date:20130219

See:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/the-future-of-electricity-markets

See Fig. 1.

. . . Germany has seen a surge of renewable energy development since the
early 2000s. The consequences of this surge in zero marginal cost power
have been clear: electricity prices during the summer on Germany’s  spot
 market are often lowerduring the day than they are during the evening, as
the large influx of solar power (approximately 32 GW as of Q4:2012) enters
the grid. (The same has occurred with wind power in the north of the
country). . . .

. . . During the week of May 21, 2012, solar PV produced over 1.1 TWh of
electricity, representing approximately 18 percent of total electricity
demand in Germany over the same period, and supplying almost 50 percent of
instantaneous electricity demand during certain hours of the day.

- Jed

[Vo]:Meteor crater

2013-02-19 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

What's burning in this crater -- nickel-iron powder?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

 

Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US

Re: [Vo]:Meteor crater

2013-02-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

thats not an impact crater. Looks like a sink hole, looks like the road
itself is in part burning, I'd say gas main leak or natural gas coming up,
sinkhole collapses, and gas pocket went boom, lit the gas on fire long
enough to get the chunks of asphalt lit.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.
hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote:

 What's burning in this crater -- nickel-iron powder?

 ** **

 ** **

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

 ** **

 Hoyt Stearns

 Scottsdale, Arizona US

[Vo]:Its even more si-fi than Jed could have imagined

2013-02-19 Thread fznidarsic


What's with this!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

Re: [Vo]:Meteor crater

2013-02-19 Thread ChemE Stewart

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

I think it is an abandoned mine that has been burning for 35 years...


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Alexander Hollins 
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 thats not an impact crater. Looks like a sink hole, looks like the
 road itself is in part burning, I'd say gas main leak or natural gas coming
 up, sinkhole collapses, and gas pocket went boom, lit the gas on fire long
 enough to get the chunks of asphalt lit.


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net
  wrote:

 What's burning in this crater -- nickel-iron powder?

 ** **

 ** **

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

 ** **

 Hoyt Stearns

 Scottsdale, Arizona US

[Vo]:Will this help in LENR ?

2013-02-19 Thread Jones Beene

We are on the verge of seeing a big leap in affordable processing power from
inexpensive computers. Essentially, what was a $10 million Cray of a decade
ago is now available for the teenage gamer ... just as the $10 million IBM
360 evolved into the PC, but this time it is qualitatively different.
Virtual reality is on the horizon, as well as machine learning and
human-like visual recognition. 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Preview
-GK110-GPU-Boost-20-Overclocking-and-GPGPU

And closer to home for some vorticians,  this massive level of computer
power will be capable of controlling a (formerly) low level task - such as
say, a small reactor - if needed. The obvious question is: why and how would
you need it? DSPs and PICs and Arduinos are pretty cheap already; and they
can control dozens of interlocking parameters without breaking into a sweat.


Yes, the knee-jerk reaction is - you do not need a supercomputer to do the
work of a DSP but don't forget that in the 1960s- many experts at IBM
could not envision the need for the PC. An expert of today does not need to
be a contrarian to suspect that maybe... just maybe...  we will invent the
need.  An answer in greater detail for that proposition (the emergent need
for the cheap supercomputer) is likewise certainly not obvious. But the
point is - like so many things in modern technology - the best application
for a new device often blindly emerges (to the surprise of all), almost as
an afterthought - following the introduction of the enabling product. 

This is the reverse of tradition where 'necessity' is the mother of
invention. The major paradigm shift we are seeing nowadays in applied
science is that invention is no longer need driven so much as opportunity
driven. As they say in the flicks - if you build it, they will come.
Anyway back to the moonshine of a supercomputer controlling a gainful
energy process...  one immediate but general suggestion for how it would
fit-in involves the so-called Maxwell's demon ... which is a smart device
that can select molecules from the Boltzmann's tail of an energy
distribution, and move them non-randomly- thereby deriving net energy from
ambient conditions. An Arduino could probably control a few dozen I/O
channels - but what if one seeks to control a few million? Yes that shifts
the invention part of the equation to providing secondary sensor arrays -
which are non-existent today but still ... visual recognition in the human
context requires massive computer power, and this could be the initial use,
especially if the computer is self-learning.

There is another application for LENR, specifically (and the reason for this
post) but it is  based on the hypothesis of gain particularly in NiH
reactions coming from the high end of the mass distribution for protons. I
have not convinced many observers that this hypothesis is accurate (that
hydrogen mass is not quantized, except as an ideal value like the Bohr atom)
... so it will be a hard sell to convince a VC or angel funder of the need
to develop a supercomputer subsystem for optimizing gain from this
hypothesis... but that may happen, quien sabe? 

We are reaching the tipping-point in the appreciation of the societal harm
caused by fossil fuel, economic harm more so than climate change. In fact,
the appreciation of the threat - may be the necessity which is the new
mother of a two-tiered invention process, which also is co-driven by the new
enabling technology, but at a level which in beyond serendipitous ... equal
parts 'perspiration' and 'inspiration' but with the information-processor
itself defining the major limitation.

Jones 




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Its even more si-fi than Jed could have imagined

2013-02-19 Thread fznidarsic

Never mind,  I have seen the answer.



