is.  I'm arguing that as a society we will all do
well and prosper if we look to the good of everyone, including those who
are left behind in the current system.

I'm open to the idea of tax-breaks to local charities for handling some of
these problems.  Let's look for some examples of where this model is being
effectively used, and then go from there.

> We also need to look at how the entitlement programs are structured… I’ve
> seen examples about how the rules are not structured to encourage one to
> become self-reliant, but promote dependency… dependency is just another way
> the control freaks (politicians) maintain control, and their power and
> elitist positions.  I would have no problem if the programs ‘taught you how
> to fish’ in addition to giving you some fish for a limited period of time.
> Washington DC’s avg household income is now the highest in the country;
> surpassing the Silicon Valley of California… that should tell you all you
> need to know about politicians.  We need to go back to one-term, citizen
> politicians; get rid of all lobbyists and corporate influence-peddlers in
> DC.
>

Yes, would not be surprised if dependency were a problem -- I have
witnessed some of it myself.  But with that I have two reservations.
 First, let's approach the problem empirically.  Are there existing
programs out there that have a proven track record of helping people at the
margins of society without encouraging dependency?  Let's copy what they're
doing and see if we can tweak it.  Second, dependency is only a problem for
those who can avoid it.  There are many people, incompetents among them,
who are, by their nature, dependent.  There is no conceivable way that we
will educate them out of it; they will simply either sink into the existing
social darwinism or, if we can help them, they will lead out lives in
dignity at a modest cost to the public.  I am persuaded that this will not
only be satisfying in some ethical sense, but that we will all be better
off economically as well.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Mark:

 

> How many people could $400 BILLION dollars feed?

 

Your point being.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

I ranted:

>> IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided

>> belief that balancing the national budget is the most

>> important thing, above everything else, that must be

>> tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that

>> "money" is nothing more than a contractual

>> representation of the exchange of goods and services

>> between individuals and legal entities. 

 

Ed replied:

 

> No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is

> that money has been lent to the US in various forms and

> by various people and they want their money back

> eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The

> US is rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if the

> interest rates rose to normal levels, we could not pay the

> interest without shutting down significant parts of the

> government. The US is presently printing dollars to cover

> this expense.  As a result, the debt is growing because

> this money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is

> a private bank owned by individuals who want to be paid.

> At some point in the near future, the debt will be so

> large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is

> in default, and the financial system of the world

> collapses. This means starvation and civil strife.  The

> problem is serous and can not be solved without great pain,

> which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress

> over the last 20 years have created a no win situation

> that very few people understand.

 

I'm 100% in agreement with your debt analysis, Ed. I suspect we are probably
discussing the same issue, but from slightly different angles. And perhaps
with slightly different objective as well.

 

As we all know the nation is getting more and more in debt. However, as Jed
points out in a follow-up post, I also suspect this debt crisis is a
contrivance with a specific objective in mind. That objective being that
those with the most amount of money now stand to end up making even more
money in the future! This obviously can't continue. Such a scam will
eventually break system.

 

For me, this gets back to my prior comment that money is nothing more than a
contractual representation of the exchange of goods and services between
parties. The only thing that gives value to money is the generation of goods
and services the piece of paper attempts to represent at the precise moment
of the exchange. It's not due to the fact that we have printed up a fixed
amount of money that others then, through hard work, try to accumulate - as
if money itself has some mysterious kind of intrinsic magical value in
itself. 

 

Massive debt on the national level can only be created as a result of
keeping the amount of money that can ever be allowed in circulation
maintained at a fixed aggregate amount. There are those in power who want to
keep everyone worshipping the notion that the total amount of aggregate
money in the system must remain a FIXED amount. And they are ...duh...
those with the most amount of money languishing about in their vaults. Under
this convenient arrangement the temporary illusion of extra cash that
suddenly flows into the macroeconomic system can only be generated by those
who have more money than they know what to do with who, in turn, generously
LEND it back into the system. And we all know what happens when it's finally
time to pay the piper. The rich end up with an even bigger slice of the
entire pie while everyone else ends up with less. This simply can't
continue. Some archetypical form of a Robin Hood scenario will eventually
force itself upon the political area as the only means left to help balance
the books in a more equitable manner. IMHO, the only means left to a nation
rapidly growing its debt load would be to start printing up more money -
money which will not be paid for through issuing more bonds. Printing up
more "unaccountable" money would be the only means left to a nation as a
means to better redistribute slices of the pie.

 

If we don't, I think we will ironically sow the seeds of where the intrinsic
value of money will become devalued, if not seriously damaged. This will
happen because more and more of the work force will be forced out of
business and into employment. When that happens there will be fewer and
fewer goods and services being generated for which money... ANY MONEY still
circulating in the system could be used to purchase them.

 

IMHO, if we end up enduring a scenario where there are far fewer goods and
services being generated, it is not wise to assume that offering up gold
coins as payment will be any more advantageous than offering up the
equivalent amount in the form of paper bills. For one thing, only a tiny
number of individuals will profit under a scenario of amassing gold with the
expectation they will later use it to buy all the goods and services they
need. As we all know there is only so much gold to go around on the planet.
It would not be wise to assume that they will

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

I think that a competitive market-based system for most things results in the 
best price for the end-consumer, but for certain critical needs such as medical 
and basic research, some govt/industry cooperation is warranted.  This goes 
with the caveat that the markets are truly competitive with NO 
collusion/favoritism from government, which is a rarity these days. 

 

For a hundred years after the country was founded, there were no ‘entitlement’ 
programs;  the only aid that the founders felt the fed’l govt was obligated to 
was caring for veterans injured in the line of duty… and that certainly makes 
sense.  As far as other forms of entitlements, whatever happened to families 
taking care of their own; why is it the govt’s responsibility to care for 
people when they have family to do it! Or local charities, which are MUCH more 
efficient than any government program will ever be… How about giving tax-payers 
and companies generous tax breaks for contributing to local charities to 
provide enough incentive to adequately fund the town’s social welfare needs.

 

We also need to look at how the entitlement programs are structured… I’ve seen 
examples about how the rules are not structured to encourage one to become 
self-reliant, but promote dependency… dependency is just another way the 
control freaks (politicians) maintain control, and their power and elitist 
positions.  I would have no problem if the programs ‘taught you how to fish’ in 
addition to giving you some fish for a limited period of time.  Washington DC’s 
avg household income is now the highest in the country; surpassing the Silicon 
Valley of California… that should tell you all you need to know about 
politicians.  We need to go back to one-term, citizen politicians; get rid of 
all lobbyists and corporate influence-peddlers in DC.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 4:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

 

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

 

You simply can’t rely on one-sided references to make important decisions with 
these kinds of complex programs...

Agreed. 

Thus, I find that reading the comment section helps to more accurately inform 
me; but that depends on whether knowledgeable folks are participating.

Yes -- the comments can be very interesting.

with the federal govt raiding the social security ‘fund’ and numerous other 
bloated and wasteful programs, one would have to be blind to think that the 
govt is going to do it more efficiently than a competitive system.

I have no problem with the basic gist of this -- I am sure there is a lot of 
government bloat that can be trimmed.  I guess I'm one for trying to sift the 
wheat from the chaff, rather than throw everything out, and for making use of 
bargaining power when it can be used to the advantage of the public good.  
Careful measures, carefully taken, enacted in light of positive experience in 
similar areas in other parts of the world.

 

I am also not one to believe the a purely market based system is going to do an 
old person who has no money any good.  He or she will suffer more than anyone 
else, because he or she will have no purchasing power, and a market based 
system will end up specializing in plastic surgery rather than helping him or 
her with some basic geriatric problem.  A similar thing goes for the mentally 
retarded, the chronically ill, the physically disabled and those who, for 
whatever reason, are unlikely to ever be gainfully employed because they don't 
have the skills or ability to be employed.  Whenever I hear of market-based 
solutions, I think of these people and the likelihood that they will be forever 
scrounging around for their basic needs.

 

I think the market has a role to play, but I think we should also not be 
persuaded into thinking it is a magic bullet.  I don't imagine you have been 
persuaded that it is, but I think a lot of people have.  Everything in 
moderation.

 

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Ed,

Paul Krugman of Princeton (and a NY Times columnist) believes they are 
seriously in error. Robert Reich at Berkeley agrees. This appears to be a case 
where conventional belief may prove to be as wrong as it has been with regard 
to LENR.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I have read 
and I read many. Raising taxes back to Clayton is not possible because the 
economy is not growing as fast as it was then so that the tax rate would have 
to be a bigger fraction of the income to provide the same amount of money, 
which people resist. Also, the debt is much larger now.  We have passed the 
point of no return according to most analysts.

Ed


On Jan 26, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Edmund Storms mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:

Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount of debt 
exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to pay the interest. 
This is why people lost their homes. The US government has now reached a debt 
so large that it cannot be paid back and can barely be serviced.  This is a 
fact.

That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level they were 
under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will soon begin to decline. 
It was declining rapidly under Clinton. Government expenditures have not 
increased, except for the Pentagon, and now that the wars are over I don't see 
why the military budget should be so high.

The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be fixed with 
slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice them. Mainly on 
wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can afford to pay 3% more than 
they now do. It is trivial matter for them.

For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little inflation would 
soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We would hardly notice that, 
either. The Japanese government under PM Abe is deliberately trying to inflate 
by 3%, after years of deflation. It is about time! If they succeed and the 
economy also grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as high as the U.S., 
as a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

There is always the option of forfeiting growth and trying to be a world
power. Let it be a job to be of China or India. Scrap the military bases,
inside and outside US. Heavily tax the rich to the point of bankruptcy for
those who like to live off unproductive business (Wall Street). Employ the
unemployed in government backed jobs. Plan the damn economy.

Or, there is the option of let it go and see the quality of life of the
average people decrease to South American levels.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

2013-01-26 Thread fznidarsic

This proton measurement thing has me perplexed.   So much so that I don't care 
about it.  My
only interest is the nuclear wave number.  It appears to be 1.36 fm-1 for all 
nucleons.



Frank




-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen


I am going to play the skeptic on this thread.  I have a very strong suspicion 
that the accuracy of the proton measurement is most likely not as good as is 
thought.   Why does the uncertainty principle allow the size measurement to be 
this accurate since the particle momentum appears to be well defined.


The proton size is a theoretical number that may one day prove to be grossly 
wrong.  The next theory will eventually come around and a new argument will 
begin.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen


I wrote:



So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something 
vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's 
fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different.



This is incorrect.  The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and getting 
a different charge radius for the proton.  So we're not dealing with Mills 
hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since these have an 
electron and not a muon.


If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of the 
normal proton-electron system, that is interesting.  But what I don't 
understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than 
previously measured.  In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the 
quotation going back to the paper that "The proton structure is important 
because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be 
inside the proton."



Eric

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread David Roberson

I agree, this is extremely dangerous for our economy.  The usual solution is to 
allow inflation to erase the hard earned money of those that save instead of 
spend.  If you want to have a bit of fun, consider doing the following.


Take the poorest country in the world and lend each of the residents the same 
amount of money that each citizen of the USA owes.  Now, they find themselves 
in debt, but they use the money to make enormous improvements to their homes, 
infrastructures, and etc.  Or, they could solve all their food problems with 
plenty left over.


When you think of the US debt in the above manner, you realize that we are not 
in that great shape here.  Most of the others in the third world are less 
indebted than the US.  What is going to happen to the future generations unless 
this is stopped somehow?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 7:26 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment



FYI:
 
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
 
Interest on the Federal Debt
Historical Data, Fiscal Year End
2012   $359,796,008,919.49
2011   $454,393,280,417.03
2010   $413,954,825,362.17
2009   $383,071,060,815.42
2008   $451,154,049,950.63
2007   $429,977,998,108.20
2006   $405,872,109,315.83
2005   $352,350,252,507.90
2004   $321,566,323,971.29
2003   $318,148,529,151.51
2002   $332,536,958,599.42
2001   $359,507,635,242.41
2000   $361,997,734,302.36
 
Again I ask… how many people could $400 BILLION  feed, or provide basic medical 
care for
 
And when interest rates begin to go up, those interest payments will also go up 
and consume the vast majority of the fed’l budget… the income tax rate would 
have to go up to 80+% to maintain fed’l spending.
 
The interest payments are tax-dollars WASTED… 
Ever ask yourself who is getting those interest payments… that’s a helluva lot 
of money going somewhere!
 
-Mark
 
 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

 
Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I have read 
and I read many. Raising taxes back to Clayton is not possible because the 
economy is not growing as fast as it was then so that the tax rate would have 
to be a bigger fraction of the income to provide the same amount of money, 
which people resist. Also, the debt is much larger now.  We have passed the 
point of no return according to most analysts. 

