Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Sunspots also correlate with higher rates of solar flares and coronal mass
ejections (CMEs). The average CME is 1e+12 kgs of energetic stuff.
Don't you believe that stuff affects Earths energy balance also?
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Chuck Sites wrote:
Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can
be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark
spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less
Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature
rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The
Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer
to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the
solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables
that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening
for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now.
Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average
global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human
activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity
creating CO2 as a byproduct.
Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts
and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high
altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional
thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage
everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds.
--
Chuck
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig
cchayniepub...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cchayniepub...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers
(or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that
matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of
global warming.
I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically
against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets
start with this graphic
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif
With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is
cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year,
releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back
into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic
effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels.
The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2
from human activity.
I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global
warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a
certain causation.
I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now,
that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so
this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during
the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point.
Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to
global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't
pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming
either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's
rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is
that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots.
It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much
heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space.
Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't
look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more
active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider
the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot
possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe
so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the
correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures
are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between
sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that
increases in CO2 can show?
So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as
it has been for the past 1million years.
No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the
previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise?
Craig
[Vo]:Same Old stuff
I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. -
[Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff
I set the velocity of sound in the nucleus = the velocity of light in the electronic structure and got the radii of the atoms, the energy and frequency of the photon, and the velocity of the atomic electrons. No cold fusion or anti-gravity was included. I would understand if he did not agree with the premise, however, how could he not get the thrust of the paper? They did send me a call for papers, why? I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. -
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff
Where is the preprint of the paper so that we can take a look? 2013/2/6 fznidar...@aol.com I set the velocity of sound in the nucleus = the velocity of light in the electronic structure and got the radii of the atoms, the energy and frequency of the photon, and the velocity of the atomic electrons. No cold fusion or anti-gravity was included. I would understand if he did not agree with the premise, however, how could he not get the thrust of the paper? They did send me a call for papers, why? I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. - -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 02:48 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. It's well documented that sunspot number correlates directly with total solar irradiance. The easiest source is Wikipedia: The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.^[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#cite_note-25 This group reconstructed historical solar irradiance levels from using sunspot data: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html If this is a sticking point, we can certainly find more information on this. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. But this is a big leap. Sorry. It may be correct, but it's not obvious to me. What I want to do is dig deeper into how the models are being constructed which recreate the historical temperature record. I don't know when I can get to this, but that's the next step. I'll also look into finding the objections by those on the AGW side against the correlations with total solar irradiance. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. Are you suggesting that we have more cirrus clouds than we used to have? The convincing arguments should not be something you see in the sky, but rather something you can demonstrate that goes back centuries. For instance, if CO2 directly correlated with increases in temperature on an annual basis, and could explain, by itself, all the peaks and valleys of the temperature record for the past couple of centuries, and if there was not an alternative hypothesis, then it would be hard to deny the correlation with the CO2 record and global temperature anomalies. However, with an alternative hypothesis present, which may better explain the temperature record with all of its fluctuations, doubt will always remain with any explanation based on correlations for the simple reason that it's not possible to prove cause with correlations. One side will 'win' this argument, (if it's possible to 'win' in science), when one correlation or the other diverges significantly from its expected result. Solar output has been decreasing these past 10 years. Now global warming has stalled. It continues to look like solar output will continue to decrease for the next couple of decades. If this happens and global temperatures fall, then more credence will be given to the impact of solar irradiance. If global warming continues, however, diverging from the models based on the alternative hypothesis, then the issue will be effectively resolved, as well, in favor of the CO2 correlation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff
Thank you Daniel. I posted a pdf at the link below. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/pdf/refactoring.pdf Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 7:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff Where is the preprint of the paper so that we can take a look? 2013/2/6 fznidar...@aol.com I set the velocity of sound in the nucleus = the velocity of light in the electronic structure and got the radii of the atoms, the energy and frequency of the photon, and the velocity of the atomic electrons. No cold fusion or anti-gravity was included. I would understand if he did not agree with the premise, however, how could he not get the thrust of the paper? They did send me a call for papers, why? I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. - -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
You forgot cows On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Earthworms? And I thought it was termite and bovine flatus.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You forgot cows Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Ouch! On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You forgot cows Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
I guess bovine=cow, duh
Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?...
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Ouch!
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM, ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
wrote:
You forgot cows
Leave my wife out of this.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I guess bovine=cow, duh I thought you were joking. Whew! Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?... Kobe. Massage parlor.