-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 10:51 am
Subject: [Vo]:Its even more si-fi than Jed could have imagined


What's with this!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT8vZ-7vxQfeature=youtu.be

[Vo]:Phys.org: The nuclear reactor in your basement

2013-02-19 Thread pagnucco


The nuclear reactor in your basement

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-nuclear-reactor-basement.html

Re: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5

2013-02-19 Thread mixent

In reply to  fznidar...@aol.com's message of Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:21:36 -0500
(EST):
Hi Frank,
[snip]
The protons have to be part of the tuned circuit.   The tuned circuit will not 
extend beyond the proton conductor.   I have some ideas on how to do this. 

If you make the Nickel wire into a coil, then the coil can be part of an LC tank
circuit. The magnetic field of the coil should affect the protons just as it
does the electrons.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

In this graph, notice how the use of PV solar reduces peak demand,
smoothing off baseline generation, whereas wind lowers the baseline for 24
hours a day. PV solar is worth more because electric power sells at a
premium during peak demand.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:explaining CF

2013-02-19 Thread Kevin O'Malley

The mechanism must logically explain how He4, tritium, and transmutation
are produced without energetic radiation being detected.
***A couple of years back I thought EN Tsyganov was onto something.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Cold%20nuclear%20fusion.pdf


4. THE PROBLEM OF “NONRADIATIVE” RELEASE OF NUCLEAR FUSION ENERGY.

As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay
products of the

compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion
with the formation

of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox
in [4]. We believe

that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the
materialization of the

two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity
for some time. This time

defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically
illustrates the

mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a
very low energy,

the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite
potential wells. In

principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In
this oscillator the total

kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the
oscillator, and vice versa. In the

case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the
reactions with nucleon

exchange are suppressed.



Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay
frequency

dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging

deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential
well of

the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the
strong

interaction, the dependence at short distances  Coulomb repulsion.



The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism
of the usual

radioactive decay. In this case,

N(t) /N0 =

t e

Here  is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time .
According to our

hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the
compound nucleus E.

Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:

Here  0 is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy.
According to quantummechanical

considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear
with

decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term  0. The
second term of the

expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the
excitation energy.

The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 1022 s

1. In fusion reaction D+D4He

there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by
the width of the

resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate
state of about

0.810

22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with
decreasing energy.

Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range
below 2 keV in the

c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4103
times less than in the

resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many
times smaller. The

corresponding lifetime is less than 0.310

18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little

effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but
down to a certain limit.

This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer
an isolated system,

since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and
carry the excitation

energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the
virtual photons can

be zero, so this process is not prohibited.

For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the
electrons in the helium

atom (3.110

11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about
10

19

seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the
nearest electrons can be

significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster.
It is assumed that after

an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the
environment the relatively

E



small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the
frequency of the compound

nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by
the term  0. For

convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 1012-1014 per
second. In this case, the

serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in
a time of about 10

16

will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which
decays with emission of

nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will
lead to the loss of all of

the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus
will be in the 4He

ground state.

The energy

RE: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

2013-02-19 Thread Chris Zell

Germans are shutting down nukes and shunning nat gas while burning more dirty 
lignite.  A green shift? really?




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shift-forces-germany-to-burn-more-coal-energy.html

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million.
The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object approaching
from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the
ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass. Yes,
we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by
ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology. Ignoring the
out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with for
this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage. An
optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact
that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently become
advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside of
geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to cause
widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense shockwaves
correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for decades.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since we're
potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon relating not to the
mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but rather to the phenomenon of
public announcement.

It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is hard
for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor enters over land,
and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's surface that is land we
can increase the expected frequency only a few fold at best.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video shows.
As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the atmosphere,
where is the common sense?

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s**
**
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at about
27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread leaking pen

flip a coin 99 times, if it comes up heads 99 times, what is the
probability that it will come up heads the 100th time? And not sure where
Fox got their 10 tons, but the volume, 15 meters across, is pretty much
been the estimate since the beginning. perhaps someone mis estimated what
15 cubic feet of stone weighs?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s*
***
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:

**
 Germans are shutting down nukes and shunning nat gas while burning more
 dirty lignite.  A green shift? really?


Yeah. That is a shame.

You can understand why people are afraid of nukes, after Fukushima.

There were more revelations on NHK yesterday about nukes built on top of
fault lines. Many of the ones now shuttered will never re-open because of
that. They are burning more fossil fuel because of that.

Meanwhile, in China air pollution has reached unprecedented levels. You
have to give them credit though; they are taking bold measures to reduce
the smoke. They are building 28 nukes and a lot of wind power too.

See:

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

QUOTE:

Mainland China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 28 under
construction, and more about to start construction.

Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most
advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to 58
GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

You provide no arithmetic and your argument is consistent with my
arithmetic.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:48 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s

** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

RE: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

2013-02-19 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

German decided to shutdown nuclear power plant well before Fukushima
disaster. Siemens has sold its nuclear department to the French. Fukushima
just convinced finally without doubt about nuclear fission energy.

 

With all those PV cells all around Germany and Benelux houses just make
sunny Sunday the nightmare of electricity grid managers. In those hot and
sunny Sunday, there is a lot of electricity available, but no one to buy it.

 

To compensate the PV cells (and also for the wind) when the weather is
cloudy or not windy, they are burning tons of lignite which is worst than
coal regarding pollution.

 

The picture isn't as nice in Germany as we could see at a first glance.