 

Ed

 

 

On Jan 26, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:




Edmund Storms  wrote:

 



Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount of debt 
exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to pay the interest. 
This is why people lost their homes. The US government has now reached a debt 
so large that it cannot be paid back and can barely be serviced.  This is a 
fact.



 

That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level they were 
under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will soon begin to decline. 
It was declining rapidly under Clinton. Government expenditures have not 
increased, except for the Pentagon, and now that the wars are over I don't see 
why the military budget should be so high.

 

The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be fixed with 
slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice them. Mainly on 
wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can afford to pay 3% more than 
they now do. It is trivial matter for them.

 

For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little inflation would 
soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We would hardly notice that, 
either. The Japanese government under PM Abe is deliberately trying to inflate 
by 3%, after years of deflation. It is about time! If they succeed and the 
economy also grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as high as the U.S., 
as a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

You simply can’t rely on one-sided references to make important decisions
> with these kinds of complex programs...
>

Agreed.

> 
>
> Thus, I find that reading the comment section helps to more accurately
> inform me; but that depends on whether knowledgeable folks are
> participating.
>

Yes -- the comments can be very interesting.

> with the federal govt raiding the social security ‘fund’ and numerous
> other bloated and wasteful programs, one would have to be blind to think
> that the govt is going to do it more efficiently than a competitive system.
>

I have no problem with the basic gist of this -- I am sure there is a lot
of government bloat that can be trimmed.  I guess I'm one for trying to
sift the wheat from the chaff, rather than throw everything out, and for
making use of bargaining power when it can be used to the advantage of the
public good.  Careful measures, carefully taken, enacted in light of
positive experience in similar areas in other parts of the world.

I am also not one to believe the a purely market based system is going to
do an old person who has no money any good.  He or she will suffer more
than anyone else, because he or she will have no purchasing power, and a
market based system will end up specializing in plastic surgery rather than
helping him or her with some basic geriatric problem.  A similar thing goes
for the mentally retarded, the chronically ill, the physically disabled and
those who, for whatever reason, are unlikely to ever be gainfully employed
because they don't have the skills or ability to be employed.  Whenever I
hear of market-based solutions, I think of these people and the likelihood
that they will be forever scrounging around for their basic needs.

I think the market has a role to play, but I think we should also not
be persuaded into thinking it is a magic bullet.  I don't imagine you have
been persuaded that it is, but I think a lot of people have.  Everything in
moderation.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

FYI:

 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

 

Interest on the Federal Debt

Historical Data, Fiscal Year End

2012   $359,796,008,919.49

2011   $454,393,280,417.03

2010   $413,954,825,362.17

2009   $383,071,060,815.42

2008   $451,154,049,950.63

2007   $429,977,998,108.20

2006   $405,872,109,315.83

2005   $352,350,252,507.90

2004   $321,566,323,971.29

2003   $318,148,529,151.51

2002   $332,536,958,599.42

2001   $359,507,635,242.41

2000   $361,997,734,302.36

 

Again I ask. how many people could $400 BILLION  feed, or provide basic
medical care for

 

And when interest rates begin to go up, those interest payments will also go
up and consume the vast majority of the fed'l budget. the income tax rate
would have to go up to 80+% to maintain fed'l spending.

 

The interest payments are tax-dollars WASTED. 

Ever ask yourself who is getting those interest payments. that's a helluva
lot of money going somewhere!

 

-Mark

 

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment

 

Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I have read
and I read many. Raising taxes back to Clayton is not possible because the
economy is not growing as fast as it was then so that the tax rate would
have to be a bigger fraction of the income to provide the same amount of
money, which people resist. Also, the debt is much larger now.  We have
passed the point of no return according to most analysts. 

 

Ed

 

 

On Jan 26, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:





Edmund Storms  wrote:

 

Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount of debt
exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to pay the
interest. This is why people lost their homes. The US government has now
reached a debt so large that it cannot be paid back and can barely be
serviced.  This is a fact.

 

That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level they
were under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will soon begin to
decline. It was declining rapidly under Clinton. Government expenditures
have not increased, except for the Pentagon, and now that the wars are over
I don't see why the military budget should be so high.

 

The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be fixed with
slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice them. Mainly on
wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can afford to pay 3% more than
they now do. It is trivial matter for them.

 

For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little inflation
would soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We would hardly notice
that, either. The Japanese government under PM Abe is deliberately trying to
inflate by 3%, after years of deflation. It is about time! If they succeed
and the economy also grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as high as
the U.S., as a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

2013-01-26 Thread David Roberson

I am going to play the skeptic on this thread.  I have a very strong suspicion 
that the accuracy of the proton measurement is most likely not as good as is 
thought.   Why does the uncertainty principle allow the size measurement to be 
this accurate since the particle momentum appears to be well defined.


The proton size is a theoretical number that may one day prove to be grossly 
wrong.  The next theory will eventually come around and a new argument will 
begin.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jan 26, 2013 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen


I wrote:



So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something 
vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's 
fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different.



This is incorrect.  The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and getting 
a different charge radius for the proton.  So we're not dealing with Mills 
hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since these have an 
electron and not a muon.


If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of the 
normal proton-electron system, that is interesting.  But what I don't 
understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than 
previously measured.  In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the 
quotation going back to the paper that "The proton structure is important 
because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be 
inside the proton."



Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

You simply can’t rely on one-sided references to make important decisions with 
these kinds of complex programs...

 

All articles, regardless of whether they are on a liberal website or 
conservative, are one-sided; they usually leave out important points which do 
not support the article’s slant.  Thus, I find that reading the comment section 
helps to more accurately inform me; but that depends on whether knowledgeable 
folks are participating.  E.g., here are two comments which bring up good 
points:

 

--

Paul Krugman [the author of the referenced article] has also distorted the 
facts.

As a practicing doctor I can attest to the waste and fraud in the Medicare 
system.

There will be rationing of care. The very elderly will not receive a hip 
replacement if their estimated longevity does not justify it. The Obama money 
will be insufficient as costs escalate. The system will be overwhelmed when 
large numbers of newly covered patients seek care.

Hospitals will close as their reimbursement drops.  Doctors will drop out of 
Medicare.  Only the well off will be able to buy private care.

We need competition in the system.  Medicare has a cost of insurance per 
patient as do vouchers.  This cost has been increasing exponentially.  Medicare 
Advantage has more benefits, thus higher costs and premiums.

What does Obamacare do for Medicare.  It removes a large number of dollars. I 
doubt if this money can be made up with savings elsewhere in Medicare.

What makes Krugman the ultimate authority on Medicare? Are there not other ways 
to reform heath care? Perhaps a combination of conservative and liberal ideas 
might work?

(The number for voucher care in the comment section by Kimberly is incorrect.)

Let's sort out the real facts, then we can take a reasonable course.



Paul, by defending the Medicare status quo you're missing the point. The growth 
of Medicare costs is unsustainable. The Republicans plan to solve that problem 
via private insurers who will shift cost onto the patient, who then is forced 
to choose just how much that MRI scan is worth to him or her. That would be an 
effective, market-based solution, but it rations care based on ability to pay. 
Total health costs may go up or down - the purses of the people decide. The 
Democrats, on the other hand, propose that the government will study health 
care decisions and determine by edict which treatments are worth paying for. 
Thus, the government would ration health care for everyone and force costs down 
whether people like it or not. Which form of rationing do you prefer: big 
government or free market?

---

 

I would agree with the liberal side that a single-payer system would likely be 
more efficient, and that medical insurance companies take too much of our 
premiums in administrative costs, but then, with the federal govt raiding the 
social security ‘fund’ and numerous other bloated and wasteful programs, one 
would have to be blind to think that the govt is going to do it more 
efficiently than a competitive system.

 

-Mark

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

 

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

 

Care to explain how government entitlements are ‘self-funding’…

And how do they ‘help to bring down costs’…

 

No problem.

 

Medicare is believed to bring down costs through its bargaining power and 
ability to control costs [1].  If you broke up the system into agencies that 
operate at the level of US states, it is likely that health care inflation 
would increase.

 

Social security is self-funding, through the payroll tax.  It is not a strain 
on the current deficit.  See, for example, [2].  Its self-funding arrangement 
is part of a longer term problem, because this arrangement creates the illusion 
that it can just run on its own indefinitely.  But social security is not a 
problem at the present moment.  Beyond its budget neutrality, I would guess 
that, if anything, it is sustaining a lot of older people who would be on the 
streets and placing additional strain on public services and private entities 
such as hospitals.

 

Eric

 

 

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html?_r=0

[2] 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Sorry Jed, but your analysis conflicts with every economist that I  
have read and I read many. Raising taxes back to Clayton is not  
possible because the economy is not growing as fast as it was then so  
that the tax rate would have to be a bigger fraction of the income to  
provide the same amount of money, which people resist. Also, the debt  
is much larger now.  We have passed the point of no return according  
to most analysts.


Ed


On Jan 26, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount  
of debt exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to  
pay the interest. This is why people lost their homes. The US  
government has now reached a debt so large that it cannot be paid  
back and can barely be serviced.  This is a fact.


That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level  
they were under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will  
soon begin to decline. It was declining rapidly under Clinton.  
Government expenditures have not increased, except for the Pentagon,  
and now that the wars are over I don't see why the military budget  
should be so high.


The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be  
fixed with slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice  
them. Mainly on wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can  
afford to pay 3% more than they now do. It is trivial matter for them.


For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little  
inflation would soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We  
would hardly notice that, either. The Japanese government under PM  
Abe is deliberately trying to inflate by 3%, after years of  
deflation. It is about time! If they succeed and the economy also  
grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as high as the U.S., as  
a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

*  why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field is used 
to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply to neutrons 
and electrons?

 

For any energy to transfer, even spin energy - from a disturbed proton to 
another nucleus (such as Ni), there must first be the energy priming event in 
the protons – such as QCD color change in two repelling protons which have 
split from a transient 2He nucleus (in which they were temporarily joined). In 
short, this coupling follows “reversible fusion” … and as far as I know, this 
limits the phenomenon to P+P reactions in a confined cavity. 

 

The leap of faith is that “reversible fusion” is slightly energetic. There 
could be reversible fusion with other nuclei but I doubt it, and am not aware 
of this type of reaction relating to anything other than P+P. 

 

But more to the general point of magnons - and magnetic coupling as the pathway 
for dispersal of that spin energy - the proton has very significant NMR 
sensitivity and other magnetic properties which are lost or diminished in 
nuclei with neutrons. 

 

Add a neutron to a proton, for instance (to get deuterium) - and the magnetic 
sensitivity goes down by a factor of about 100. 

 

Please do not assume that every detail of this hypothesis has a ready answer. I 
was slightly prepared on this one, but that will not always be the case. It is 
a work-in-progress.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Care to explain how government entitlements are ‘self-funding’…
>
> And how do they ‘help to bring down costs’…
>

No problem.

Medicare is believed to bring down costs through its bargaining power and
ability to control costs [1].  If you broke up the system into agencies
that operate at the level of US states, it is likely that health care
inflation would increase.

Social security is self-funding, through the payroll tax.  It is not a
strain on the current deficit.  See, for example, [2].  Its self-funding
arrangement is part of a longer term problem, because this arrangement
creates the illusion that it can just run on its own indefinitely.  But
social security is not a problem at the present moment.  Beyond its budget
neutrality, I would guess that, if anything, it is sustaining a lot of
older people who would be on the streets and placing additional strain on
public services and private entities such as hospitals.

Eric

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html?_r=0
[2]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html

RE: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

“But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is 
something unexplained going on.”

 

Perhaps protons have different energy levels (shells) similar to elections?

 

-Mark

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

 

We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere, but 
I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up here.  
According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1], the problem 
I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the proton has been 
measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm.  This would not be a big 
deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values.  But the 
measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is 
something unexplained going on.

 

The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]:

 

Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ?

The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They cannot 
explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are very high 
accuracy.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/

“The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground] state 
has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.”

Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole 
structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can fuse 
with another hydrogen at will ?

The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the 
proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice.

I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble 
over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years.

In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current understanding 
of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong”

 

So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring something 
vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it is Mills's 
fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different.  Gerrit asks 
whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient to lead to the anomalous 
behavior in metal hydrides we've been following here, from whatever it is that 
is going on.  The Ars Technica article ends with this interesting comment: "The 
one option they [the research team] seem to like is the existence of relatively 
light force carriers that somehow remained undiscovered until now."  New force 
carriers is an interesting thought.  Would that imply a heretofore unknown 
interaction?