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck. The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the phrase means. With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase will often become 'welfare check to welfare check'. But fear not for the climate ! The Drudge Report just posted ( today) a link to a study that says that less labor will mean fewer co2 emissions. A dream come true. Halleluyah.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Please stop hijacking this discussion. Thanks, Craig On 02/06/2013 09:27 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Blah, blah, blah..living from paycheck to paycheck. The discussion begins and ends there, simply by defining what the phrase means. With greater advances in automation soon, that phrase will often become 'welfare check to welfare check'. But fear not for the climate ! The Drudge Report just posted ( today) a link to a study that says that less labor will mean fewer co2 emissions. A dream come true. Halleluyah.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Speaking of cows and CMEs... I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move towards heat, like a cow's butt. Keep an eye on your wife, especially when it is cold outside and she is the warmest thing around http://darkmattersalot.com/2012/12/15/holy-cow/ There are people ones too http://darkmattersalot.com/2012/12/06/dont-eat-popcorn/ :) On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: I guess bovine=cow, duh I thought you were joking. Whew! Is she Holstein? Jersey? Did you meet in a field?... Kobe. Massage parlor.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:36:38 -0500 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of cows and CMEs... I believe some of those energetic particles/micro black holes/ball lightning/plasmoid particles expelled from the sun are causing cattle mutilatios on Earth. The low momentum ones move towards heat, like a cow's butt. I enjoy reading your stuff; you are much funnier than Ed Conrad.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that increases in CO2 can show? So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as it has been for the past 1million years. No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. In space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there is no surrounding gas to condense, until they reach Earth @ 1000 miles/sec with that CME On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Alexander Hollins wrote: Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that matter, mushrooms exhale CO2.Trust me, worms are not the cause of global warming. I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets start with this graphic http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 from human activity. I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a certain causation. I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over t
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff
Did you know the Paul stole his exclusion principle from Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck? This cannot happen in this age of digital information. Reject as they will I have already published in IE and at Amazon. I was going to expand Equation #26 in the form of the cross product of the nuclear velocity and the radius rc. Equation #23 then gives the up and down spins of the electron. With differing n's and the cross product produces the S, P, D, and F orbits, of the atoms, as a condition of matching velocity. Good thing that I did not go through the trouble, the reviewer did not comprehend the basics. I have found that the they look at your name and organization first and then find a way to reject your paper. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 7:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff Thank you Daniel. I posted a pdf at the link below. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/pdf/refactoring.pdf Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 7:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff Where is the preprint of the paper so that we can take a look? 2013/2/6 fznidar...@aol.com I set the velocity of sound in the nucleus = the velocity of light in the electronic structure and got the radii of the atoms, the energy and frequency of the photon, and the velocity of the atomic electrons. No cold fusion or anti-gravity was included. I would understand if he did not agree with the premise, however, how could he not get the thrust of the paper? They did send me a call for papers, why? I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. - -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
If life on earth has ever evolved to use LENR for survival in extreme conditions, then evidence of that would likely be found in deep cold lakes in Antarctica. We talked about this earlier when it looked like the Russians were about to drill deep enough - but they had equipment failure. Now, for the first time, life-forms from deep under the Antarctic ice have been found at a site called Lake Whillans by a US team. Well, they are not sure yet what they have, but they found what looks like single celled organisms. Lots. This variety of extreme life was surviving under a half-mile of ice at temperatures below freezing. Water pressure keeps the water from turning solid. No light gets there. The life-forms apparently survive by eating rocks and are called chemolithotrophs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph Over thirty years ago, Nickel was shown to be required as a trace element for survival of five strains of the more extreme chemolithotrophs Alcaligenes eutrophus, Xanthobacter autotrophicus, etc. (Archives of Microbiology February 1980, Volume 124, Nickel requirement for chemolithotrophic growth in hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria but there are articles about nickel requirements in these organisms going back much further) We will not know for months what strains of chemolithotrophs were found recently, or if they require nickel for survival. Of course, there is no harm in predicting that if nickel is found to be necessary - there is a real good case for some kind of LENR being used as an energy source. And even if iron alone is enough - perhaps LENR can take place with iron as well as nickel under those circumstances. Original story here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130205-antarctica-ice-life-m oons-science-environment-lakes/ attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent downloaded data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain curve fit program that I developed recently that uses the solution for a non linear differential equation describing the behavior of these types of cells. This is the same one that I have posted details on vortex with 4 installments. The MFMP team was very gracious and performed a special calibration run the day before this data began to accumulate allowing me to obtain good solid calibration data. I waited for many days for a step in power that my program can analyze with excellent accuracy but this has not occurred due to various reasons. One good reason is that the team has been watching the excess power climb upwards during that time frame when calculated using an internal monitor point within their cell. This test point was chosen earlier by observations of the cell behavior while I have concentrated upon the outer glass monitor which I suspected is not as influenced by variables such as hydrogen gas pressure and density. Until I actually performed the latest program run, I assumed that the power might be climbing just as the others since the temperature of the mica inside appeared to be ascending steadily. Of course everyone is excited by the potentially positive results. The program run I just completed assumed a dummy transient step in power. This should not constitute a problem, since the transient