 

Arnaud

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model says
that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and the
event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs revision.
The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that model? If
the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- if the
damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might
not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of nuclear
attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction events;
one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the model so
that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events --
which may be explained independently but taken as independent events seems
to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s*
***
** **
** **
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show up in
this Russian video, in slo-mo.
** **
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast moving
object that seems to impact with the object to make it explode (at
about 27 seconds).
** **
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
** **
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
** **
** **
** **
** **
NASA's blog
stateshttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments
:

Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction

** **
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
** **
What is your cite, Terry?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-octPHs9gcsfeature=player_embedded#t=0s

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them. The actuary cries
Eureka! and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written by
the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for
whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.

It is difficult to assign an independent

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

PS: Why do I bother?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written
by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the
main
mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion
technology.
Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can
come up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the
source footage. An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time
correlation with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up
with
a optical artifact that would also explain those fragments.

There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial events
-- which may be explained independently but taken as independent events
seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:

1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing inside
of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first public
announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its closest
approach on Feb 15, 2012.

2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to
cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense
shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported for
decades.

3) The vectors of these

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at  
the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at the  
time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the earth  
from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid approached the  
earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this event since it makes  
more sense than the present discussion?


Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their lifespan type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka! and runs to his  
CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to the  
bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.


2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that  
time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company.


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should occur only less than once in a  
million years and the event occurred a few days ago, you might think  
your model needs revision.  The question then becomes how much to  
invest in revising that model?  If the events modeled are of no  
particular economic importance -- if the damages underwritten are  
likely to be mundane in scale -- then one might not invest all that  
much money in revising the model.


However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of  
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse --  
extinction events; one might want to invest substantial resources in  
revising the model so that the probability of the observed events  
aren't so wildly out of line with reality.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:
The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a  
million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial  
events that independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on  
the same day:


1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand  
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.


This is not a coincidence.

PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a  
factor of 1000.



On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object  
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and  
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into  
the main mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside  
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known  
propulsion technology.  Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most  
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from- 
behind object is modification of the source footage.  An optical  
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the  
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical  
artifact that would also explain those fragments.


There are a few statistical anomalies

Re: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:

** ** **

 German decided to shutdown nuclear power plant well before Fukushima**
 ** disaster.


True. I think Fukushima confirmed the wisdom of that decision. The Germans
are phasing it out slowly whereas the Japanese turned off all their
reactors overnight, which seems like a dumb idea to me. One of the reasons
they gave for turning them off was that they need to build new, higher
breakwaters to avoid the risk of another tsunami. They said that would take
several years. I think it was 2 or 3 years. I thought to myself, if they
were serious they could have breakwaters installed in six months. Think of
how long it took the U.S. to put huge concrete blocks in Baghdad streets
during the occupation.



 With all those PV cells all around **Germany** and **Benelux** houses
 just make sunny Sunday the nightmare of electricity grid managers. In those
 hot and sunny Sunday, there is a lot of electricity available, but no one
 to buy it.


The graph shows that even on a Sunday there is some baseline generation. I
suppose they have to have some, in order to compensate for fluctuations in
demand and in sunlight.

Still, too much PV electricity is a problem I would like to have! I'll bet
the Chinese and Japanese wish they had that problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread John Berry

It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive)
But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
punctuation.

So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
series.

The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
and typewriters.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 PS:  Why do I bother?


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka!
 and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
 to the bottom of this improbable event.

 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

 ?


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
 if
 the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
 might
 not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
 model
 so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of line
 with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
 that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a coincidence.

 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
 of 1000.


 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
 main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
 technology.
 Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can 
 come
 up with for this approach-from-behind object is modification of the 
 source
 footage.  An optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation
 with the expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
 artifact that would also explain those fragments.

 There are a few statistical anomalies

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread ChemE Stewart

Of course I also agree that our model is wrong:

1)They found no massive hunk of iron in that 30' hole in the lake because
there was no ball of iron as a nucleus to begin with. That is a sinkhole
2) Our estimate of the mass of those objects based upon ordinary matter is
vastly too low because they contain energetic dark matter nuclei just a
gnat's ass in diameter but massive.
3) This extra mass would allow those particles surrounded by ordinary
matter to orbit each other at much higher velocities than ordinary matter
of the same volume.
4) They exploded like a pipe bomb because that nucleus becomes energetic,
like a comet as it collects heat and mattter and increases pressure at the
core until a massive explosion occurs.
5) If the object(s) exploded mid-air, what created the large diameter hole
in the lake? And if it did not explode where is the object in the lake,
which they have not found after hunting for days? All they have found is
cm size debris

Looks like NASA was off by a factor of 1,000 in their estimated mass, so
where is all that stuff??

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/

I know you guys are open minded so I keep brain rattling...

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

PS: Why do I bother?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary. In the termination letter written
by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

Are you familiar with clustering? just because a rare event happens
twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
just happened to hit the probability twice.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model. If your model
says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
revision. The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
model? If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
of line with reality.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events
that
independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

1/(365*100)^2
= 1/133225

Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand
for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

This is not a coincidence.

PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a
factor of
1000http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision tree.
 Such exploration requires resources and the resources allocated to the
search have to take into account the expected value in terms of risk
adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted statistical
samplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value_of_sample_information.
 The failure to approach research funding decisions in this manner is, for
an immediately recognizable example, a major contributor to the pathology
manifest in cold fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.

The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by that
expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search -- exploring ever less
plausible theories -- is driven by that expected value.