Eric

 

[1] 
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/

[2] 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Eric wrote:

“I see no need to slash government entitlements that are basically self-funding 
and which, if anything, help to bring down costs.”

 

Care to explain how government entitlements are ‘self-funding’… 

And how do they ‘help to bring down costs’…

 

-Mark

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

 



 

I see no need to slash government entitlements that are basically self-funding 
and which, if anything, help to bring down costs. But I also appreciate the 
reasoning behind calls to limit the amount of US government debt that has been 
issued.  As with any complex problem, there are no simple solutions.

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

I wrote:

So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring
> something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it
> is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely different.
>

This is incorrect.  The physicists are measuring *muonic* hydrogen and
getting a different charge radius for the proton.  So we're not dealing
with Mills hydrogen or even something that looks like Mills hydrogen, since
these have an electron and not a muon.

If you extrapolate the charge radius from these experiments to the case of
the normal proton-electron system, that is interesting.  But what I don't
understand yet is that the new charge radius is 0.04fm *smaller* than
previously measured.  In light of this, I'm not sure what is meant by the
quotation going back to the paper that "The proton structure is important
because an electron in an S [ground] state has a nonzero probability to be
inside the proton."

Eric

[Vo]:The hydrogen s-orbital and the problem of muonic hydrogen

We've already gone over the new Science paper on muonic hydrogen elsewhere,
but I saw a comment on E-Cat World that I thought was worth bringing up
here.  According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica [1],
the problem I alluded to in the title is that the charge radius of the
proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm and 0.88fm.
 This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed
both of these values.  But the measurements are extremely accurate,
and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained going on.

The comment by Gerrit in E-Cat World elaborates [2]:

Have we discussed the recent finding of the shrunken proton yet ?

The proton in muonic hydrogen is 4% smaller that normal hydrogen. They
cannot explain it with current understanding, yet the new measurements are
very high accuracy.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/

“The proton structure is important because an electron in an S [ground]
state has a nonzero probability to be inside the proton.”

Oh wait a minute, if the electron is inside the proton, doesn’t the whole
structure look like a neutron, ie it won’t see a coulomb barrier and can
fuse with another hydrogen at will ?

The next question that “established” science should target is measuring the
proton size of a hydrogen in a metal lattice.

I think it is inevitable that “established” science will eventually stumble
over the same phenomenon that has been shown to exists for over 23 years.

In a few years we’ll probably be hearing “Well, with the current
understanding of physics we can no longer claim that Fleischmann and Pons
were wrong”


So it seems that under certain conditions, physicists are measuring
something vaguely like Mills's fractional hydrogen -- it might be that it
is Mills's fractional hydrogen, or it might be something entirely
different.  Gerrit asks whether you could get screening, e.g., sufficient
to lead to the anomalous behavior in metal hydrides we've been following
here, from whatever it is that is going on.  The Ars Technica article ends
with this interesting comment: "The one option they [the research team]
seem to like is the existence of relatively light force carriers that
somehow remained undiscovered until now."  New force carriers is an
interesting thought.  Would that imply a heretofore unknown interaction?

Eric

[1]
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/hydrogen-made-with-muons-reveals-proton-size-conundrum/
[2]
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/robotics-and-lenr/comment-page-1/#comment-105365

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount of
> debt exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to pay the
> interest. This is why people lost their homes. The US government has now
> reached a debt so large that it cannot be paid back and can barely be
> serviced.  This is a fact.
>

That is not true. All we have to do is raise taxes back to the level they
were under Mr. Clinton. If the economy recovers the debt will soon begin to
decline. It was declining rapidly under Clinton. Government expenditures
have not increased, except for the Pentagon, and now that the wars are over
I don't see why the military budget should be so high.

The debt crisis is ginned up nonsense, in my opinion. It could be fixed
with slightly higher tax rates so small we would hardly notice them. Mainly
on wealthy people. I am sure that wealthy people can afford to pay 3% more
than they now do. It is trivial matter for them.

For that matter, the U.S. government can print money. A little inflation
would soon reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP. We would hardly notice
that, either. The Japanese government under PM Abe is deliberately trying
to inflate by 3%, after years of deflation. It is about time! If they
succeed and the economy also grows, their debt will decline. It is twice as
high as the U.S., as a percent of the GDP, but Japan is not in crisis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Pollution per dollar of GDP is down in both. China is making rapid
> strides, adding nuclear and wind power.
>
>
> That does not seem to translate into improvement.  Last night the news
> showed a picture from space where the pollution was clearly visible.
>

It will translate into an improvement if they keep it up. They have 16
nuclear power plants, and they are building 30 more. I believe that is the
fastest rate of expansion in the history of nuclear power, exceeding U.S.
expansion in the 1970s. See:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

I do not think it would be wise to build them any faster.

They are adding wind power faster than any other country. I think they are
up to 60 GW nameplate, and the turbines are mostly in very windy places
where the COP is high. Probably ~20 GW at least, which is roughly as much
as those 16 nukes. 32 nukes worth of pollution-free energy is a lot!

If they begin introducing electric cars they will soon reduce pollution
even as they expand the economy. The U.S., Europe and Japan reduced
pollution over the last 50 years. The Chinese can as well, and I think they
intend to.

Their energy efficiency is way up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

I wrote:

Your argument is general and would seem to go beyond protons, since it
> operates at the level of quarks and gluons and so on and calls out nothing
> specific to protons, in particular.  You appear to extend the variable-mass
> hypothesis to electrons; can I assume that it applies to neutrons as well?
>  If so, why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field
> is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply
> to neutrons and electrons?
>

There is a possible error here, which is partly hidden by the ambiguity of
the phrasing, in which I seem to be suggesting that an electron is a
hadron, composed of quarks and gluons.  I was suggesting that, and I was
wrong.  I periodically forget that it is a fundamental particle.  But the
question still applies to neutrons.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

AIR POLLUTION: Plant extremely fast growing forests to sharply reduce it. See 
details at 
http://www.adamsmithtoday.com/an-australian-solution-to-the-co2-problem. It 
could readily be tried in China. Water might be supplied by air wells instead 
of desalination. 

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 2:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Edmund Storms mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:

Pollution is gradually being reduced.

Except in China and India, which is most of the world.

Pollution per dollar of GDP is down in both. China is making rapid strides, 
adding nuclear and wind power.

That does not seem to translate into improvement.  Last night the news showed a 
picture from space where the pollution was clearly visible.

Beijing's Air Pollution Steps Get Poor Reception Among Some In 
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com / 2013 / 01 / 22 / 
beijings-new-air-polluti...
 -

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment



On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:


Pollution is gradually being reduced.


Except in China and India, which is most of the world.

Pollution per dollar of GDP is down in both. China is making rapid  
strides, adding nuclear and wind power.


That does not seem to translate into improvement.  Last night the news  
showed a picture from space where the pollution was clearly visible.


Beijing's Air Pollution Steps Get Poor Reception Among Some In ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com / 2013 / 01 / 22 / beijings-new-air- 
polluti... -

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Technology is only part of the solution.

Second Incomes can be adapted to most of the industrialized world. If we are 
wise enough to pass such legislation the pain of transition can be reduced. 

See a proposed act for the U.S. Congress at SECOND INCOMES on the Aesop site.

See CHEAP GREEN, on the same site, for a few other Black Swan technologies that 
do not depend on the commercialization of LENR.

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: a.ashfield [a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

I should have described the difficulty of transition.
When a few companies have changed to fully automated production it is hard to 
see how they can be made to use a shorter work week, earlier retirement, higher 
taxes etc.  To impose those things just on companies changing to full 
automation would lower the incentive to do so and dramatically slow the 
transition.  Yet to impose those things on companies that have not yet made the 
change would probably kill them.  I think the result is a transition that will 
be much slower to take advantage of new technologies than one would otherwise 
like.
It is already cheaper to make many things here with high automation, than to 
buy them from abroad, from countries with low labor costs.  Then what happens 
to those third world countries?   Meanwhile we have sustained, then growing, 
high unemployment that we can’t afford.
If Rossi’s Hot Cat actually works as well as he claims, there is a chance it 
could be the black swan event that would allow/pay for the transition. The 
slow, painful transition is more likely.

[Vo]:~:)FUN WITH PLASMA PHYSICS~:D

* * *Here's some fun with PLASMA PHYSICS:  In Korean air/ground-skimming space: 
the quasi-FUSION project has produced the Mageto-XO-Plamic-toroid ELECTRO-PLAS 
METEOR-technology.  That latest most 'fun' development is that 
launch-generators/launchers  are far more directable now(accurate) via using
a similar parallel BUSS-BAR launcher of the XO-gravion-TOROIDS(projectiles) 
much like the RAIL-GUN.

Gene Roddenbury predicted this technology(somewhat) in a series called 
ANDROMEDA in which was illustrated a weapon known as
a POINT-SINGULARITY(plasma-breach)FIRING WEAPON.

WHEN Tesla did this inadvertantly from Wardenclyff-Long Island circa 1908 he 
went ALL-OUT from his generators at Niagra
in one-shot  because George Westinghouse was cutting off his funding for his 
Atomospheric-Charging Station Energy Project: within
moments of Nikola throwing the power switch on what he thought would 
generate(at the very least)a psychedelic SUPER AURORA
BOREALIS; oops instead he created-broadcasted an 
ELECTRO-PLASMIC(Plasma-Breach-frisbee)TOROID that fired up along the 
EM-geo-flux grid
to the N-Mag-Pole and bounced across as far as Tunguska where which it 
connected to the Geo-Flux-EM-Planet via STORM FRONT-LIGHTENING GIGA INPUT to 
the Plasma-Breach which amplified it to FULL WHITE HOLE status for a 
pin-point/split instant to egress
XO-PLASMA which created FUSION in the UPPER STRATOSPHERE. . .  the timing here 
is IRREFUTABLE to the nano-second. . . meteors and comets were NOT in the 
neighborhood at the time.

CONCOMMITANTLY:  When FISSION(or fusion) BLASTS etc.(Hiroshima etc.) create 
their notable MAGNETO-PLASMIC(bagel-shaped) TOROIDS they are in fact a 
PLASMA-BREACH REACTOR which is strong enough to KICK-START via trans spectrum 
field viscosity a parallel XO- SPACE HyperPlasma-Breach Toroid which opens up 
an Einstein-Rosen Connection between the two.  In the Fission Blast's case a 
pin-point white-hole is opened up and the notably large PILLAR OF FIRE MUSHROOM 
CLOUD is how much XO-PLASMA ingress POWER comes into our space-time normal in a 
microscopic blink of a nano-second.

A PROTON & A GALAXY etc. is a model of this also. . . but with a 'proton' the 
mushroom collumn(characteristic axial jet) creates the ELECTRO-VALENT shell(s) 
circulation-configuration. . . the Bohr model is closest. . .(and this is what 
the PRIMER FIELDS you-tube video was REALLY ILLUSTRATING. . .)

Tesla called it his death-ray.  John Hutchison of Vancouver-BC got a lot closer 
aka THE HUTCHISON EFFECT.  Einstein was Tesla's Protege' during the Phoenix 
Project/CLASSIFIED before Tesla passed.  Relativity and the Phoenix project led 
to the Manhattan Project. . .  and we all ride their coat-tails. . .  WHAT FUN! 
 DARPA.mil and CANADIAN SECRET SERVICE-->SEIZED John Hutchisons 
workbefore he could take his project (at fervent invitation!) to Max 
Planck Institute, Deutschland-Munich.

Now that's what I call ENTERTAINMENT!  Cheers;  Walter Bishop~;)

> Subject: Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion
> From: jounivalko...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:29:56 +0200
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> Indeed, 
> 
> However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have some 
> big science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having fun!
> 
> If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn profits 
> on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion. It is nicer, because 
> it does not produce a neutron flux, but it emits fast protons. This means in 
> practice that protons can be captured with magnets and their kinetic energy 
> can be transformed directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%).
> 
> This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are devastating 
> for the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any economical prospects. 
> However argument (3) is still valid and it hard to see how even he-3 plasma 
> fusion could compete economically with solar electricity, wind power and 4th 
> gen nuclear.
> 
> China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled 
> nuclear plant at Rongcheng. 
> 
> —Jouni
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> 
> > This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved or 
> > even widely acknowledged.
> > 
> > 1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it is not 
> > a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into tritium 
> > which is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this conversion process 
> > is not 100% efficient because many neutrons are lost without making 
> > tritium. This missing tritium must be made using a fission reactor or 
> > accelerator, with the added expense this gives.
> > 
> > 2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a result, 
> > its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major problem and 
> > requires shutting down the reactor

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread a.ashfield


I should have described the difficulty of transition.