due to the assumed step rapidly goes to zero as compared to the very large time frame that the data spans. I adjusted the beginning point for the LMS routine to exclude the false transient. I also found that the averaging TC that calculates the delay was not working as it should due to the step times being far larger than the delay, leading to instability. This was not a problem since I am not interested in the rising edge of a dummy event. I obtained what I consider a null excess power calculation once the program cranked out its results. The expected power output should equal the input applied in the absence of internally generated power by the cell. I registered this result with a respectable accuracy. My program claims that the actual input power was about .2 watts lower than the applied power of approximately 105.4 watts. On peaks of the output there might be additional power of +.6 watts on rare occasions, but the overall average during the test time frame is -.2 watts. Negative peaks were actually a bit larger than the positive excursions. Please understand that I am not happy to report these results. I was hoping to be able to state with a degree of certainty that excess power generation by these cells is verified. That is actually what I assumed that I would be writing about with this post. It would have been easier to ignore my findings and just wait longer until more evidence has accumulated, but I know everyone wants to have the naked raw facts placed before them in a timely manner and thus this posting. I hope that my program will be found in error once the air flow calorimeter comes into its own, but there is no assurance that this will happen. So, I submit this information for you to consider and perhaps the future will sort out the truth in this matter. I placed the following statement on the comment section of the MFMP site to offer them feedback. This is one of those rare times when I hope to have made a miscalculation. --- A dummy step run was just completed on the excess power from cell FC0103 beginning just after the last power adjustment step 1/29/2013 at 5:00 through the present time of 2/6/2013 13:45. I had to allow my program to go through a dummy transient since there are no actual ones during this time. I calculated the power using T_GlassOut minus Ambient temperature as always. The calibration values are the same as those generated during the recent special calibration. Unfortunately, I see an average match between the power input and the calculated power to within .2 watts over this time frame. On rare peaks, there may be a small amount of excess power(.6 watts ?), but the average is zero(actually slight negative -.2 watts). The internal temperature monitor points may be subject to drift due to gas density variations as others have suggested. I am reporting my findings even though the results do not match my desires. --- Reluctantly, Dave
Re: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
This would be a fine development if it turns out that LENR is used by these organisms. Some of the parameters required for the use of LENR might be revealed to help us in our quest. Do you think that the quantity of rocks consumed would give some indication of whether or not LENR were active? I would expect it to take a small quantity if nuclear energy were available for the organism. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 11:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H If life on earth has ever evolved to use LENR for survival in extreme conditions, then evidence of that would likely be found in deep cold lakes in Antarctica. We talked about this earlier when it looked like the Russians were about to drill deep enough - but they had equipment failure. Now, for the first time, life-forms from deep under the Antarctic ice have been found at a site called Lake Whillans by a US team. Well, they are not sure yet what they have, but they found what looks like single celled organisms. Lots. This variety of extreme life was surviving under a half-mile of ice at temperatures below freezing. Water pressure keeps the water from turning solid. No light gets there. The life-forms apparently survive by eating rocks and are called chemolithotrophs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph Over thirty years ago, Nickel was shown to be required as a trace element for survival of five strains of the more extreme chemolithotrophs Alcaligenes eutrophus, Xanthobacter autotrophicus, etc. (Archives of Microbiology February 1980, Volume 124, Nickel requirement for chemolithotrophic growth in hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria but there are articles about nickel requirements in these organisms going back much further) We will not know for months what strains of chemolithotrophs were found recently, or if they require nickel for survival. Of course, there is no harm in predicting that if nickel is found to be necessary - there is a real good case for some kind of LENR being used as an energy source. And even if iron alone is enough - perhaps LENR can take place with iron as well as nickel under those circumstances. Original story here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130205-antarctica-ice-life-m oons-science-environment-lakes/
RE: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
Dave, Here's the problem. If you look at the reliable Ni-H experiments going back to Thermacore's work for DARPA, up to Celani and the replications - the proved COP is rather low - and there is no evidence that it is really nuclear, even if we call it LENR. There are really no other trustworthy experiments to base things on. In fact a COP of 1.3-1.5 is probably all that can be expected - if we base things on all the facts available. However, COP =1.5 is a huge incentive for survival in those conditions. In fact, any COP over one would be rapidly selected by the evolutionary mechanism, no? From: David Roberson This would be a fine development if it turns out that LENR is used by these organisms. Some of the parameters required for the use of LENR might be revealed to help us in our quest. Do you think that the quantity of rocks consumed would give some indication of whether or not LENR were active? I would expect it to take a small quantity if nuclear energy were available for the organism. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene If life on earth has ever evolved to use LENR for survival in extreme conditions, then evidence of that would likely be found in deep cold lakes in Antarctica. We talked about this earlier when it looked like the Russians were about to drill deep enough - but they had equipment failure. Now, for the first time, life-forms from deep under the Antarctic ice have been found at a site called Lake Whillans by a US team. Well, they are not sure yet what they have, but they found what looks like single celled organisms. Lots. This variety of extreme life was surviving under a half-mile of ice at temperatures below freezing. Water pressure keeps the water from turning solid. No light gets there. The life-forms apparently survive by eating rocks and are called chemolithotrophs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph Over thirty years ago, Nickel was shown to be required as a trace element for survival of five strains of the more extreme chemolithotrophs Alcaligenes eutrophus, Xanthobacter autotrophicus, etc. (Archives of Microbiology February 1980, Volume 124, Nickel requirement for chemolithotrophic growth in hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria but there are articles about nickel requirements in these organisms going back much further) We will not know for months what strains of chemolithotrophs were found recently, or if they require nickel for survival. Of course, there is no harm in predicting that if nickel is found to be necessary - there is a real good case for some kind of LENR being used as an energy source. And even if iron alone is enough - perhaps LENR can take place with iron as well as nickel under those circumstances. Original story here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130205-antarctica-ice-life-m oons-science-environment-lakes/