There are some pretty wild theories out there about this cluster and
depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational or
irrational.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled through
 random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur at the same time
 by random change and explore the reason why they occurred at the same time?
  Why not explore the probability that an asteroid has rocks that orbit it
 as the system moves through space?  This planetary system would be
 invisible and not have any effect if the main body passed far enough from
 the earth or another planet.  Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in
 obit and its position at the time the system approached the earth caused it
 to approach the earth from a direction opposite to the direction the
 asteroid approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this
 event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?

 Ed

 On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.

 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare
 in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries
 Eureka! and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research
 program to get to the bottom of this improbable event.

 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:

 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.

 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.

 ?

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins 
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Think about this like an actuary, folks:

 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance --
 if the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one
 might not invest all that much money in revising the model.

 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the
 model so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out
 of line with reality.

 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote:

 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:

  1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225

 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.

 This is not a

RE: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

2013-02-19 Thread Chris Zell

I do admire the Germans in regard to their programs to offer jobs with reduced 
hours but with most benefits retained. Futurewise, this is the way to go and is 
a big improvement over simple unemployment or welfare.

Another country to admire ( to a degree) is Iran.  4 Bankers are scheduled for 
execution for fraud. A big improvement over the US Too Big To Jail attitude.  
Over at Zerohedge, there was an analysis of Obama saying that he is worse than 
Bush on income inequity  - and failure to prosecute/ punish bankers together 
with bailouts are part of the reason why.

And Iran is working on aneutronic (Boron?) fusion too Godspeed to the 
Theocrats on this one.

[Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II



On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic  
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any  
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can  
look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to  
do the latter.  As is the case with any complex process, logic  
demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each  
other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source  
has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates  
the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at  
this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description,  
general features of each part are frequently described.  At this  
stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue  
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.


I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their  
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This  
behavior has several basic features as follows:


1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission  
using D and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in  
which it occurs.

4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested  
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process.  In  
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of  
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules  
of behavior in chemical systems.  Unfortunately, ignorance of these  
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps  
being deflected from a useful path.  Can we at least agree about the  
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that  
need to be obeyed?  Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest  
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR  
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.


Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not  
allow the parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual  
parts of the models proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot  
be modified without producing conflicts in the logical structure. In  
other words, all parts have to be accepted in each model if the  
basic model is to be accepted.  A person is not free to pick the  
part they like and reject the rest.  The Takahashi model requires a  
cluster of 4 deuterons to form and fuse to make Be8, the Kin model  
requires a BEC to form that can lower the barrier and dissipate  
nuclear energy as many scattered deuterons, the Hagelstein model  
requires metal atom vacancies be present and be filled with  
deuterons that can vibrate and lose their energy as phonons.  In  
this same way, my theory requires gaps be present that are filled  
with a resonating structure that dissipates energy as photons.  All  
of the models, many of which I have not used as examples, contain  
essential assumptions, many of which conflict with normal  
expectations.  The only question needing answer is, Which theory is  
more likely to correctly describe LENR and which, based on its  
internal logic,  explains the greatest number observations and can  
make the most useful predictions. Can we answer this question  
without using nit picking?


Ed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

I agree with what you said, Jim. However, all decisions in life are  
based on what appears to be the most likely outcome using logic based  
on what appears to be the best facts. Judgement and common sense are  
used most often to decide what to believe.


But more important, the consequence of the decision is frequently so  
important that it needs to be considered. For example, if the two  
events were connected by chance, the next time an asteroid comes  
close, we would not expect a meteor strike and could relax. On the  
other hand, if asteroids are surrounded by  swarms of orbiting rocks,  
we might want to be more prepared than was the case this time.   
Consequently, such a study is important.


Likewise, LENR being real is more important to know than that it is  
not real.  Therefore, a study to determine which conclusion is true is  
important.


Global warming being real is more important than if it is not real.  
Therefore, being sure which is true is important.


Instead, skeptical people debate the questions as if the consequence  
does not matter.  If they ran an insurance company, it would quickly  
fail. :-)


Ed


On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Estimating the probability has to do with the investment decision  
tree.  Such exploration requires resources and the resources  
allocated to the search have to take into account the expected value  
in terms of risk adjusted utility of obtaining a targeted  
statistical sample.  The failure to approach research funding  
decisions in this manner is, for an immediately recognizable  
example, a major contributor to the pathology manifest in cold  
fusion research funding -- or rather lack thereof.


The cut-off points in proposed research avenues are constrained by  
that expected value.  Conversely, the depth of the search --  
exploring ever less plausible theories -- is driven by that  
expected value.


There are some pretty wild theories out there about this cluster  
and depending on these tradeoffs, exploring them is either rational  
or irrational.


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Rather that debate the probability of the two events being coupled  
through random chance, why not assume the two events did not occur  
at the same time by random change and explore the reason why they  
occurred at the same time?  Why not explore the probability that an  
asteroid has rocks that orbit it as the system moves through space?   
This planetary system would be invisible and not have any effect if  
the main body passed far enough from the earth or another planet.   
Suppose the meteor that hit Russia was in obit and its position at  
the time the system approached the earth caused it to approach the  
earth from a direction opposite to the direction the asteroid  
approached the earth.  Why not calculate the probability of this  
event since it makes more sense than the present discussion?


Ed

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:28 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that  
occurs when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters,  
at some point during their lifespan type type out the complete  
works of Shakespeare in the precise order that Shakespeare wrote  
them.