When a few companies have changed to fully automated production it is 
hard to see how they can be made to use a shorter work week, earlier 
retirement, higher taxes etc.To impose those things just on companies 
changing to full automation would lower the incentive to do so and 
dramatically slow the transition.Yet to impose those things on companies 
that have not yet made the change would probably kill them.I think the 
result is a transition that will be much slower to take advantage of new 
technologies than one would otherwise like.


It is already cheaper to make many things here with high automation, 
than to buy them from abroad, from countries with low labor costs.Then 
what happens to those third world countries?Meanwhile we have sustained, 
then growing, high unemployment that we can't afford.


If Rossi's Hot Cat actually works as well as he claims, there is a 
chance it could be the black swan event that would allow/pay for the 
transition.The slow, painful transition is more likely.

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Pollution is gradually being reduced.
>
>
> Except in China and India, which is most of the world.
>

Pollution per dollar of GDP is down in both. China is making rapid strides,
adding nuclear and wind power.

>
> Out of control population growth is moderating, even in third world
> countries.
>
>
> The population is still growing exponentially world-wide.
>

The growth rate is now 1%, which is lower than it was anytime in the 20th
century.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world%20population%20growth

The rate is down sharply, even in developing countries. It is below
replacement in most first world countries:

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

> Food factory technology is improving, and it could easily eliminate the
> threat of famine or massive water shortages.
>
>
> Apparently not so easily. Hunger is even growing in the US at the low end
> of the economy.
>

That is a political problem, not a technical problem. There is plenty of
food in the U.S.

That is a bit like saying cold fusion research is not funded because there
is a shortage of money. At present the world is awash in money. We are knee
deep in unused capital to such an extent that investors are effectively
paying the U.S. government to take their money (less than zero interest
after inflation).

> The Internet is bringing unprecedented access to information and education
> to people everywhere, even in the Third World.
>
>
> True, but to what effect?
>

Why would the effect be any different than educating First World people?
Education is always a good thing.

> But what role does rational and objective observation have in any
> evaluation? It seems to me, we need to identify a problem before we can
> attempt to correct it. This identification always leads to what might be
> called pessimism.
>

Not in my case. I don't know where we stand on the rationality or
objectivity scale, but I do know history. I read a lot of history. It is
clear to me that things have never been better, and they are presently
heading in the right direction by most metrics. Something like global
warming may clobber us, but then again we might act to prevent it in time.
We have often fixed problems and made things better. We tend to forget
that, because we take good things for granted and we come to ignore them,
while we always see problems. Improvements which seemed miraculous when
they were introduced are now invisible. For example: automobiles,
electricity, computers, word processing and the Internet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Interesting discussion.  It raises for me, among other things, questions
> about the limits of the instruments used to determine the mass of the
> various particles being discussed.

I think this is used for the proton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

If so, why would any form of energy arbitration
>

Typo: "arbitrage" not "arbitration."

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment



On Jan 26, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is that money  
has been lent to the US in various forms and by various people and  
they want their money back eventually. Meanwhile they want to be  
paid interest. The US is rapidly approaching a level of debt such  
that if the interest rates rose to normal levels, we could not pay  
the interest without shutting down significant parts of the  
government. The US is presently printing dollars to cover this  
expense.  As a result, the debt is growing because this money is  
borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank owned by  
individuals who want to be paid. At some point in the near future,  
the debt will be so large, it simply can not be paid. At that point,  
the US is in default, and the financial system of the world  
collapses. This means starvation and civil strife.  The problem is  
serous and can not be solved without great pain, which means further  
loss of jobs. The fools in Congress over the last 20 years have  
created a no win situation that very few people understand.


I should clarify an earlier remark I made about people who propose  
deep budget cuts not wanting to think through the implications.   
This is obviously not the case for everyone making such a proposal,  
as Ed's thoughtful analysis here shows.  What becomes clear is that  
there is a complex situation that must be carefully worked through.


I see no need to slash government entitlements that are basically  
self-funding and which, if anything, help to bring down costs. But I  
also appreciate the reasoning behind calls to limit the amount of US  
government debt that has been issued.


Debt is good within limits, Eric. The problem comes when the amount of  
debt exceeds the ability to pay back or even to service, i.e. to pay  
the interest. This is why people lost their homes. The US government  
has now reached a debt so large that it cannot be paid back and can  
barely be serviced.  This is a fact.  We had been living off China,  
who lent us the money we had spent on items made in China. China has  
largely stopped doing this.  To keep interest rates low on this debt,  
the FR is printing money and lending it to the US government, i.e.  
buying Treasury bonds , which artificially keeps interest rates low so  
that the interest payments are low. So they are fixing one major  
problem by creating another. As the debt grows, the amount of interest  
grows. At some point, the government does not have enough money to pay  
this interest without taking the money from a government program. The  
hope is that the economy would repair itself and start to generate  
income for the government before the debt become impossible to  
support. That hope has not been fulfilled. So, we are essentially  
having to sell the furniture to pay the mortgage.  The next step is on  
the street. The family cannot agree who's bed to sell, so the sheriff  
will decide when the house is foreclosed. God help us all, everyone.


Ed



 As with any complex problem, there are no simple solutions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is
> quantized – then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can
> anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in
> actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)?
>

Interesting discussion.  It raises for me, among other things, questions
about the limits of the instruments used to determine the mass of the
various particles being discussed.  But it also is suggestive (to a
hobbyist) of there being a variable proton mass.  Perhaps the variability
resides in the gluons not being massless after all.  I assume this would
cause problems for one or two assumptions in the standard theory?

Your argument is general and would seem to go beyond protons, since it
operates at the level of quarks and gluons and so on and calls out nothing
specific to protons, in particular.  You appear to extend the variable-mass
hypothesis to electrons; can I assume that it applies to neutrons as well?
 If so, why would any form of energy arbitration, in which a magnetic field
is used to drain off a little bit of the mass of a proton, not also apply
to neutrons and electrons?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions


TARGETED RESONANT FREQUENCY/Hertz MODULATION at the quantum level indicated by 
PHONON outputs will
be the KEY to discovering the most efficacious input-technique for discovering 
why(for instance) that Russian water is
more salubrious than Texan water and to TRIGGER cascading 'cooler' fusion 
reactions yielding notable XO-Plamic
flux harvest. . .

 



To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:21:59 -0500

A thought occurred to me after the brief discussion that was conducted about 
the subject of D + D fusion.  The wikipedia article on fusion of this type 
suggests that there is always either a neutron or proton emitted from the 
reaction when hot fusion takes place.  This of course makes sense from the 
conservation of momentum and energy perspective as Dr. Storms has pointed out. 


I commented that a measurement of the actual energy released to the alpha 
particles of cold fusion reactions would allow someone to calculate the energy 
and momentum that had to be left behind for the numbers to make sense.  My 
first thoughts on the matter were that this was going to require a large 
reactionary force if conservation of momentum was to be maintained.  I did not 
actually calculate the magnitude of the momentum or the energy associated with 
that mass conversion.


My choice of a central location from which to observe the reaction made it 
clear that the alpha particle would be frozen in place pending the release of 
this mass.  With this in mind I think that it would be wise for us to give very 
serious consideration to the prospect that direct fusion of D + D is unlikely.  
It would be a good idea to explore different paths that ultimately lead to the 
release of one or more alpha particles.  Of course the source for the reaction 
must be deuterium.  I am confident that this suggestion has been covered before 
and I am curious about the possible paths that are available.  Do any of these 
fit into place when a review of the active cold fusion metals is considered?  
Would the addition of a deuterium nuclei be encouraged by Pd for example?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 9:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions



Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum 
mechanical mechanism.
Yes
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/
In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the 
same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers 
made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) 
apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a 
beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of 
the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons 
struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of 
the crystals.
The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And 
sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when 
it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused 
some vibrations.
"We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one," Walmsley 
said. "In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the 
diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though 
they are separated in space."
 
Cheers:   Axil


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:



On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM,  
 wrote:


Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language.


I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible. 



Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at 
some distains?


No 


Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum 
mechanical mechanism.

Yes, at chemical levels of energy 


This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in 
different molecules.


Yes 


>From an older tread.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html

Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus?  This means the 
excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred


The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a 
particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is 
too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure.  That is why 
most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical 
environment. 


to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special 
nuclide suitable for  receive the energy and have a mechanism to

get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it 
as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12

how decay to 3 He4 as an

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is that money has been
> lent to the US in various forms and by various people and they want their
> money back eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The US is
> rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if the interest rates rose to
> normal levels, we could not pay the interest without shutting down
> significant parts of the government. The US is presently printing dollars
> to cover this expense.  As a result, the debt is growing because this money
> is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank owned by
> individuals who want to be paid. At some point in the near future, the debt
> will be so large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is in
> default, and the financial system of the world collapses. This means
> starvation and civil strife.  The problem is serous and can not be solved
> without great pain, which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress
> over the last 20 years have created a no win situation that very few people
> understand.
>

I should clarify an earlier remark I made about people who propose deep
budget cuts not wanting to think through the implications.  This is
obviously not the case for everyone making such a proposal, as Ed's
thoughtful analysis here shows.  What becomes clear is that there is a
complex situation that must be carefully worked through.

I see no need to slash government entitlements that are basically
self-funding and which, if anything, help to bring down costs. But I also
appreciate the reasoning behind calls to limit the amount of US government
debt that has been issued.  As with any complex problem, there are no
simple solutions.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions


Yes:  That pesky 'Spooky Action @ a Distance' again. Quantum spinning particles 
'tailed'/quantum-singularitized through XO-PlasmicSpace(regardless of distance 
of separation) to be in multiple locations simultaneously interacting in 
'real-time' with other particles aka quantum-units.  This is also a better 
explanation that the 'common ion transition' explanations for the action within 
a HYDROGEN FUEL CELL for instance.  
 
Until this is grasped, Practical overunity-Cold Fusion will continue to allude 
practical application.
  



Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:18:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum 
mechanical mechanism.
Yes
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/diamonds-entangled-in-physics-feat/
In the case of Walmsley's study, photons were showing up in two spots at the 
same time and causing vibrations within a pair of diamonds. The researchers 
made it happen by placing two diamonds about 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) 
apart on a table and then shooting a series of photons at a device called a 
beam splitter. Most of them went toward one diamond or the other, but a few of 
the photons went both ways at the same time. When those multitasking photons 
struck the pair of diamonds, they caused vibrations called phonons with each of 
the crystals.
The light from each of the beams recombines after exiting the crystals. And 
sometimes when the light is leaving the crystals, it has less energy than when 
it entered. That's how the researchers could tell that the photon had caused 
some vibrations.
"We know that one diamond is vibrating, but we don't know which one," Walmsley 
said. "In fact, the universe doesn't know which diamond is vibrating – the 
diamonds are entangled, with one vibration shared between them, even though 
they are separated in space."
 
Cheers:   Axil


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:



On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:49 PM,  
 wrote:


Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language.


I will try to answer your questions as simply as possible.



Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at 
some distains?


No


Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum 
mechanical mechanism.

Yes, at chemical levels of energy


This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in 
different molecules.


Yes


>From an older tread.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg75294.html

Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus?  This means the 
excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred


The amount energy generated by a nuclear reaction requires direct emission of a 
particle, which can include a photon. This is observed fact. The magnitude is 
too great to use mechanisms available in a chemical structure.  That is why 
most nuclear reactions are almost totally independent of the chemical 
environment.


to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special 
nuclide suitable for  receive the energy and have a mechanism to

get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it 
as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12

how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha.

In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not 
explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier

and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus.


I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to 
"something"

how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to 
explain more exactly.


The Mossbauer effect involves a very small energy change. It works only because 
the target nucleus is very sensitive to the energy of the bombarding gamma. 
Therefore, the slight effect produced by the chemical lattice become visible. 
This effect is too small to influence energy being emitted by a fusion reaction 
in any meaningful way.

Ed


TG

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

Well, if I had the backing to test the hypothesis, one of the first
experiments would be to set up three identical reactors using nickel
nanopowder, or Ni loaded zeolite. 

1) argon fill, as an inert baseline

2) H2 enriched via  multi-stage enrichment of the least dense fractional
component of bottled hydrogen.

3) H2 enriched via multi-stage enrichment of the densest fractional
component of bottled hydrogen.

Would there be a significant difference in the three ? 

Enquiring minds want to know

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Jones Beene wrote:

> Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between
hydrogen
> split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian
methane
> in 2013.