Re: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
And then there is the report of Rossi and Defkalion. Well, at least they insist that their systems are working and I have my fingers crossed that one day soon we will hear about good confirmation. In my estimate, there is some evidence that these and others are seeing good excess power. The work on Pd D appears to be sound, so it would not surprise me too much to find that nature has developed a method of extracting this form of energy provided the ignition does not require more than she can muster. I agree that a small advantage could yield a large payoff for the organism that is fortunate enough to unlock LENR. If we pursue this line of reasoning, are you aware of any natural source of energy that can be tapped at a relatively modest temperature not being used by some life form? The mid ocean ridges come to mind as an example of unusual energy support. Hot springs have abundant life within. What about the energy tapped by battery type action? If I recall, there are some bacteria species that eat through metal underwater. Perhaps they use the water Ph as one side of the reaction. I am not aware of any life that uses the release of natural radioactive decay energy to grow, but someone else might have good examples. So, if it is assumed that LENR can be released at temperatures that do not result in the loss of life for all bacteria, then it might be expected to be utilized. I guess you could say I am making a point that life should be able to live just about under any circumstances both on Earth and elsewhere. That initial step from chemical to life is the key. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 11:45 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H Dave, Here’s the problem. If you look at thereliable Ni-H experiments going back to Thermacore’s work for DARPA, upto Celani and the replications – the proved COP is rather low - and thereis no evidence that it is really “nuclear,” even if we call itLENR. There are really no other trustworthy experiments to base thingson. In fact a COP of 1.3-1.5is probably all that can be expected - if we base things on all the factsavailable. However, COP =1.5 is ahuge incentive for survival in those conditions. In fact, any COP over onewould be rapidly selected by the evolutionary mechanism, no? From:David Roberson This would be a fine development if it turns out that LENR is usedby these organisms. Some of the parameters required for the use of LENRmight be revealed to help us in our quest. Do you think that the quantity of rocks consumed would give someindication of whether or not LENR were active? I would expect it to takea small quantity if nuclear energy were available for the organism. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Jones Beene If life on earth has ever evolved to use LENR for survival in extreme conditions, then evidence of that would likely be found in deep cold lakes in Antarctica. We talked about this earlier when it looked like the Russians were about to drill deep enough - but they had equipment failure. Now, for the first time, life-forms from deep under the Antarctic ice have been found at a site called Lake Whillans by a US team. Well, they are not sure yet what they have, but they found what looks like single celled organisms. Lots. This variety of extreme life was surviving under a half-mile of ice at temperatures below freezing. Water pressure keeps the water from turning solid. No light gets there. The life-forms apparently survive by eating rocks and are called chemolithotrophs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph Over thirty years ago, Nickel was shown to be required as a trace element for survival of five strains of the more extreme chemolithotrophs Alcaligenes eutrophus, Xanthobacter autotrophicus, etc. (Archives of Microbiology February 1980, Volume 124, Nickel requirement for chemolithotrophic growth in hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria but there are articles about nickel requirements in these organisms going back much further) We will not know for months what strains of chemolithotrophs were found recently, or if they require nickel for survival. Of course, there is no harm in predicting that if nickel is found to be necessary - there is a real good case for some kind of LENR being used as an energy source. And even if iron alone is enough - perhaps LENR can take place with iron as well as nickel under those circumstances. Original story here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130205-antarctica-ice-life-m oons-science-environment-lakes/
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent downloaded data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain curve fit program that I developed recently that uses the solution for a non linear differential equation describing the behavior of these types of cells. This is the same one that I have posted details on vortex with 4 installments. The MFMP team was very gracious and performed a special calibration run the day before this data began to accumulate allowing me to obtain good solid calibration data. I waited for many days for a step in power that my program can analyze with excellent accuracy but this has not occurred due to various reasons. One good reason is that the team has been watching the excess power climb upwards during that time frame when calculated using an internal monitor point within their cell. This test point was chosen earlier by observations of the cell behavior while I have concentrated upon the outer glass monitor which I suspected is not as influenced by variables such as hydrogen gas pressure and density. Until I actually performed the latest program run, I assumed that the power might be climbing just as the others since the temperature of the mica inside appeared to be ascending steadily. Of course everyone is excited by the potentially positive results. The program run I just completed assumed a dummy transient step in power. This should not constitute a problem, since the transient due to the assumed step rapidly goes to zero as compared to the very large time frame that the data spans. I adjusted the beginning point for the LMS routine to exclude the false transient. I also found that the averaging TC that calculates the delay was not working as it should due to the step times being far larger than the delay, leading to instability. This was not a problem since I am not interested in the rising edge of a dummy event. I obtained what I consider a null excess power calculation once the program cranked out its results. The expected power output should equal the input applied in the absence of internally generated power by the cell. I registered this result with a respectable accuracy. My program claims that the actual input power was about .2 watts lower than the applied power of approximately 105.4 watts. On peaks of the output there might be additional power of +.6 watts on rare occasions, but the overall average during the test time frame is -.2 watts. Negative peaks were actually a bit larger than the positive excursions. Please understand that I am not happy to report these results. I was hoping to be able to state with a degree of certainty that excess power generation by these cells is verified. That is actually what I assumed that I would be writing about with this post. It would have been easier to ignore my findings and just wait longer until more evidence has accumulated, but I know everyone wants to have the naked raw facts placed before them in a timely manner and thus this posting. I hope that my program will be found in error once the air flow