So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:

An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to  
purchase a thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer  
keyboards (you will have a hard time getting your mitts on a  
thousand working typewriters nowadays), and they proceed to type  
out the complete works of Shakespeare in the precise order that  
Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka! and runs to  
his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get to  
the bottom of this improbable event.


The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter  
written by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to  
say:


1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event  
demonstrates you have not understood clustering.


2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all  
that time and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word  
processors, but your failure to understand that monkeys typing out  
the complete works of Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears  
no reasonable relationship to an event that we might underwrite as  
an insurance company.


?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event  
happens twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on  
previous data. You just happened to hit the probability twice.



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com  
wrote:

Think about this like an actuary, folks:

When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your  
model says that an event should

RE: [Vo]:Interesting graph of daily power generation in Germany, May 2012

2013-02-19 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

German still have some nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plant can not be
started and shut down at will. Nuclear power plants continuously deliver
roughly the same amount of energy. The countries around Germany have also a
lot of power plants especially in France and in Belgium. Those power plants
deliver their power also on a mutual pan European power grid (From Portugal
to Finland and from Italy to Scotland). Nowadays, there is a minimum below
limit for baseline to be produced. Sometimes, the electricity cost 0 even it
costs to sell it! That happens only a few hours a year, but with the
development of PV cells and wind turbines, this will be more and more the
case. But in the winter season, the production might not feed the needs and
the prices of MWh explode.

 

PV and Wind turbines are part of the solution. They are not the only
solution.

 

Nukes are still needed as baseline.

 

Gas turbines can play a main role here because it is easy to put them on or
off without too much extra costs.

 

May the LENR be part of the solution as well! And I hope 2013 will be the
start of the 1st MWh injected to the grid (US, EU or where else)

 

In Japan, the Fukushima disaster has played a major role for the Japanese to
integrate technically and inside the population the need of a smart power
grid. Power was not fed to every house every time. There were some shutdown;
some quarters were shutdown then the next one. The hybrid car has been put
into contribution as energy storage unit. Fukushima was a shock to the local
population and I understand that that they decided to put all nukes on hold.

 

Arnaud

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

2013-02-19 Thread Alain Sepeda

Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenonhighlight=kozima)
kozima article
http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr31.pdf(extended
version http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/Papers/paperr/paperr15.pdf)

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...

*Abstract*
There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP;
(1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation
products,
(2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on the
intensity of the excess heat production, and
(3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron
emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two corollaries of
the first law:
Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in the
system.
Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system.
These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the cold
fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity induced by
nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and nonequilibrium CF
systems as far as we assume a common cause for various events in the CFP,
i.e. excess heat production, neutron emission, and nuclear transmutation.
The characteristics of the CF materials for the CFP are investigated using
our knowledge of the microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting
to the complexity in relation to the three laws explained above.
A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature of the
CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice) composed of two
interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host nuclei with extended neutron
wavefunctions and another of proton/deuterons with non-localized
wavefunctions.

2013/2/19 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths.
People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea that
comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for the overall
patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the latter. As is the
case with any complex process, logic demands that the various parts have a
definite relationship to each other. For example, to make an automobile
function, a power source has to be coupled to a gear box through a
mechanism that isolates the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not
important at this level of understanding. However, to simplify the
description, general features of each part are frequently described. At
this stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.

I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This behavior
has several basic features as follows:

1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission using D
and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in which
it occurs.
4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process. In addition,
this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of science and
agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules of behavior in
chemical systems. Unfortunately, ignorance of these conventional rules
seems to be so common that this discussion keeps being deflected from a
useful path. Can we at least agree about the basic behavior that needs to
be explained and the basic rules that need to be obeyed? Perhaps other
people would be willing to suggest the rules they think are important - or
no rules if they think LENR occurs outside of normal scientific
understanding.

Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not allow the
parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual parts of the models
proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or Hagelstein cannot be modified without
producing conflicts in the logical structure. In other words, all parts
have to be accepted in each model if the basic model is to be accepted. A
person is not free to pick the part they like and reject the rest. The
Takahashi model requires a cluster of 4 deuterons to form and fuse to make
Be8, the Kin model requires a BEC to form that can lower the barrier and
dissipate nuclear energy as many scattered deuterons, the Hagelstein model
requires metal atom vacancies be present and be filled with deuterons that
can vibrate and lose their energy as phonons. In this same way, my theory
requires gaps be present that are filled with a resonating

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

These Laws do not make sense. I have no idea what they mean. A law
must be clearly stated and consistent with what is known. It must also
clearly limit what is possible. The laws stated by Kozima are so
general they have no special application. This kind of sloppy
thinking and description invites confusion.

A suitable law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This can be
clearly stated and imposes a clear limit on how energy can flow or be
accumulated in a chemical system. Another example, the Law of
Conservation of Momentum clearly describes how energy can be released
from reaction of any kind. These laws severely limit the kind of
mechanism causing LENR. The Kozima laws do not do this.

Ed
On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenonhighlight=kozima
)

kozima article (extended version)

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...

Abstract
There have been discovered three empirical laws in the CFP;
(1) The First Law: the stability effect for nuclear transmutation
products,
(2) the Second Law; the inverse power dependence of the frequency on
the intensity of the excess heat production, and
(3) the Third Law: bifurcation of the intensity of events (neutron
emission and excess heat production) in time. There are two
corollaries of the first law:
Corollary 1-1: Production of a nuclide A’Z+1X’ from a nuclide AZX in
the system.