That would have profound implications.  Some sources of hydrogen would
work better than others in a NiH reactor.  Remember when we speculated
that the Potapov heater efficiency might depend on the water source?
Texas water did not work as well as Russian water.

<>

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions


Jones:  Reading this reminds me of WHACK-A-MOLE :^(but that's chemistry not 
quantum physics/sorry).
 
None-the-less Eric your comments/assessments are astute.
 
Alternative:  Is it that protons don't quantize well because they have 
singularity-centres that dialate or contract relative to variable 
'quantum-frequency' in their 'environment' inputs; and via this, protons so are 
by their natures 'creatures' of 'quantum-flux'  fluctuations due to said 
dialations &/or contractions in mass which MAY explain the 'defacto' gradient 
variants that you are describing ?
 



From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:18:53 -0800




Eric,
 
Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen mass 
is not quantized-at least not "in practice". (to be explained)
 
First off - it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in the 
entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the proton 
were to be found quantized in practice. 
 
Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is 
possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical and 
the actual - such that there is a theoretical "ideal" - the so-called Bohr atom 
- which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the pursuit of 
experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is leeway, and 
there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to an ideal value, 
with populations on either side of the average that exist "in practice".
 
Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one half 
of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially "glue" - but most 
of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you do the 
numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO firm value - 
and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change (with consequences 
to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass 
is not quantized, then it goes without saying that proton mass cannot be 
quantized. Again - we can define an "ideal" value - but do not expect to see it 
in practice.
 
Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and is 
a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless particles 
is gauge bosons - like the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons 
are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons 
BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the 
entire structure of matter in the standard model is "built on a lie" - which is 
the massless particle. We know the "real mass" is actually a significant 
fraction of proton mass.
 
Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their energy 
levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but even so, 
these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are also built on 
another sandy foundation - the FCC (fine structure constant). The FCC "ought to 
be" an integer value but is not since each frequency must correspond to an 
energy (hν) by Einstein's equation. This photon energy must be the difference 
between two energy levels, since that is the amount of energy released by the 
electron moving from one level to the other but that does not depend on the 
mass of proton. The energy of a state can be characterized by an integer 
quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which determines its energy. The end number 
however is close to 137 - given by the fine structure constant but it is not 
exact and non-integer, so we suspect that every value in between is also not 
exact. Moreover, it is likely that this variation is tied to perm!
 itted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW there are fudge factors 
everywhere which are based primarily on the "real" proton having a variable 
mass (variable but within a narrow range).
 
Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are 
"quantized," that is, restricted to certain values - the slight variation in 
these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the underlying 
proton. 
 
This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is 
quantized - then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can anyone 
think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in actual 
protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)?
 
From: Eric Walker 
 
I wrote:
 
What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and is the 
range of possible masses discrete or continuous?
 
I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation -- 
a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel at the 
speed of light.  It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c.  So the 
mass will vary wit

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Yes, Mark, this would be the best place to start. But jobs will be  
lost, the only issue is which jobs.  Congress does not want to cut any  
jobs because these are voters.  They only want to cut things that will  
piss off the fewest number of people who vote. The poor do not vote so  
they are fair game.  Of course, a combination of increased taxes  
especially at the high end and careful cuts over a period of time  
would be the way to go. But as you note - fat chance.


Ed


On Jan 26, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Mark Goldes wrote:


Ed,

Huge cuts could be made in our military budget which is bloated,  
wasteful and largely redundant. (I was a USAF Officer and speak with  
first hand knowledge).


That alone would make an enormous difference.

Try and get Congress to approve it! Fat chance!

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Ed,

Huge cuts could be made in our military budget which is bloated, wasteful and 
largely redundant. (I was a USAF Officer and speak with first hand knowledge). 

That alone would make an enormous difference. 

Try and get Congress to approve it! Fat chance!

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

>From Ashfield:

> ... The referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but
> noted the basic question: “who is going buy all these nice goodies
> if they are unemployed?”

Precisely.

IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided belief that balancing 
the national budget is the most important thing, above everything else, that 
must be tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that "money" is nothing 
more than a contractual representation of the exchange of goods and services 
between individuals and legal entities.

No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is that money has been lent 
to the US in various forms and by various people and they want their money back 
eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid interest. The US is rapidly 
approaching a level of debt such that if the interest rates rose to normal 
levels, we could not pay the interest without shutting down significant parts 
of the government. The US is presently printing dollars to cover this expense.  
As a result, the debt is growing because this money is borrowed from the 
Federal Reserve, which is a private bank owned by individuals who want to be 
paid. At some point in the near future, the debt will be so large, it simply 
can not be paid. At that point, the US is in default, and the financial system 
of the world collapses. This means starvation and civil strife.  The problem is 
serous and can not be solved without great pain, which means further loss of 
jobs. The fools in Congress over the last 20 years have created a no win 
situation that very few people understand.

Ed

Most don't like to ponder the realization that "money" is quite ephemeral in 
nature, despite all attempts to back it with a representation of limited 
physical resources like gold and silver. In a sense, I think this is false 
advertising of the worst kind. It's worshiping the value of "money" over the 
value of the actual work & labor that creates said goods and services that 
"money" attempts to accurately represent. It's as if "money is being worshiped 
as a false god. It's putting the cart before the horse.

IMHO, politicians need to focus more on whatever it takes to create 
environments that allow people to go back to work (or remain working) so that 
that they can start (or continue) acquiring enough of these symbolic 
representations of goods and services that they can cash in for themselves. I 
don't think one can accomplish that by constantly slashing national budgets in 
a misguided belief that doing so will stabilize the value of "money", which in 
turn will somehow miraculously cause businesses to automatically flourish so 
that they will automatically start employing more people... many whom may end 
up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a job! All that national budget 
slashing... the national budget employs a lot of people too, just like out in 
the private sector. If massive amounts of them lose their jobs due to forced 
budget cutting and are forced into the unemployment lines, it's absolutely no 
different than private companies firing it's employees because it has 
insufficient "money" to pay them for their services. Everyone suffers as fewer 
goods and services are being generated which, in turn, devalues the value to 
"money".

We need to stop finding scapegoats to blame (i.e. national budget), and start 
focusing on ways to make sure everyone has a chance to continue to make 
valuable contributions to society. In the end, allowing enough people to 
continue to make valuable contributions to society is the only real way of 
saving the value of "money". I don't think one can accomplish that by, in a 
draconian manner, slashing the budget.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

From Ashfield:

> ... The referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but
> noted the basic question: “who is going buy all these nice goodies
> if they are unemployed?”

Precisely.

IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided belief that  
balancing the national budget is the most important thing, above  
everything else, that must be tackled. What most fail to realize is  
the fact that "money" is nothing more than a contractual  
representation of the exchange of goods and services between  
individuals and legal entities.

No Steven, what you say is not the issue. The issue is that money has  
been lent to the US in various forms and by various people and they  
want their money back eventually. Meanwhile they want to be paid  
interest. The US is rapidly approaching a level of debt such that if  
the interest rates rose to normal levels, we could not pay the  
interest without shutting down significant parts of the government.  
The US is presently printing dollars to cover this expense.  As a  
result, the debt is growing because this money is borrowed from the  
Federal Reserve, which is a private bank owned by individuals who want  
to be paid. At some point in the near future, the debt will be so  
large, it simply can not be paid. At that point, the US is in default,  
and the financial system of the world collapses. This means starvation  
and civil strife.  The problem is serous and can not be solved without  
great pain, which means further loss of jobs. The fools in Congress  
over the last 20 years have created a no win situation that very few  
people understand.

Ed

Most don't like to ponder the realization that "money" is quite  
ephemeral in nature, despite all attempts to back it with a  
representation of limited physical resources like gold and silver.  
In a sense, I think this is false advertising of the worst kind.  
It's worshiping the value of "money" over the value of the actual  
work & labor that creates said goods and services that "money"  
attempts to accurately represent. It's as if "money is being  
worshiped as a false god. It's putting the cart before the horse.

IMHO, politicians need to focus more on whatever it takes to create  
environments that allow people to go back to work (or remain  
working) so that that they can start (or continue) acquiring enough  
of these symbolic representations of goods and services that they  
can cash in for themselves. I don't think one can accomplish that by  
constantly slashing national budgets in a misguided belief that  
doing so will stabilize the value of "money", which in turn will  
somehow miraculously cause businesses to automatically flourish so  
that they will automatically start employing more people... many  
whom may end up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a job!  
All that national budget slashing... the national budget employs a  
lot of people too, just like out in the private sector. If massive  
amounts of them lose their jobs due to forced budget cutting and are  
forced into the unemployment lines, it's absolutely no different  
than private companies firing it's employees because it has  
insufficient "money" to pay them for their services. Everyone  
suffers as fewer goods and services are being generated which, in  
turn, devalues the value to "money".

We need to stop finding scapegoats to blame (i.e. national budget),  
and start focusing on ways to make sure everyone has a chance to  
continue to make valuable contributions to society. In the end,  
allowing enough people to continue to make valuable contributions to  
society is the only real way of saving the value of "money". I don't  
think one can accomplish that by, in a draconian manner, slashing  
the budget.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Steven:

How many people could $400 BILLION dollars feed?

-Mark

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment

>From Ashfield:

> ... The referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but

> noted the basic question: "who is going buy all these nice goodies

> if they are unemployed?" 

Precisely.

IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided belief that balancing
the national budget is the most important thing, above everything else, that
must be tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that "money" is
nothing more than a contractual representation of the exchange of goods and
services between individuals and legal entities. Most don't like to ponder
the realization that "money" is quite ephemeral in nature, despite all
attempts to back it with a representation of limited physical resources like
gold and silver. In a sense, I think this is false advertising of the worst
kind. It's worshiping the value of "money" over the value of the actual work
& labor that creates said goods and services that "money" attempts to
accurately represent. It's as if "money is being worshiped as a false god.
It's putting the cart before the horse.

IMHO, politicians need to focus more on whatever it takes to create
environments that allow people to go back to work (or remain working) so
that that they can start (or continue) acquiring enough of these symbolic
representations of goods and services that they can cash in for themselves.
I don't think one can accomplish that by constantly slashing national
budgets in a misguided belief that doing so will stabilize the value of
"money", which in turn will somehow miraculously cause businesses to
automatically flourish so that they will automatically start employing more
people... many whom may end up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a
job! All that national budget slashing... the national budget employs a lot
of people too, just like out in the private sector. If massive amounts of
them lose their jobs due to forced budget cutting and are forced into the
unemployment lines, it's absolutely no different than private companies
firing it's employees because it has insufficient "money" to pay them for
their services. Everyone suffers as fewer goods and services are being
generated which, in turn, devalues the value to "money".

We need to stop finding scapegoats to blame (i.e. national budget), and
start focusing on ways to make sure everyone has a chance to continue to
make valuable contributions to society. In the end, allowing enough people
to continue to make valuable contributions to society is the only real way
of saving the value of "money". I don't think one can accomplish that by, in
a draconian manner, slashing the budget.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:45, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
 wrote:

> I don't think one can accomplish that by constantly slashing national budgets 
> in a misguided belief that doing so will stabilize the value of "money", 
> which in turn will somehow miraculously cause businesses to automatically 
> flourish so that they will automatically start employing more people... many 
> whom may end up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a job!

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. But I think the problems are 
deeper. This level of analysis is repugnant to the people proposing the deep 
budget cuts. They don't want to follow the implications of their policy 
recommendations far enough to see this kind of thing.

The deeper problems go back to education and critical thinking. We've neglected 
the matter of education for a generation or more, and now we are being 
confronted with the consequences.

I'm optimistic that we'll eventually be able to leverage the increasing 
automation to everyone's benefit. But that will require people worthier than 
those alive today. Until then, enjoy the ride.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Kelos's goal was to enable almost everyone to receive half your income from 
diversified investments by about age 50.

That could  lower the nominal work week to 20 hours. 

Herbert Marcuse defined toil as work you do not choose to do. All other work he 
viewed as play. His only optimistic book, Eros and Civilization, greeted 
automation as an important way to liberate  mankind.

In his opinion, if we can reduce toil to less than 25 hours per week, we would 
see a dramatic, extremely positive, change in civilization. 


Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain 
Sepeda [alain.sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

as explained in the wired, and as experienced in the 50s,
the automation will reduce some work, but create others that we don't imagine, 
or we don't dare to.

there is also old need that will be covered better like elderly care, better 
health care, disabled care, ...
vacation will develop (I don't understand why people in US don't imagine that 
worktime will change).

about deconcentrating wealth, during technology transition the card are 
redistributed and the old riche , keep their wealth, but since all other wealth 
increase, they are relatively lowered if they don't adapt and innovate... this 
is why incumbent try to block innovation, typically by frightening the mass 
with fear to lose their old job...
A bit like Malthusian ideas, that are spread by the fear of invation by 
enriched poors, and lead to manipulation of the mass to block the change.

never seen a Malthusian prediction true.
never seen a productivity increase bad for the population on long term... and 
you can even suspect that the trouble of technology change are not because of 
change, but because the incumbent try to block change, and use resource that 
would rather help to train the workforce to enter the new generation.


2013/1/26 Mark Goldes mailto:mgol...@chavaenergy.com>>
Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used by 
11,000 companies, saw this coming decades ago. He suggested a Second Income 
Plan. See: SECOND INCOMES at 
www.aesopinstitute.org for a current version.

Independent of savings, it would open a path to end poverty, and provide the 
purchasing power removed from the economy when jobs rapidly disappear due to 
automation. It offers a way to harmlessly deconcentrate wealth.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Jed Rothwell [jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-world-without-work-as-robots-computers-get-smarter-will-humans-have-anything-left-to-do/2013/01/18/61561b1c-61b7-11e2-81ef-a2249c1e5b3d_story.html

This subject is starting to attract attention in the mass media. I wish cold 
fusion would.

Cold fusion will lead to more unemployment than most breakthroughs, but not as 
much as improvements to computers. I have a chapter about that in my book. It 
is surprising how few people work in energy.

Here is a thought-provoking table showing all major occupations in the U.S.:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

That is the entire universe of work.

Here are some comments I made about this table elsewhere:


The economy has not produced any new "Major Occupational Group" since roughly 
1880 (when precision manufacturing began) because every kind of labor we want 
done for us is already done. As I said, people have moved from one group to 
another, as the amount of labor ebbs and flows in different sectors. But there 
are no new groups, and robots will move into all groups simultaneously. . . .

Granted, Category 15, "Computer and Mathematical Occupations" did not exist in 
1880. But every task now done by "Computer" occupations was done back then by 
people in category 43, "Office and Administrative Support." All of the other 
occupations in this list were already in existence by 1880. Most of them 
existed in Heian Japan, for that matter.

There are no new tasks. That is to say, there are no occupations with novel 
outcomes or purposes that did not exist back then. The methods of achieving 
these purposes have changed. For example, in category 27 our methods of 
entertainment have changed, but the purpose -- entertaining people with 
fiction, music and so on -- is the same. There i

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Agreed. 

See HUMAN INVESTMENT, on the Aesop Institute site, for a way to sharply 
increase employment. Weak versions of the incentives we suggested in Discussion 
Papers we wrote for the Economic Development Administration (U.S. Department of 
Commerce) were included in the Jobs Tax Credit of 1977 and resulted in 2 
million jobs. The Human Investment Tax Credit program is designed to generate 6 
million jobs and help 4 million small firms. 

The sad fact is that the current Congress is not likely to pass such sensible 
law.


Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [orionwo...@charter.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

>From Ashfield:



> ... The referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but

> noted the basic question: “who is going buy all these nice goodies

> if they are unemployed?”



Precisely.







IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided belief that balancing 
the national budget is the most important thing, above everything else, that 
must be tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that "money" is nothing 
more than a contractual representation of the exchange of goods and services 
between individuals and legal entities. Most don't like to ponder the 
realization that "money" is quite ephemeral in nature, despite all attempts to 
back it with a representation of limited physical resources like gold and 
silver. In a sense, I think this is false advertising of the worst kind. It's 
worshiping the value of "money" over the value of the actual work & labor that 
creates said goods and services that "money" attempts to accurately represent. 
It's as if "money is being worshiped as a false god. It's putting the cart 
before the horse.



IMHO, politicians need to focus more on whatever it takes to create 
environments that allow people to go back to work (or remain working) so that 
that they can start (or continue) acquiring enough of these symbolic 
representations of goods and services that they can cash in for themselves. I 
don't think one can accomplish that by constantly slashing national budgets in 
a misguided belief that doing so will stabilize the value of "money", which in 
turn will somehow miraculously cause businesses to automatically flourish so 
that they will automatically start employing more people... many whom may end 
up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a job! All that national budget 
slashing... the national budget employs a lot of people too, just like out in 
the private sector. If massive amounts of them lose their jobs due to forced 
budget cutting and are forced into the unemployment lines, it's absolutely no 
different than private companies firing it's employees because it has 
insufficient "money" to pay them for their services. Everyone suffers as fewer 
goods and services are being generated which, in turn, devalues the value to 
"money".



We need to stop finding scapegoats to blame (i.e. national budget), and start 
focusing on ways to make sure everyone has a chance to continue to make 
valuable contributions to society. In the end, allowing enough people to 
continue to make valuable contributions to society is the only real way of 
saving the value of "money". I don't think one can accomplish that by, in a 
draconian manner, slashing the budget.







Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Second Incomes, as suggested by Louis Kelso, would be derived from a broad new 
program of capital investment. This is not in any way Socialism. Kelso's first 
book, with Mortimer Adler, was The Capitalist Manifesto. 

There is a link, under SECOND INCOMES, on the Aesop Institute website, to a 
recent article by Gary Reber, that provides a complete overview of Kelso's 
legacy.

This is an invention in the field of economics that might be viewed as an 
analog to LENR, insofar as it addresses a huge problem - and is, to date, 
largely ignored by the mainstream media.


Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: a.ashfield [a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms wrote: “This is obviously a basic question and the obvious answer 
is a form of socialism. Money will have be extracted from the system to give 
basic support to the unemployed and underemployed. As we know from sad 
experience, when people are hungary and bored they gum up the system. This 
consequence is not hard to predict. The US will be particularly susceptible to 
this problem because of the irrational attitude toward such social support held 
by people who call themselves Republicans and libertarians.”
Basic support to the unemployed won’t do it.  That doesn’t allow for the market 
of luxuries that gradually improve the standard of living and civilization in 
general.  There are some possibilities in a much shorter working week, much 
earlier retirement and a direct payment to every individual from the 
government.  The problem is the transition and from where the government would 
get the money for the change.  There are very few ways that fit within the 
current cultural and political framework in the US.   So like the Chinese 
proverb says:   “Interesting times.”

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread Alain Sepeda

as explained in the wired, and as experienced in the 50s,
the automation will reduce some work, but create others that we don't
imagine, or we don't dare to.

there is also old need that will be covered better like elderly care,
better health care, disabled care, ...
vacation will develop (I don't understand why people in US don't imagine
that worktime will change).

about deconcentrating wealth, during technology transition the card are
redistributed and the old riche , keep their wealth, but since all other
wealth increase, they are relatively lowered if they don't adapt and
innovate... this is why incumbent try to block innovation, typically by
frightening the mass with fear to lose their old job...
A bit like Malthusian ideas, that are spread by the fear of invation by
enriched poors, and lead to manipulation of the mass to block the change.

never seen a Malthusian prediction true.
never seen a productivity increase bad for the population on long term...
and you can even suspect that the trouble of technology change are not
because of change, but because the incumbent try to block change, and use
resource that would rather help to train the workforce to enter the new
generation.


2013/1/26 Mark Goldes 

> Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used
> by 11,000 companies, saw this coming decades ago. He suggested a Second
> Income Plan. See: SECOND INCOMES at www.aesopinstitute.org for a current
> version.
>
> Independent of savings, it would open a path to end poverty, and provide
> the purchasing power removed from the economy when jobs rapidly disappear
> due to automation. It offers a way to harmlessly deconcentrate wealth.
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Goldes
> Co-Founder, Chava Energy
> CEO, Aesop Institute
>
> www.chavaenergy.com
> www.aesopinstitute.org
>
> 707 861-9070
> 707 497-3551 fax
> 
> From: Jed Rothwell [jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:37 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment
>
> See:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-world-without-work-as-robots-computers-get-smarter-will-humans-have-anything-left-to-do/2013/01/18/61561b1c-61b7-11e2-81ef-a2249c1e5b3d_story.html
>
> This subject is starting to attract attention in the mass media. I wish
> cold fusion would.
>
> Cold fusion will lead to more unemployment than most breakthroughs, but
> not as much as improvements to computers. I have a chapter about that in my
> book. It is surprising how few people work in energy.
>
> Here is a thought-provoking table showing all major occupations in the
> U.S.:
>
> http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
>
> That is the entire universe of work.
>
> Here are some comments I made about this table elsewhere:
>
>
> The economy has not produced any new "Major Occupational Group" since
> roughly 1880 (when precision manufacturing began) because every kind of
> labor we want done for us is already done. As I said, people have moved
> from one group to another, as the amount of labor ebbs and flows in
> different sectors. But there are no new groups, and robots will move into
> all groups simultaneously. . . .
>
> Granted, Category 15, "Computer and Mathematical Occupations" did not
> exist in 1880. But every task now done by "Computer" occupations was done
> back then by people in category 43, "Office and Administrative Support."
> All of the other occupations in this list were already in existence by
> 1880. Most of them existed in Heian Japan, for that matter.
>
> There are no new tasks. That is to say, there are no occupations with
> novel outcomes or purposes that did not exist back then. The methods of
> achieving these purposes have changed. For example, in category 27 our
> methods of entertainment have changed, but the purpose -- entertaining
> people with fiction, music and so on -- is the same. There is a limited
> market for this. We cannot watch TV or listen to music 20 hours a day.
>
> Nearly all of the occupations on this list, and the sub-category
> occupations in the table, could be done better by a Watson-class computer
> than by a human being. . . .
>
>
> Someone else summarized the situation quite well: "Until recently,
> technology advances made machines stronger, faster, and more reliable than
> average Joes. But, even at the slow end, he was much better at mopping a
> floor, understanding speech, packing a box, or driving a lorry than even
> the best supercomputer. So, he had some major competitive advantages for
> just being human."
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Ashfield:

 

> ... The referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but

> noted the basic question: "who is going buy all these nice goodies

> if they are unemployed?" 

 

Precisely.

 



 

IMHO, too many politicians are focusing on a misguided belief that balancing
the national budget is the most important thing, above everything else, that
must be tackled. What most fail to realize is the fact that "money" is
nothing more than a contractual representation of the exchange of goods and
services between individuals and legal entities. Most don't like to ponder
the realization that "money" is quite ephemeral in nature, despite all
attempts to back it with a representation of limited physical resources like
gold and silver. In a sense, I think this is false advertising of the worst
kind. It's worshiping the value of "money" over the value of the actual work
& labor that creates said goods and services that "money" attempts to
accurately represent. It's as if "money is being worshiped as a false god.
It's putting the cart before the horse.

 

IMHO, politicians need to focus more on whatever it takes to create
environments that allow people to go back to work (or remain working) so
that that they can start (or continue) acquiring enough of these symbolic
representations of goods and services that they can cash in for themselves.
I don't think one can accomplish that by constantly slashing national
budgets in a misguided belief that doing so will stabilize the value of
"money", which in turn will somehow miraculously cause businesses to
automatically flourish so that they will automatically start employing more
people... many whom may end up being hired at minimum wage. But Hey! It's a
job! All that national budget slashing... the national budget employs a lot
of people too, just like out in the private sector. If massive amounts of
them lose their jobs due to forced budget cutting and are forced into the
unemployment lines, it's absolutely no different than private companies
firing it's employees because it has insufficient "money" to pay them for
their services. Everyone suffers as fewer goods and services are being
generated which, in turn, devalues the value to "money".

 

We need to stop finding scapegoats to blame (i.e. national budget), and
start focusing on ways to make sure everyone has a chance to continue to
make valuable contributions to society. In the end, allowing enough people
to continue to make valuable contributions to society is the only real way
of saving the value of "money". I don't think one can accomplish that by, in
a draconian manner, slashing the budget.

 



 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> So like the Chinese proverb says:   “Interesting times.”

That has been considered a curse more than a proverb.

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Tom Claytor has a way of making tritium based on LENR that might supply
> tritium to the hot fusion program.  Nevertheless, once LENR is understood,
> who needs hot fusion?  Public funding is not determined by logic, facts, or
> even rational analysis. It is controlled by politics, i.e. self-interest.
> The sooner people realize this, the quicker we can make progress getting
> support.

Well, our nuclear arsenal has depleted of tritium by 50% since the
turn of the millennium.  Not that is necessarily a bad thing.

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between hydrogen
> split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian methane
> in 2013.

That would have profound implications.  Some sources of hydrogen would
work better than others in a NiH reactor.  Remember when we speculated
that the Potapov heater efficiency might depend on the water source?
Texas water did not work as well as Russian water.