calorimeter comes into its own, but there is no assurance that this will happen. So, I submit this information for you to consider and perhaps the future will sort out the truth in this matter. I placed the following statement on the comment section of the MFMP site to offer them feedback. This is one of those rare times when I hope to have made a miscalculation. --- A dummy step run was just completed on the excess power from cell FC0103 beginning just after the last power adjustment step 1/29/2013 at 5:00 through the present time of 2/6/2013 13:45. I had to allow my program to go through a dummy transient since there are no actual ones during this time. I calculated the power using T_GlassOut minus Ambient temperature as always. The calibration values are the same as those generated during the recent special calibration. Unfortunately, I see an average match between the power input and the calculated power to within .2 watts over this time frame. On rare peaks, there may be a small amount of excess power(.6 watts ?), but the average is zero(actually slight negative -.2 watts). The internal temperature monitor points may be subject to drift due to gas density variations as others have suggested. I am reporting my findings even though the results do not match my desires. --- Reluctantly, Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
Dave, If the interaction of Dark Matter/Energy (~95%) and Baryonic Matter(~5%) results in Beta Decay/LENR, transmutations and mutations, I would say life is possible anywhere as long as the level of Dark/Vacuum Energy is not to high in that region of space. Weak Anthropic Principle at work. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4165 http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hdm.html Quite a cosmic stew that we live in. My research tells me red tide, which gets worse after Hurricanes is part of that cosmic stew. http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/01/04/cosmic-seafood-gumbo/ Stewart On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: And then there is the report of Rossi and Defkalion. Well, at least they insist that their systems are working and I have my fingers crossed that one day soon we will hear about good confirmation. In my estimate, there is some evidence that these and others are seeing good excess power. The work on Pd D appears to be sound, so it would not surprise me too much to find that nature has developed a method of extracting this form of energy provided the ignition does not require more than she can muster. I agree that a small advantage could yield a large payoff for the organism that is fortunate enough to unlock LENR. If we pursue this line of reasoning, are you aware of any natural source of energy that can be tapped at a relatively modest temperature not being used by some life form? The mid ocean ridges come to mind as an example of unusual energy support. Hot springs have abundant life within. What about the energy tapped by battery type action? If I recall, there are some bacteria species that eat through metal underwater. Perhaps they use the water Ph as one side of the reaction. I am not aware of any life that uses the release of natural radioactive decay energy to grow, but someone else might have good examples. So, if it is assumed that LENR can be released at temperatures that do not result in the loss of life for all bacteria, then it might be expected to be utilized. I guess you could say I am making a point that life should be able to live just about under any circumstances both on Earth and elsewhere. That initial step from chemical to life is the key. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 11:45 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H Dave, Here’s the problem. If you look at the reliable Ni-H experiments going back to Thermacore’s work for DARPA, up to Celani and the replications – the proved COP is rather low - and there is no evidence that it is really “nuclear,” even if we call it LENR. There are really no other trustworthy experiments to base things on. In fact a COP of 1.3-1.5 is probably all that can be expected - if we base things on all the facts available. However, COP =1.5 is a huge incentive for survival in those conditions. In fact, any COP over one would be rapidly selected by the evolutionary mechanism, no? *From:* David Roberson This would be a fine development if it turns out that LENR is used by these organisms. Some of the parameters required for the use of LENR might be revealed to help us in our quest. Do you think that the quantity of rocks consumed would give some indication of whether or not LENR were active? I would expect it to take a small quantity if nuclear energy were available for the organism. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene If life on earth has ever evolved to use LENR for survival in extreme conditions, then evidence of that would likely be found in deep cold lakes in Antarctica. We talked about this earlier when it looked like the Russians were about to drill deep enough - but they had equipment failure. Now, for the first time, life-forms from deep under the Antarctic ice have been found at a site called Lake Whillans by a US team. Well, they are not sure yet what they have, but they found what looks like single celled organisms. Lots. This variety of extreme life was surviving under a half-mile of ice at temperatures below freezing. Water pressure keeps the water from turning solid. No light gets there. The life-forms apparently survive by eating rocks and are called chemolithotrophs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph Over thirty years ago, Nickel was shown to be required as a trace element for survival of five strains of the more extreme chemolithotrophs Alcaligenes eutrophus, Xanthobacter autotrophicus, etc. (Archives of Microbiology February 1980, Volume 124, Nickel requirement for chemolithotrophic growth in hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria but there are articles about nickel requirements in these organisms going back much further) We will not know for months what strains of chemolithotrophs were found recently, or if they require nickel for survival.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
AGW supporters have a number of mostly derogatory names for people who aren't on board with their theories: Deniers, skeptics, lunatics, morons, anti-science. A lot of us in the skeptic camp aren't so much skeptical of the science (although there is plenty to be skeptical of, as predictions have rarely been accurate or provable. It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) The majority of skeptics are simply skeptical of the solutions being proposed to fix it. Anti-AGWer are more likely to want to ride it out rather than try spend AGW into submission. Whether that is stupidity or not depends on the economics and the possible outcomes. One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). The outcome, depending on where the money is spent, is unknown. Some scientists have said that we've already passed a tipping point and that we might be able to delay GW for a decade or two, but otherwise it is inevitable. Beachfront property should be going down in value (but I suspect it isn't). In the US, we have lots of things with trillion dollar price tags.. Wars/military spending, Health Care Costs, Social Security, disability/welfare payments, financial bailouts, stimulus programs, unfunded pensions, infrastructure spending... Then there are future unanticipated expenditures-- maybe a city gets destroyed or an anti-aging breakthrough (google C60 or sirt3) increases the lifespan of retirees by 50%... maybe a state or two goes bankrupt We might be able to afford 2 or 3 of those trillion dollar expenditures, but the rest are unfunded and can't be paid for--taxing the life out of every citizen just won't cover it. (Look at Apple, a $431B company, and take