Corollary 1-2: Decay time shortening of unstable nuclei in the system.
These laws and the necessary conditions for the CFP tell us that the
cold fusion phenomenon is a phenomenon belonging to complexity
induced by nonlinear interactions between agents in the open and
nonequilibrium CF systems as far as we assume a common cause for
various events in the CFP, i.e. excess heat production, neutron
emission, and nuclear transmutation. The characteristics of the CF
materials for the CFP are investigated using our knowledge of the
microscopic structure of the CF materials consulting to the
complexity in relation to the three laws explained above.
A computer simulation is proposed to reproduce an essential feature
of the CFP using a simplified model system (a super-lattice)
composed of two interlaced sublattices; one sublattice of host
nuclei with extended neutron wavefunctions and another of proton/
deuterons with non-localized wavefunctions.

2013/2/19 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can
look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to
do the latter. As is the case with any complex process, logic
demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each
other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source
has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates
the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at
this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description,
general features of each part are frequently described. At this
stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.

I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This
behavior has several basic features as follows:

1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission
using D and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in
which it occurs.

4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process. In
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules
of behavior in chemical systems. Unfortunately, ignorance of these
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps
being deflected from a useful path. Can we at least agree about the
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that
need to be obeyed? Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.

Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not
allow the parts to be change arbitrarily. For example, individual
parts of the models proposed by Takahashi, Kim, or

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

Let me add a few more comments. Kozima believes that all materials
contain extra neurons that are outside of the nucleus and are
stabilized against their normal radioactive decay (16 min 1/2 life) by
something in the lattice. He believes that these trapped neutrons are
released occasionally and cause LENR. First, no justification exists
for believing such trapped neutrons exist. Second, none of the nuclear
products are consistent with neutron interaction. When neutrons
react, two results occur. A gamma is emitted immediately to conserve
momentum. The resulting nucleus is a new isotope, not a new element. A
new element cannot result unless an alpha, beta, or positron is
emitted. These emissions are not detected. Regardless of the
arguments Kozima uses, these facts eliminate his theory from
consideration.

On Feb 19, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Dear Mr Storms,

Does Kozima laws inspire you something?

(I've naively commented
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?244-Theory-Kozima-3-Laws-in-the-CF-Phenomenonhighlight=kozima
)

kozima article (extended version)

do you identify interesting points, and weakess ?

the approach seems similar to what you propose...

2013/2/19 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic
paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any
idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can
look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to
do the latter. As is the case with any complex process, logic
demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each
other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source
has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates
the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at
this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description,
general features of each part are frequently described. At this
stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue
whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.

I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This
behavior has several basic features as follows:

1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission
using D and H.
3. The process is very sensitive to the nature of the material in
which it occurs.

4. The process works using any isotope of hydrogen.

Many details add support and can be used to evaluate suggested
mechanisms, but are not required to define the basic process. In
addition, this process of evaluation requires a basic knowledge of
science and agreement that the LENR process must follow known rules
of behavior in chemical systems. Unfortunately, ignorance of these
conventional rules seems to be so common that this discussion keeps
being deflected from a useful path. Can we at least agree about the
basic behavior that needs to be explained and the basic rules that
need to be obeyed? Perhaps other people would be willing to suggest
the rules they think are important - or no rules if they think LENR
occurs outside of normal scientific understanding.

Once a logical connection is proposed, this connection does not

[Vo]:green electricity

2013-02-19 Thread Harry Veeder

 Can you get greener than this? ;-)


Stanford Report, April 13, 2010

Stanford researchers find electrical current stemming from plants

Stanford engineers have generated electrical current by tapping into
the electron activity in individual algae cells. Photosynthesis
excites electrons, which can then be turned into an electrical current
using a specially designed gold electrode. This study could be the
first step toward carbon-free electricity directly from plants.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/electric-current-plants-041310.html
-

Harry

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd  
raised.


First of all, he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that  
can not be resolved by facts or discussion because it stems from a  
basic difference in attitude. So, I will not address this difference.


However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A  
theory is not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even  
to satisfy skeptics. A theory allows the process to be made  
reproducible and brings the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of  
this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. Until we can  
bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be  
accepted or made commercially useful. We will not arrive at this  
understanding without using some rules and agreements about what needs  
to be explained and apply this information to a explanation.  The only  
issue of importance here is whether the discussion contributes to this  
process or distracts from it.


I'm trying to focus on logic, information, and laws that are needed to  
attempt the process of understanding.


As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what  
needs to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory  
identifies what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a  
critical size) and what must take place in this location to be  
consistent with observation (a resonance structure containing hydros  
and electrons). In the process, the model  makes a series of  
predictions that can be used to determine if the model is correct or  
not.  I have identified exactly where I think the mystery is located  
in the LENR process. The only thing I have not done is to show how the  
mysterious process operates. But, neither has anyone else done this.


My question is, Do we fight about the color of the car or do we  
cooperate by designing the engine?


Ed

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


This goes into something crucial. Comment will be appreciated.

At 04:08 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:
A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic  
paths.

People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea
that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for
the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the
latter.


My attempt has been to encourage this; it is this identification of  
overall patterns that is, in fact, the evidence we have about  
LENR. Explanations (mechanism) are not evidence.



 As is the case with any complex process, logic demands that
the various parts have a definite relationship to each other.


I'll watch out for logic demands. It's a red flag.


For
example, to make an automobile function, a power source has to be
coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates the engine
from the wheels. The exact design is not important at this level of
understanding.


That's correct.


However, to simplify the description, general features
of each part are frequently described.  At this stage in the process
of understanding, it is pointless to argue whether the engine is 4 or
6 cylinders or about the color of the car.


And if someone describes the car as having N cylinders, the  
description might still be functional even if that number is in error.




I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This
behavior has several basic features as follows:





1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.


Yes.


2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission
using D and H.


*Probably*, but this may have *nothing to do* with the mechanism for  
the FPHE. That's a realization that I've had, in the background,  
i.e., the possibility that there is more than one effect operating,  
because it's logically possible. The desire to have only one effect  
is not controlling, if distinguishing and separating effects makes  
explanation simpler. More than one way to skin a cat.


Reading Schwinger brought me back to this. What if Jones is right  
and wrong? I.e., right about his own ideas, and wrong about the FP  
Heat Effect?


The most obvious possibility for a second reaction, happening at low  
levels, is what might result from an increased ordinary fusion rate  
due to the conditions of condensed matter. Lots of theorists have  
proposed this, but it's mostly been rejected because, as Ed will  
remind us, the reaction doesn't take place in the lattice, because  
helium isn't found there. However, ordinary fusion would produce  
very little helium. This second reaction might indeed take place  
in the lattice. And the mechanism for it might be *very different*  
from the mechanism for the FP Heat Effect.


I'm pointing out that a decent mechanism for PdD cold fusion need  
not explain tritium. The main reaction does occur without energetic

[Vo]:Engineer's Comment That May be of Interest

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Goldes


As an Energy Engineer who works in this field, I can say the practical 
development  implementation of this technology is not the biggest hurdle to 
overcome, we already use a form of it on board satellites we send to the 
outermost regions of the solar system where using solar cells to recharge 
on-board batteries are useless, instead we use fission technology to maintain 
stable power generation in those satellites. The biggest hurdle with adapting 
fission as point of use technology will be regulatory. Look at the politics 
involved in the implementation of fracking technology used in shale oil 
extraction, it is fraught more with politics than the science of developing it 
to make it environmentally practical for useful application. As fearful as some 
people are of fracking, when the same ones hear the word nuclear, this will 
so cower politicians that the technology may never be realized.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-nuclear-reactor-basement.html#jCp

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

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

[Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future

Something else I predicted in my book.

See:

http://theweek.com/article/index/240285/watch-the-deadly-insect-sized-drones-of-the-future

The people at General Dynamics should think twice about developing these
things. Sooner or later everyone will have one, and every public figure
from the President down will be endangered.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

2013-02-19 Thread de Bivort Lawrence

Think of the more interesting, shorter writings that monkey would come up with. 
Would be quite instructional, I imagine. 

Cheers,
Lawry

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:49 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
 also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
 repetitive)
 But because you would have to convert the numbers to letters, you
 would need to group them and since you would get many numbers over 26
 it would take a very long while to find a string that had the works
 without some numbers higher than 26 plus any numbers assigned to
 punctuation.
 
 So if you instead used a 26 (or maybe 30ish for punctuation) based
 counting system where each number had a corresponding letter then you
 would find the complete works of Shakespeare much much sooner in the
 series.
 
 The accountant would appreciate this considering the saving in monkeys
 and typewriters.
 
 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 PS:  Why do I bother?
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Of course we're all familiar with the clustering phenomenon that occurs
 when thousand immortal monkeys banging away on typewriters, at some point
 during their lifespan type type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.
 
 So now try to follow along carefully with my line of reasoning:
 
 An actuary, being fully aware of such clustering proceeds to purchase a
 thousand monkeys and place them in front of computer keyboards (you will
 have a hard time getting your mitts on a thousand working typewriters
 nowadays), and they proceed to type out the complete works of Shakespeare in
 the precise order that Shakespeare wrote them.  The actuary cries Eureka!
 and runs to his CTO proclaiming the need for a huge research program to get
 to the bottom of this improbable event.
 
 The CTO proceeds to fire the actuary.  In the termination letter written
 by the CTO to the actuary, which is the CTO more likely to say:
 
 1) You are being terminated because your so-called 'Eureka!' event
 demonstrates you have not understood clustering.
 
 2) You are being terminated because not only did you spend all that time
 and money on getting a bunch of monkeys in front of word processors, but
 your failure to understand that monkeys typing out the complete works of
 Shakespeare in the order he wrote them bears no reasonable relationship to
 an event that we might underwrite as an insurance company.
 
 ?
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Alexander Hollins
 alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Are you familiar with clustering?  just because a rare event happens
 twice close together, doesn't change the rarity based on previous data. You
 just happened to hit the probability twice.
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Think about this like an actuary, folks:
 
 When setting insurance premiums, one must have a model.  If your model
 says that an event should occur only less than once in a million years and
 the event occurred a few days ago, you might think your model needs
 revision.  The question then becomes how much to invest in revising that
 model?  If the events modeled are of no particular economic importance -- 
 if
 the damages underwritten are likely to be mundane in scale -- then one 
 might
 not invest all that much money in revising the model.
 
 However, if the model is predicting events that are on the scale of
 nuclear attack in terms of destructive potential -- or worse -- extinction
 events; one might want to invest substantial resources in revising the 
 model
 so that the probability of the observed events aren't so wildly out of 
 line
 with reality.
 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a
 million.  The naive calculation is based on two like  celestial events 
 that
 independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
 
 1/(365*100)^2
 = 1/133225
 
 Note:  that is one in a billion.  Discount by a factor of a thousand
 for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million.
 