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

Good point Terry - but - I don't have a problem with the sampling
uncertainty being less than what is actually available to be captured within
samples. 

This is not an easy point to reconcile, and I could be wrong on how NIST
arrived at that number, but - the kind of uncertainty in the table could
only define a variability per test sample over time and geography, and not
an inherent variability within each sample.

Thus you might say that there would be low mass variability between hydrogen
split from tropical seawater in 1950 and hydrogen spit from Siberian methane
in 2013. But within each of those samples, and independent of where they
came from, is a range of mass-energy which varies from high to low at what
could be as high as 36 parts per thousand. It may not be that high, but it
could be much higher than the NIST uncertainty figure. If the actual
variation was 36 parts per million, instead of per thousand - that is still
considerably more than chemical energy.

In short - even with a wider range of subatomic variability in each sample,
hydrogen from any source will be more consistent. This only means that
hydrogen is "extremely mobile" at the molecular level, which narrows
variability between time and place - but the quarks and bosons are not as
mobile at the subatomic level, preserving inherent variability at a finer
level of measurement.

After all, these same "authorities" will tell you that gauge bosons are
massless and quarks are only a fraction of proton mass. Never mind that
something is missing in that appraisal.

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

7.4 x 10^-35 rather

Terry Blanton < wrote:

>> One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details
to
>> help to better design NiH experiments, is to know "how much" excess
>> mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as "overage" from the average) which mass
>> can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons).
>
> Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp
>
> sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread a.ashfield

Edmund Storms wrote: "This is obviously a basic question and the obvious 
answer is a form of socialism. Money will have be extracted from the 
system to give basic support to the unemployed and underemployed. As we 
know from sad experience, when people are hungary and bored they gum up 
the system. This consequence is not hard to predict. The US will be 
particularly susceptible to this problem because of the irrational 
attitude toward such social support held by people who call themselves 
Republicans and libertarians."


Basic support to the unemployed won't do it.That doesn't allow for the 
market of luxuries that gradually improve the standard of living and 
civilization in general.There are some possibilities in a much shorter 
working week, much earlier retirement and a direct payment to every 
individual from the government.The problem is the transition and from 
where the government would get the money for the change.There are very 
few ways that fit within the current cultural and political framework in 
the US.So like the Chinese proverb says:"Interesting times."

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Louis Kelso, inventor of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan - ESOP - used by 
11,000 companies, saw this coming decades ago. He suggested a Second Income 
Plan. See: SECOND INCOMES at www.aesopinstitute.org for a current version. 

Independent of savings, it would open a path to end poverty, and provide the 
purchasing power removed from the economy when jobs rapidly disappear due to 
automation. It offers a way to harmlessly deconcentrate wealth.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Jed Rothwell [jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 7:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-world-without-work-as-robots-computers-get-smarter-will-humans-have-anything-left-to-do/2013/01/18/61561b1c-61b7-11e2-81ef-a2249c1e5b3d_story.html

This subject is starting to attract attention in the mass media. I wish cold 
fusion would.

Cold fusion will lead to more unemployment than most breakthroughs, but not as 
much as improvements to computers. I have a chapter about that in my book. It 
is surprising how few people work in energy.

Here is a thought-provoking table showing all major occupations in the U.S.:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

That is the entire universe of work.

Here are some comments I made about this table elsewhere:


The economy has not produced any new "Major Occupational Group" since roughly 
1880 (when precision manufacturing began) because every kind of labor we want 
done for us is already done. As I said, people have moved from one group to 
another, as the amount of labor ebbs and flows in different sectors. But there 
are no new groups, and robots will move into all groups simultaneously. . . .

Granted, Category 15, "Computer and Mathematical Occupations" did not exist in 
1880. But every task now done by "Computer" occupations was done back then by 
people in category 43, "Office and Administrative Support." All of the other 
occupations in this list were already in existence by 1880. Most of them 
existed in Heian Japan, for that matter.

There are no new tasks. That is to say, there are no occupations with novel 
outcomes or purposes that did not exist back then. The methods of achieving 
these purposes have changed. For example, in category 27 our methods of 
entertainment have changed, but the purpose -- entertaining people with 
fiction, music and so on -- is the same. There is a limited market for this. We 
cannot watch TV or listen to music 20 hours a day.

Nearly all of the occupations on this list, and the sub-category occupations in 
the table, could be done better by a Watson-class computer than by a human 
being. . . .


Someone else summarized the situation quite well: "Until recently, technology 
advances made machines stronger, faster, and more reliable than average Joes. 
But, even at the slow end, he was much better at mopping a floor, understanding 
speech, packing a box, or driving a lorry than even the best supercomputer. So, 
he had some major competitive advantages for just being human."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

This would set the upper limit of available energy somewhere around
83.2 eV per atom.

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> 7.4 x 10^-35 rather
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>> One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to
>>> help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess
>>> mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass
>>> can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons).
>>
>> Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg
>>
>> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp
>>
>> sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion



On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:





Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?



No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR  
worked, the
energy created by this process could be used directly without the  
need to

create a big machine to use the He3.

Ed


Thanks for this reminder.
Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
their own program?


Tom Claytor has a way of making tritium based on LENR that might  
supply tritium to the hot fusion program.  Nevertheless, once LENR is  
understood, who needs hot fusion?  Public funding is not determined by  
logic, facts, or even rational analysis. It is controlled by politics,  
i.e. self-interest. The sooner people realize this, the quicker we can  
make progress getting support.


Ed



Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment



On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:45 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

Interesting discussion.  I have been writing about this for years  
but it is good to see the main media is starting to pick it up.  The  
referenced article was rather unimaginative in places but noted the  
basic question: “who is going buy all these nice goodies if they  
are  unemployed?”




This is obviously a basic question and the obvious answer is a form of  
socialism. Money will have be extracted from the system to give basic  
support to the unemployed and underemployed. As we know from sad  
experience, when people are hungary and bored they gum up the system.  
This consequence is not hard to predict.  The US will be particularly  
susceptible to this problem because of the irrational attitude toward  
such social support held by people who call themselves Republicans and  
libertarians.



The irrationality of humans is such that it is probably impossible  
to see how this will play out.


If no attention is given to this problem, the consequences are easy to  
see. We saw this happen in England when the machines put people out of  
work in early 1800. They rioted and attempted to destroy the  
machines.  Now people have much better tools to do this than stones  
and clubs.



Consider how fanatical religions may effect things.  Consider the  
Amish for example.




The Amish are not the problem, but I get your point. We have violent  
religions now operating throughout the world and gumming up the works  
for the reason I describe above.


There are a lot more Greenies who think we should go back to basics  
no matter what.  The majority doesn’t think about this at all and  
just worries about getting or keeping food on the table.




As always.

Our politicians are not interested.  I can’t even get a response  
from my Congressman’s office on the subject.


Congress is out to lunch on so many subjects, this one is not even  
close to their awareness.



So they have not started planning how to deal with what is likely to  
happen.   Although the transformation could happen fast I don’t  
think it will without some dramatic crisis.




I agree.

Ed

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

7.4 x 10^-35 rather

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to
>> help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess
>> mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass
>> can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons).
>
> Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp
>
> sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to
> help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess
> mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass
> can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons).

Would you agree that the uncertainty of 7.4 x 10^35 kg

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp

sets the upper limit for the amount of mass-energy available?

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> Thanks for this reminder.
> Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
> some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
> their own program?
> Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
> public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
> programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?
>
> Harry

I mean antagonistic.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>>
>>
>> Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
>> LENR system be engineered to supply enough
>> He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?
>
>
> No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR worked, the
> energy created by this process could be used directly without the need to
> create a big machine to use the He3.
>
> Ed

Thanks for this reminder.
Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
their own program?
Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread a.ashfield

Interesting discussion.I have been writing about this for years but it 
is good to see the main media is starting to pick it up.The referenced 
article was rather unimaginative in places but noted the basic question: 
"who is going buy all these nice goodies if they are unemployed?"


The irrationality of humans is such that it is probably impossible to 
see how this will play out.Consider how fanatical religions may effect 
things.Consider the Amish for example.There are a lot more Greenies who 
think we should go back to basics no matter what.The majority doesn't 
think about this at all and just worries about getting or keeping food 
on the table.


Our politicians are not interested.I can't even get a response from my 
Congressman's office on the subject.So they have not started planning 
how to deal with what is likely to happen.Although the transformation 
could happen fast I don't think it will without some dramatic crisis.

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>
>> What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary in mass, and
>> is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous?
>
>
> I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a good explanation
> -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it does not travel
> at the speed of light.  It has mass and it has a speed that is less than c.
> So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary it will have a
> rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic velocities, it has a
> larger mass.
>
> Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a proton having an
> average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is the (rest) mass a
> continuous value or discrete across a range?
>
> Eric
>

If a proton can "ring" like a bell, mass-energy equivalence would
imply the proton's mass can vary with "pitch".

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

One derivative speculation of all of this, which points to usable details to
help to better design NiH experiments, is to know “how much” excess
mass-energy exists in hydrogen (as “overage” from the average) which mass
can be converted to energy (via goldstone bosons). If this estimate can be
based on the FCC:

Alpha^-1 = 137.035,999,174.

Such that 1/137 represents an “ideal” step in a progression - and we
consider the non-integer fudge factor  (36 parts per thousand of the final
integer) as permitted variation per step, then we are getting somewhere in
being able to estimate how much energy can be derived from a population of
hydrogen atoms by harvesting only the “heaviest” fraction (densest one
percent). 

We do not know the distribution curve – would be a bell curve or something
more Maxwellian? Dunno. But the potential net gain per atom is still quite
high – even if we are talking about being able to convert only the heaviest
percent of any population. The mass-energy of a proton is roughly one giga
eV and one percent of 3.6 MeV or 36 KeV per atom - is huge - in terms of
comparative chemical energy. That can be optimized in fact, thus making this
speculation “falsifiable” to some degree.

Jones

BTW - An obvious implication of this for the NiH experimenter (of the
“well-funded” variety, if there are any) is to load only the heaviest
(densest) protium into a NiH reactor.

Don’t laugh, this is doable – even if it is not commercially practical at
the present time. After all, some mass-spectrometers operate on a
“mini-calutron” principle. Who cares if you waste a lot of hydrogen on a NiH
experiment – if it proves an important point.

Personal note: I could write a book based on this photo below – and might do
that one day; but these machines are the ‘maxi’ version – not the ‘mini’
version needed for NiH … and they are still there (in Oak Ridge). Due to the
wartime copper shortage, the electromagnets of these babies were made using
literally millions of pounds of pure silver bullion “borrowed” from Fort
Knox … but now irradiated and collecting dust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Y12_Calutron_Operators.jpg

_

Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion
that hydrogen mass is not quantized- at least not “in practice”. (to be
explained)

First off – it would be most unusual for only one isotope of
one element in the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the
case if the proton were to be found quantized in practice. 

Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this
hypothesis - it is possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation
between the theoretical and the actual – such that there is a theoretical
“ideal” – the so-called Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is
quantized. In the pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is
variation and there is leeway, and there is a range of masses with an
average which corresponds to an ideal value, with populations on either side
of the average that exist “in practice”.

Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent
less than one half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are
essentially “glue” - but most of them are said to be massless. It simply
does not add up when you do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured
easily and there is NO firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is
subject to color change (with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark
mass itself cannot be constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes
without saying that proton mass cannot be quantized. Again – we can define
an “ideal” value – but do not expect to see it in practice.

Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the
standard model and is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major
category of massless particles is gauge bosons – like the gluon (carrier of
the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles,
since they are confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the
extent the strong force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in
the standard model is “built on a lie” – which is the massless particle. We
know the “real mass” is actually a significant fraction of proton mass.

Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which
tells us their energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are
quantized, but even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their
levels are also built on another sandy foundation – the FCC (fine structure
constant).  The FCC “ought to be” an integer value but is not since each
frequency must correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein’s equation. This
photon energy must be the difference between two energy levels, since that
is the amount of energy released by the electron moving from one level to
the o

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment



On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

I agree Jed, you are correct if humans were rational.

They are, at times. If we were not rational, civilization and  
technology would not exist.



Unfortunately, a significant fraction are not rational, as can be  
easily seen at all levels. When irrational people have the ability,  
they always attempt to destroy. In the past, their ability was very  
limited. This ability is growing.


I do not see evidence that the power irrationality is growing faster  
than the power of rational people. The balance seems to be about the  
same as it was in the past.