all their profits, and sell their business off to the highest bidders, and you could run the US without a deficit for a month.) We have a seriously underfunded set of liabilities that low-cost solar panels are not going to help. People think that when we end the war, we'll have a peace dividend that we can spend on green programs, social benefits, etc. Well, we've left Iraq and spending has not gone down a penny. That, and we didn't have the money to go to war in the first place-- it was all borrowed and any dividend of lower spending will mean less to pay back (or print). But don't hold your breath that the dollar printing press will slow down. By the way, China has been dumping our debt and buying hard assets -- gold, rare earth minerals, real estate, infrastructure... So they won't be left holding the bag. So is printing trillions of dollars to spending on green technology the best economic decision? No one knows.. but there are strong hints that printing money 24/7 may not be a good thing in the long run. So.. back to the OT AGW.. Is it one of the top 5 solvable unfunded trillion dollar+ problems? MaybeBut maybe it will solve itself using the time-honored system that sucks the least... Free market capitalism.. And maybe, just maybe, we are seeing it in action with Rossi and DGT. Respectfully, - Brad On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:48 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. In space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there is no surrounding gas to condense, until they reach Earth @ 1000 miles/sec with that CME On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Alexander Hollins wrote: Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in
RE: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
In fact, if the paper below can be believed - we already know that bacteria can feed on high level nuclear waste – so low-level (EUV) should be a cakewalk. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VysotskiiVsuccessful.pdf From: David Roberson …. if it is assumed that LENR can be released at temperatures that do not result in the loss of life for all bacteria, then it might be expected to be utilized. I guess you could say I am making a point that life should be able to live just about under any circumstances both on Earth and elsewhere.
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Chemolithotrophs and Ni-H
I agree with that. The transmutation and transformation of Earth did not just happen EONS ago, it is continuing to happen today right under our eyes and includes we humans. I think the bad mutations trigger cancers and the good mutations help create things like Kate Upton... On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In fact, if the paper below can be believed - we already know that bacteria can feed on high level nuclear waste – so low-level (EUV) should be a cakewalk. ** ** http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VysotskiiVsuccessful.pdf ** ** ** ** *From:* David Roberson ** ** …. if it is assumed that LENR can be released at temperatures that do not result in the loss of life for all bacteria, then it might be expected to be utilized. I guess you could say I am making a point that life should be able to live just about under any circumstances both on Earth and elsewhere.
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by hours? Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some potential with the subsequen slow release of this potential? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Please stop referring to economic considerations of climate change as 'hijacking'.
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That was not directed to you, but to Jed... 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
the experimenters are writing about essential things here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc The Genius of Celani Peter On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not directed to you, but to Jed... 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 3:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by hours? Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some potential with the subsequen slow release of this potential? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the extra heat would not show? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions of dollars. The money will not be wire transferred to Mars. Unlike the money spent on wars, it will produce positive values in addition to preventing global warming. For example, imagine a massive project to produce synthetic liquid fuel in the U.S. from wind and solar sources. As I have mentioned, from wind alone the U.S. could produce more liquid fuel than the Middle East produces oil. That would be very profitable for us. It would cost a lot initially, but in the end we would be raking in more money than Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the Middle East. The fuel would not only be carbon neutral, it would be very pure and it would cause no pollution. This would be a tremendous benefit even if it turns out global warming is not caused by CO2. With plug-in hybrid cars we could power every automobile on earth with this source. You may think this would take a long time. Not necessarily. Consider how long it took the U.S. to build 1,200 warships during WWII: about three years. That is assuming: 1. Cold fusion does not come along. 2. Liquid synthetic fuel really can be produced as cheaply as projections indicate. I think that is likely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to fill the holes in. This is the result of insane political economics. So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed people to fight it would result in trillions of dollars of benefit simply because wealth is so insanely maldistributed that the demand side of the economy is failing to attract capital to job-creation. The first thing you do in any business plan is look at whether there is demand for the thing the business provides: No demand -- no investment. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: One thing we can agree on: Any solution proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions of dollars. The money will not be wire transferred to Mars. Unlike the money spent on wars, it will produce positive values in addition to preventing global warming. For example, imagine a massive project to produce synthetic liquid fuel in the U.S. from wind and solar sources. As I have mentioned, from wind alone the U.S. could produce more liquid fuel than the Middle East produces oil. That would be very profitable for us. It would cost a lot initially, but in the end we would be raking in more money than Saudi Arabia and the other countries in the Middle East. The fuel would not only be carbon neutral, it would be very pure and it would cause no pollution. This would be a tremendous benefit even if it turns out global warming is not caused by CO2. With plug-in hybrid cars we could power every automobile on earth with this source. You may think this would take a long time. Not necessarily. Consider how long it took the U.S. to build 1,200 warships during WWII: about three years. That is assuming: 1. Cold fusion does not come along. 2. Liquid synthetic fuel really can be produced as cheaply as projections indicate. I think that is likely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/october/myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-mid-1990s.aspx See the video here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html As I said, please stick to the fact. I will not discuss this again, so you are welcome to have the last word. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com mailto:vorl@antichef.com wrote: I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png and you can draw it yourself and take your own copy of the data here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere And to Chris Zell, Your post on the economics of global warming is relevant. Your message came in when several other messages came in, which were just making jokes. Craig
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
If it does not show up, how could it be measured? Actually, this can be accomplished in an interesting sort of way with the program. On occasions I intentionally restrict the range of data used in the optimizer. If I want to concentrate upon the rising edge fit, then I do not include the later data in the LMS routine. The output of my optimized variables contains one that corresponds to the input power. This usually matches up to within .2 watts or so and I know at that point that the fast acting effects are taken into account. Now, as time progresses and you look at the error data, you will see any tendency for the excess power to change. It could ramp up or down or stay the same. If instead you are interested in the best overall long term fit to the data, then you can restrict the optimizer input to include the later data to the end of the run if you wish. For this type of test, I leave all of the time variables as well as the initial power set (Kint) fixed and just optimize the Pin. This would muck up the match for fast acting processes, but concentrate on the long term behavior of the cell. Once optimized, the Pin will indicate the effective input power which includes any excess power being generated by LENR. If the error is now flat and you see that Pin is not what you actually know is being applied to the cell, then you have something going on. This simulates what you are thinking I believe. It allows me to concentrate on short term effects or long term effects depending upon my expectations. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the extra heat would not show? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to fill the holes in. That would be something like war. WWII was a tremendous boost to the U.S. economy, even though it mainly consisted of digging holes, blowing things up, and killing people. So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed people to fight it would result in trillions of dollars of benefit simply because wealth is so insanely maldistributed that the demand side of the economy is failing to attract capital to job-creation. In the case of global warming, unlike war, all of the steps proposed to stop it would be beneficial in their own right. Most would be profitable. Some -- such as making as much liquid fuel as the Middle East does -- would be insanely profitable. The first thing you do in any business plan is look at whether there is demand for the thing the business provides: No demand -- no investment. Businesses are often wrong when they make these evaluations. The minicomputer companies all rejected the idea of making personal computers in the 1980s because they saw no profit in it. That is why they all went bankrupt. Large companies today see no profit in doing cold fusion research. That is very foolish. In the 1850s, there were millionaires in San Francisco so wealthy they could could gamble away $100,000 a night at poker. I mean $100,000 at the time, now worth $2.5 million. They had money to burn, but they would not invest $600 in a venture to build the Transcontinental Railroad. No one did, until Lincoln put Uncle Sam in charge of funding it, loaning the money ($48,000 per mile of rail in California), and giving huge rewards to the companies that took the risk, including 33 million acres of land. The loans were paid back. Most decision makers at large businesses, banks, Wall Street and government agencies such as the DoE are not very smart, in my opinion. I have often read their books and opinions. In 1929 and again in 2008 they destroyed the economy by making very stupid mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Skynet Advances
The Rise of the Drones http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html An upcoming Nova program featuring, among other amazing things, Argus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p4BQ1XzwDg
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Hi Craig and other vortexers. I would like to respond to several of your comments. First on the issue of Solar Irradiance or the solar forcing as it's described in the computer models. it is certainly the main contributing factor to heat of the atmosphere. No doubt about it. Sometimes it easy to neglect the primary driver of the earths dynamics, that being the sun. Solar Irradiance is effected by solar weather and sun spots and magnetic storms. The total solar irradiance does change with the 11 year solar cycle, but it's not by that much. It's about ~1.1 W/m^2 for a total irradiance of 1366 to 1368 W/m^2. Sunspot darkening can easily equal or exceed the 1.1W/m^2 variance in the 11 year solar cycle. But like all of the climate change forces, it's data is scattered and noisy too. Here is one of the classic papers on Solar Irradiance impact on Climate Change from 1995. See Figure 1, in that paper. It explains better than I can the variation of Solar Irradiance with respect to the solar cycle. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf By the way, it even shows your facular brightening. There is no doubt about how technical all of the science aspects are. It comes down to, do the equations balance, does the input equal the output? or is one side of the equation having more of an effect than the other. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: --- It's well documented that sunspot number correlates directly with total solar irradiance. The easiest source is Wikipedia: The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.^[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#cite_note-25 This group reconstructed historical solar irradiance levels from using sunspot data: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html If this is a sticking point, we can certainly find more information on this. - Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. But this is a big leap. Sorry. It may be correct, but it's not obvious to me. So this is where I just don't understand the AGW deniers. When add 900 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (a well understood green house gas) and you don't think that will have an effect? Do you think that CO2 is going to magically loose it's green house qualities?Also, lets look at it from another angle; If the solar irradiance (sun cycles or what ever you think is increasing the solar input), if that was the cause you would certainly not want to temp faith by loading your atmosphere with as much CO2 as you could dig out of the ground! I think even the deniers will agree that no one wants a scorched earth. Craig, get a window seat the next time your on a plane and when your 30,000ft up I hope you notice how incredibly thin the atmosphere really is. If we foul our own nest, shame on us. What I want to do is dig deeper into how the models are being constructed which recreate the historical temperature record. I don't know when I can get to this, but that's the next step. I'll also look into finding the objections by those on the AGW side against the correlations with total solar irradiance. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. Are you suggesting that we have more cirrus clouds than we used to have? The convincing arguments should not be something you see in the sky, but rather something you can demonstrate that goes back centuries. For instance, if CO2 directly correlated with increases in temperature on an annual basis, and could explain, by itself, all the peaks and valleys of the temperature record for the past couple of centuries, and if there was not an alternative hypothesis, then it would be hard to deny the correlation with the CO2 record and global temperature anomalies. However, with an alternative hypothesis present, which may better explain the temperature record with all of its fluctuations, doubt will always remain with any explanation based on correlations for the simple reason that it's not possible to prove cause with correlations. One side will 'win' this argument,
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/06/2013 04:20 PM, Craig wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png Actually, we can calculate this value. I started with Jan 1948 and took the trend line up until Jan 1998. Then I extended this trend line unto the end of the data set at Dec 2011. This gave us a projected temperature value of 0.282 above the entire mean of the HadSST3 series for Dec, 2011. (My dataset is using the global sea surface temperatures.) Then I took the standard deviation over the whole set of data from Jan 1948 - Dec 2011, and this was 0.177. So the final value should be within 0.282 +/- 0.177 off the mean, which would be 0.105 to .459, and it is within one standard deviation with a value of 0.363, which is still ABOVE the 50 year trend line. Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? I am not saying that CO2 does not have a contribution to our climate, I just want us to all realize we are a freckle on the Sun's butt and at its mercy whenever it decides to fart. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. With a setup like the one they're currently using for the USA cell, one wants to see on the order of 10-20 W excess power to have a sense that it is not some threshold effect. So even if we saw evidence for 1-2 W excess power, I doubt this would be convincing for anyone. It would be nice if Celani could find the time to visit the MFMP and help them set their cell up. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Interesting. Note that many of the fluctuations are not random. They have known causes, such as volcanoes and el nino. This is explained in the video I posted, which shows how these extraneous events can be filtered out of the data. Here is a better copy of the video with footnotes and scientific references: http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html If I saw cold fusion excess heat data as clear as this, I would say it is conclusive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
The area in sine wave example was not intended to represent any particular physical variables. It was just intended as metaphor to show that the conclusions one draws from data are not necessarily transparent or undeniably correct. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. [image: ;-)] Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism.
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat. Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp Please stick to the facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. I'm sympathetic to the idea that climate change deniers are in denial. But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and to be honest it doesn't seem like the matter of the sources of climate change is all that easy for a nonspecialist (like me, anyway) to sort out. We can troll, which I derive great satisfaction in doing from time to time; but perhaps we should troll subtly, so as not to raise the temperature and inadvertently offend anyone. Eric
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Yes, that might be what they need. I am concerned about the calibration used for the earlier Celani publication where a forth order radiation (S_B) assumption was used to calculate the power. The MFMP guys have very clearly demonstrated that this is not happening with their cells. I recently saw something written on their site that suggests that this is still being considered or applied by Celani. If the forth order calculation is used from this point forth, I will question the results until they are proven accurate. To me it is that simple. Use that technique and you will likely experience major errors. Recently a plan has been put into place to use a calorimeter to measure the excess heat. This is the proper procedure and should settle the issue once properly calibrated. They have found that the wire used by Celani had many more layers than the ones they tested, so things might start looking more reasonable if more can be obtained. The latest I read is that the multi layer wire might not be available. The saga continues. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. With a setup like the one they're currently using for the USA cell, one wants to see on the order of 10-20 W excess power to have a sense that it is not some threshold effect. So even if we saw evidence for 1-2 W excess power, I doubt this would be convincing for anyone. It would be nice if Celani could find the time to visit the MFMP and help them set their cell up. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians, I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I think that proves the point that temperatures are trending higher. If you have positive anomalies for 16 years, that seems to be a trend. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:20 PM, Craig wrote: On 02/06/2013 04:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is a myth that temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The people making this claim started with the highest outlier point 16 years ago. See: I don't agree with that, but you can see it here: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4110_-180-180E_-90-90N_n_1998:2013.png Actually, we can calculate this value. I started with Jan 1948 and took the trend line up until Jan 1998. Then I extended this trend line unto the end of the data set at Dec 2011. This gave us a projected temperature value of 0.282 above the entire mean of the HadSST3 series for Dec, 2011. (My dataset is using the global sea surface temperatures.) Then I took the standard deviation over the whole set of data from Jan 1948 - Dec 2011, and this was 0.177. So the final value should be within 0.282 +/- 0.177 off the mean, which would be 0.105 to .459, and it is within one standard deviation with a value of 0.363, which is still ABOVE the 50 year trend line. Here's a graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSbFFScjJZdUhWdU0/edit?usp=sharing So the temperature stall is still above the 50 year trend line, and can continue flat for quite some time before it falls below the first standard deviation. Craig
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very long delayed effect to come into play during or after the samples. The program should show that something unusual is happening unless the excess power comes after the data sample. In the particular test run I am referring to, there is nothing unusual being observed over a multiple day period. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result The area in sine wave example was not intended to represent any particular physical variables. It was just intended as metaphor to show that the conclusions one draws from data are not necessarily transparent or undeniably correct. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Chuck, I have reframed from entering this discussion because of the emotions that become entangled. You should apologize for that comment since it is out of order. What good would it do if people on the other side directed the same type of attacks toward you? We recently went through a long disgusting series of a similar nature and it resulted in vortex being closed for a week and a couple of members being banned. Do you want to see that happen again? Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 2:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers are just plain stupid. However, this shows that global warming is not transparently self-evident and that an additional level of analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the climate scientists speak down to the lay public and this attitude fuels denialism.