 This is not a coincidence.
 
 PS:  The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor
 of 1000.
 
 
 On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
 approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
 direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the 
 main
 mass.  Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible
 explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion 
 technology.
 Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can 
 come
 up with for this approach-from-behind object is

Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future

2013-02-19 Thread Mark Gibbs

Too late: http://www.indiegogo.com/robotdragonfly/x/1658702 ... basic
version to be priced at $250 without camera and a camera-less silent
version at $280 (perfect for stealth toxic chemical delivery). Surveillance
version with two cameras (one HD) with an on-board computer that may be
powerful enough for UAV operation for $1,499. The project raised $1,140,975
on a goal of $110,000.

[m]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 The people at General Dynamics should think twice about developing these
 things. Sooner or later everyone will have one, and every public figure
 from the President down will be endangered.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II

2013-02-19 Thread Axil Axil

*As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what needs
to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory identifies
what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a critical size) and what
must take place in this location to be consistent with observation (a
resonance structure containing hydros and electrons). In the process, the
model makes a series of predictions that can be used to determine if the
model is correct or not. I have identified exactly where I think the
mystery is located in the LENR process. The only thing I have not done is
to show how the mysterious process operates. But, neither has anyone else
done this.*

I think you’re discounting the field of nano-photonics which provides a
body of theory, a conceptual tool box, and an extensive experimentation
inventory which precisely covers the condition you are interested in.

You might be well served in looking into this field of physics for insight.

Cheers:   Axil

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I will ignore the nit-picking and focus on the important points Abd raised.

 First of all, he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that can
 not be resolved by facts or discussion because it stems from a basic
 difference in attitude. So, I will not address this difference.

 However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A theory is
 not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even to satisfy
 skeptics. A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings
 the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the
 important aspect of a theory. Until we can bring the phenomenon under
 control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful.
 We will not arrive at this understanding without using some rules and
 agreements about what needs to be explained and apply this information to a
 explanation.  The only issue of importance here is whether the discussion
 contributes to this process or distracts from it.

 I'm trying to focus on logic, information, and laws that are needed to
 attempt the process of understanding.

 As for my theory, I have created a logical structure based on what needs
 to be explained using as few assumptions as possible. The theory identifies
 what needs to be created in the material (gaps of a critical size) and what
 must take place in this location to be consistent with observation (a
 resonance structure containing hydros and electrons). In the process, the
 model  makes a series of predictions that can be used to determine if the
 model is correct or not.  I have identified exactly where I think the
 mystery is located in the LENR process. The only thing I have not done is
 to show how the mysterious process operates. But, neither has anyone else
 done this.

 My question is, Do we fight about the color of the car or do we cooperate
 by designing the engine?

 Ed

 On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

  This goes into something crucial. Comment will be appreciated.

 At 04:08 PM 2/19/2013, Edmund Storms wrote:

 A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths.
 People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea
 that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for
 the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the
 latter.


 My attempt has been to encourage this; it is this identification of
 overall patterns that is, in fact, the evidence we have about LENR.
 Explanations (mechanism) are not evidence.

   As is the case with any complex process, logic demands that
 the various parts have a definite relationship to each other.


 I'll watch out for logic demands. It's a red flag.

  For
 example, to make an automobile function, a power source has to be
 coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates the engine
 from the wheels. The exact design is not important at this level of
 understanding.


 That's correct.

  However, to simplify the description, general features
 of each part are frequently described.  At this stage in the process
 of understanding, it is pointless to argue whether the engine is 4 or
 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.


 And if someone describes the car as having N cylinders, the description
 might still be functional even if that number is in error.


  I'm trying to describe the general features of LENR and show their
 required logical relationship based on the general behavior. This
 behavior has several basic features as follows:




  1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.


 Yes.

  2. Tritium is made without energetic particle or neutron emission
 using D and H.


 *Probably*, but this may have *nothing to do* with the mechanism for the
 FPHE. That's a realization that I've had, in the background, i.e., the
 possibility that there is more than one effect operating, because it's
 logically

Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future

Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:


 Too late: http://www.indiegogo.com/robotdragonfly/x/1658702 ... basic
 version to be priced at $250


Yeah, I suppose it is inevitable. But the General Dynamics version with
push the state of the art forward rapidly, with capabilities far beyond the
ones we now have. I do not think it is wise to press forward quickly with
something that would be so useful to terrorists.

It reminds me of what Henry Kissinger said once; something like: we did
not think carefully about the ramifications of a MIRV'ed world. He
regretted pushing ahead with MIRV nuclear missiles.

We should not always build every weapon we are capable of building.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future

2013-02-19 Thread de Bivort Lawrence

By governmental definition, terrorists are those who operate without 
governmental sanction. I would worry more about those who operate with 
governmental authority. 



Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
  
 Too late: http://www.indiegogo.com/robotdragonfly/x/1658702 ... basic 
 version to be priced at $250
 
 Yeah, I suppose it is inevitable. But the General Dynamics version with push 
 the state of the art forward rapidly, with capabilities far beyond the ones 
 we now have. I do not think it is wise to press forward quickly with 
 something that would be so useful to terrorists.
 
 It reminds me of what Henry Kissinger said once; something like: we did not 
 think carefully about the ramifications of a MIRV'ed world. He regretted 
 pushing ahead with MIRV nuclear missiles.
 
 We should not always build every weapon we are capable of building.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future