I'm not saying that the number of irrational people is changing,  
although that might not be true of Congress. I'm saying the the number  
who are irrational now have tools able to produce more widespread harm.


There were times in the past when irrational people held sway, and  
plunged the world into disaster. The most dramatic examples were the  
U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII. I think we are much better off than we  
were then. A Third World War is highly unlikely. Rationality is  
winning that competition.


So far.


The likelihood of a major war is receding, and many other positive  
trends continue. The Cold War ended peacefully. Democracy is  
spreading.




Pollution is gradually being reduced.


Except in China and India, which is most of the world.

Out of control population growth is moderating, even in third world  
countries.


The population is still growing exponentially world-wide.

Food factory technology is improving, and it could easily eliminate  
the threat of famine or massive water shortages.


Apparently not so easily. Hunger is even growing in the US at the low  
end of the economy.


The Internet is bringing unprecedented access to information and  
education to people everywhere, even in the Third World.


True, but to what effect?

It is even possible that cold fusion will succeed. I will grant it  
is a long shot, but if I thought it could never happen -- that we  
will never overcome irrational opposition -- I would quit trying to  
promote it.


I would not want to see that happen. Perhaps I had better shut up. :-)


I think you are unrealistic. Unwarranted pessimism is as unrealistic  
as Panglossian optimism.


I agree. But what role does rational and objective observation have in  
any evaluation? It seems to me, we need to identify a problem before  
we can attempt to correct it. This identification always leads to what  
might be called pessimism.


Ed


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

I agree Jed, you are correct if humans were rational.
>

They are, at times. If we were not rational, civilization and technology
would not exist.

> Unfortunately, a significant fraction are not rational, as can be easily
> seen at all levels. When irrational people have the ability, they always
> attempt to destroy. In the past, their ability was very limited. This
> ability is growing.
>

I do not see evidence that the power irrationality is growing faster than
the power of rational people. The balance seems to be about the same as it
was in the past.

There were times in the past when irrational people held sway, and plunged
the world into disaster. The most dramatic examples were the U.S. Civil
War, WWI and WWII. I think we are much better off than we were then. A
Third World War is highly unlikely. Rationality is winning that competition.

The likelihood of a major war is receding, and many other positive trends
continue. The Cold War ended peacefully. Democracy is spreading. Pollution
is gradually being reduced. Out of control population growth is moderating,
even in third world countries. Food factory technology is improving, and it
could easily eliminate the threat of famine or massive water shortages. The
Internet is bringing unprecedented access to information and education to
people everywhere, even in the Third World. It is even possible that cold
fusion will succeed. I will grant it is a long shot, but if I thought it
could never happen -- that we will never overcome irrational opposition --
I would quit trying to promote it.

I think you are unrealistic. Unwarranted pessimism is as unrealistic as
Panglossian optimism.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:censored part of the answer

2013-01-26 Thread Peter Gluck

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
 "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

However the professor has a very inefficient style "sweet", moral and nasty
not skilled in polemiology, surely has not read or understood Sun Tzu

Peter



> Rossi has censored it, and I have saved it for the posterity.
>
>
> Ah, I see!
>
> Rossi is short-tempered at times.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

Eric,

Here are a few other brief points leading to the conclusion that hydrogen
mass is not quantized-at least not “in practice”. (to be explained)

First off – it would be most unusual for only one isotope of one element in
the entire periodic table to be quantized. That would be the case if the
proton were to be found quantized in practice. 

Secondly, and most importantly for moving ahead with this hypothesis - it is
possible (if not encouraged) to have a bifurcation between the theoretical
and the actual – such that there is a theoretical “ideal” – the so-called
Bohr atom - which exists only on paper, and which is quantized. In the
pursuit of experimental physics, however, there is variation and there is
leeway, and there is a range of masses with an average which corresponds to
an ideal value, with populations on either side of the average that exist
“in practice”.

Third, the proton consists of three quarks which represent less than one
half of its mass, combined with other bosons which are essentially “glue” -
but most of them are said to be massless. It simply does not add up when you
do the numbers. Also quark mass cannot be measured easily and there is NO
firm value - and QCD teaches that quark mass is subject to color change
(with consequences to mass-energy release) so quark mass itself cannot be
constant. If quark mass is not quantized, then it goes without saying that
proton mass cannot be quantized. Again – we can define an “ideal” value –
but do not expect to see it in practice.

Fourth. A so-called massless particle is integral to the standard model and
is a particle whose invariant mass is zero. A major category of massless
particles is gauge bosons – like the gluon (carrier of the strong force).
However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are
confined within hadrons BUT they cannot be massless to the extent the strong
force is dynamic. Thus the entire structure of matter in the standard model
is “built on a lie” – which is the massless particle. We know the “real
mass” is actually a significant fraction of proton mass.

Fifthly, electrons in hydrogen display a spectrum which tells us their
energy levels- given by the Rydberg equation. Electrons are quantized, but
even so, these lines are a bit fuzzy and imprecise, and their levels are
also built on another sandy foundation – the FCC (fine structure constant).
The FCC “ought to be” an integer value but is not since each frequency must
correspond to an energy (hν) by Einstein’s equation. This photon energy must
be the difference between two energy levels, since that is the amount of
energy released by the electron moving from one level to the other but that
does not depend on the mass of proton. The energy of a state can be
characterized by an integer quantum number, n = 1, 2, 3, ... which
determines its energy. The end number however is close to 137 – given by the
fine structure constant but it is not exact and non-integer, so we suspect
that every value in between is also not exact. Moreover, it is likely that
this variation is tied to permitted mass variation in the proton mass. IOW
there are fudge factors everywhere which are based primarily on the “real”
proton having a variable mass (variable but within a narrow range).

Even when you must conclude that the energies of electrons in atoms are
"quantized," that is, restricted to certain values – the slight variation in
these lines indicates that the same conclusion does not apply to the
underlying proton. 

This essentially is the best argument for quantization: if the electron is
quantized – then why not the proton? But it is a false expectation. Can
anyone think of any good theoretical argument which demand quantization in
actual protons (as opposed to the Bohr atom, which is the ideal version)?

From: Eric Walker 

I wrote:
 
What is it that is causing the proton in this model to vary
in mass, and is the range of possible masses discrete or continuous?

I should anticipate one possible answer, which seems like a
good explanation -- a proton is not a point particle, like a photon, and it
does not travel at the speed of light.  It has mass and it has a speed that
is less than c.  So the mass will vary with its speed; when it is stationary
it will have a rest mass, and when it is travelling at relativistic
velocities, it has a larger mass.

Assuming the above is true, and assuming your model of a
proton having an average mass is true, the question for me now becomes, is
the (rest) mass a continuous value or discrete across a range?

Eric

<>

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

I agree Jed, you are correct if humans were rational. Unfortunately, a
significant fraction are not rational, as can be easily seen at all
levels. When irrational people have the ability, they always attempt
to destroy. In the past, their ability was very limited. This ability
is growing.

On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Edmund Storms wrote:

A truly scary prospect, I would say. Humans now have three ways they
could make themselves extinct - atomic weapons, biological weapons,
and smart computers.

I do not see it that way. Nuclear or biological weapons would cause
only massive harm. Nothing good can come of using them. Whereas it
is easy to imagine a society in which computers do nearly all the
work, but we all prosper.

I am confident that if we can devise wonderful robots, we can also
devise an economy to fit them and benefit everyone. An economy is a
human invention like any other -- like a building, a railroad or a
computer. People sometimes say that an economy must follow the rules
of economics so we have no choice about how we shape it. It has to
be free market capitalistic. No other kind works. That is silly. A
building must follow the laws of engineering. You cannot make it out
materials so weak the walls will collapse. You cannot make a house
out of straw or bubble gum; you have to use wood, stone, brick or
steel. But within these restrictions we can make an infinite variety
of different houses.

Martin Ford described one possible economy based on robot labor. (http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
) Other people will come up with better ideas. I am sure we can work
something out, if we try. Mankind has fixed countless similar
problems in the past. Life has improved tremendously for most
people. History gives us every reason to be optimistic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:censored part of the answer

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Rossi has censored it, and I have saved it for the posterity.


Ah, I see!

Rossi is short-tempered at times.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Well Steven, as usual you cleverly identified another way humans will  
become extinct. These activities will cause excessive sex from  
boredom, which will require the computer to thin the population,  
perhaps by an excessive amount using the other tools I mentioned.


Ed


On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:54 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


Ed sez:


What happens when the smart computer is run by cold fusion so that it
can never be turned off?


Men will be free to go back to watching professional wrestling &  
football on

TV 20 hours a day.

Women... cooking shows.

Thus spoke, THGTTG: "Mostly harmless."

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

Edmund Storms  wrote:

A truly scary prospect, I would say. Humans now have three ways they could
> make themselves extinct - atomic weapons, biological weapons, and smart
> computers.
>

I do not see it that way. Nuclear or biological weapons would cause only
massive harm. Nothing good can come of using them. Whereas it is easy to
imagine a society in which computers do nearly all the work, but we all
prosper.

I am confident that if we can devise wonderful robots, we can also devise
an economy to fit them and benefit everyone. An economy is a human
invention like any other -- like a building, a railroad or a computer.
People sometimes say that an economy must follow the rules of economics so
we have no choice about how we shape it. It has to be free market
capitalistic. No other kind works. That is silly. A building must follow
the laws of engineering. You cannot make it out materials so weak the walls
will collapse. You cannot make a house out of straw or bubble gum; you have
to use wood, stone, brick or steel. But within these restrictions we can
make an infinite variety of different houses.

Martin Ford described one possible economy based on robot labor. (
http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) Other people will come up with better
ideas. I am sure we can work something out, if we try. Mankind has fixed
countless similar problems in the past. Life has improved tremendously for
most people. History gives us every reason to be optimistic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:censored part of the answer

2013-01-26 Thread Peter Gluck

Rossi has censored it, and I have saved it for the posterity.
Peter

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> If it is censored, why did you post it?
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

2013-01-26 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Ed sez:

> What happens when the smart computer is run by cold fusion so that it
> can never be turned off?

Men will be free to go back to watching professional wrestling & football on
TV 20 hours a day.

Women... cooking shows.

Thus spoke, THGTTG: "Mostly harmless."

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

A truly scary prospect, I would say. Humans now have three ways they
could make themselves extinct - atomic weapons, biological weapons,
and smart computers. The list seems to be growing. What happens when
the smart computer is run by cold fusion so that it can never be
turned off?

On Jan 26, 2013, at 8:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-world-without-work-as-robots-computers-get-smarter-will-humans-have-anything-left-to-do/2013/01/18/61561b1c-61b7-11e2-81ef-a2249c1e5b3d_story.html

This subject is starting to attract attention in the mass media. I
wish cold fusion would.

Cold fusion will lead to more unemployment than most breakthroughs,
but not as much as improvements to computers. I have a chapter about
that in my book. It is surprising how few people work in energy.

Here is a thought-provoking table showing all major occupations in
the U.S.:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

That is the entire universe of work.

Here are some comments I made about this table elsewhere:

The economy has not produced any new "Major Occupational Group"
since roughly 1880 (when precision manufacturing began) because
every kind of labor we want done for us is already done. As I said,
people have moved from one group to another, as the amount of labor
ebbs and flows in different sectors. But there are no new groups,
and robots will move into all groups simultaneously. . . .

Granted, Category 15, "Computer and Mathematical Occupations" did
not exist in 1880. But every task now done by "Computer" occupations
was done back then by people in category 43, "Office and
Administrative Support." All of the other occupations in this list
were already in existence by 1880. Most of them existed in Heian
Japan, for that matter.

There are no new tasks. That is to say, there are no occupations
with novel outcomes or purposes that did not exist back then. The
methods of achieving these purposes have changed. For example, in
category 27 our methods of entertainment have changed, but the
purpose -- entertaining people with fiction, music and so on -- is
the same. There is a limited market for this. We cannot watch TV or
listen to music 20 hours a day.

Nearly all of the occupations on this list, and the sub-category
occupations in the table, could be done better by a Watson-class
computer than by a human being. . . .

Someone else summarized the situation quite well: "Until recently,
technology advances made machines stronger, faster, and more
reliable than average Joes. But, even at the slow end, he was much
better at mopping a floor, understanding speech, packing a box, or
driving a lorry than even the best supercomputer. So, he had some
major competitive advantages for just being human."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:censored part of the answer

If it is censored, why did you post it?

- Jed

[Vo]:Progress in food factories with LED lighting in Japan

See a bunch of photos here:

http://photo.sankei.jp.msn.com/kodawari/data/2013/01/24led/

Google translate does a pretty good job converting the text on this page to
English.

- Jed

[Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment