Re: [Vo]:Paulie Harvich; the rest of the story

[Harvey Norris]

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/


On Tue, 9/24/13, Harvey Norris  wrote:

 Subject: [Vo]:Paulie Harvich; the rest of the story
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 9:31 PM
 
 oops, forgot the rest of the
 story
 http://youtu.be/cpMuGunExFk
 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Then in later investigations of this tamed down feeble high frequency vibrator, 
large vertical capacitive plates are added to the top discharge, and the 
lowered change in frequency noted by scoping. This then means the first primary 
turn adjustment for that changed secondary load may be attempted, simply 
changing the primary turn tap point, as is done with tesla coil tuning. Finally 
then as the second modification a body may be placed between the plates, and 
the circuit again tuned to the point of maximum vibration. This essentially 
then is a method for bodily interface with fields themselves resonantly tuned 
for that body, opening a new avenue for medical treatments of this kind of 
frankensteinian endeavor. Such a possibility should not be shrugged away, many 
people are willing to share their bodies for science on halloween. Perhaps a 
clinic is in order.
I will place that on my agenda.
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[James Bowery]

Looking around for information on which Jasons might be more interested in
LENR and national security than peer pressure, I found the study Reducing
DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence.
 Clearly the author(s) of this study would be great candidates to approach
with the data!

Click through to see the lead authors

Ooops




On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:24 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia 
> article
> :
>
> In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been
> one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which
> JASON received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after
> JASON's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since
> JASON's inception, new members have always been selected by its existing
> members. After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by
> Congressman
>  Rush Holt  of New Jersey
> [3] —funding
> was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy,
> the office of the Director, Defense Research & 
> Engineering,
> name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering)
> (ASD (R&E)) in 2011.[4]
>  
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Ironically:
>>
>> *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
>> States 
>> government
>>  on
>> matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way
>> to get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los
>> Alamos  and
>> MIT Radiation Laboratory 
>> alumni—involved
>> in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere
>> between 30 and 60 members.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>>  I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who
>>> are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
>>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Paulie Harvich; the rest of the story

[Harvey Norris]

oops, forgot the rest of the story
http://youtu.be/cpMuGunExFk
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[James Bowery]

Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia
article
:

In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been
one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which
JASON received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after
JASON's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since
JASON's inception, new members have always been selected by its existing
members. After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by
Congressman
 Rush Holt  of New Jersey
[3] —funding
was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy,
the office of the Director, Defense Research &
Engineering,
name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering)
(ASD (R&E)) in 2011.[4]





On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Ironically:
>
> *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
> States 
> government
>  on
> matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way
> to get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los
> Alamos  and
> MIT Radiation Laboratory 
> alumni—involved
> in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere
> between 30 and 60 members.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>  I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who
>> are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[James Bowery]

Ironically:

*JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
States 
government
on
matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way to
get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los
Alamos
and
MIT Radiation Laboratory
alumni—involved
in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere
between 30 and 60 members.


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who
> are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
>

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

[John Berry]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
>
>>  It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have
>>> a sense of proportion!
>>>
>>
>> In many ways it is worse.
>> No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war
>> or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of
>> peace.
>>
>
> I was thinking more of an accidental explosion of a modern bomb, or a
> terrorist attack with one. This would be worse than the WWII bombs, because
> they are so much more powerful now. People don't realize that. Actually,
> thanks to the U.S. and Russia arms negotiations, the megaton bombs have
> been scrapped, but the ones remaining are still in the hundreds of kilotons
> I believe.
>
> Anyway, I disagree. Even granting that it contributed to peace (an issue
> beyond the scope of the discussion), a bomb is incomparably more horrific
> and inhuman than the worst human experimentation even conducted by the U.S.
> Just measured by cold-blooded standards of the number of people hurt and
> killed and the immensity of the damage and pain, it was far worse. Books
> such as J. Hersey's "Hiroshima" and the museum at Hiroshima can only give a
> slight impression of what happened. The totality was beyond human
> comprehension.
>

This is an interesting conundrum.

A natural disaster could be more horrific than a thermonuclear warhead, but
by default would not be anyones fault, no malice.

Where are a single person could be killed by a most insidiously evil
mindset.

So which is worse?

Obviously it depends on where we throw our attention, if we are trying to
understand just the human suffering, that would be the natural disaster.
But the latter could even be an unsuccessful attempt but has a strongly
malicious angle.

I think we were addressing the plausibility of malicious acts by government
and organizations and as such that is significant.
There have been speeches given proposing killing the majority of humankind
that has had applause (a standing ovation IIRC) with certain audiences.

And are these people applauding evil, or misguided?

It does not really matter, the fact is that people can support notions that
are incredibly repugnant such as massive depopulation (90%) and genocide.

My or your view of right and wrong, logical and illogical does not make
sense of actions of people who have a differing belief system.

That there can be traction to build a submarine with funnels in the top or
killing 90% of everyone (everyone applauding were certain they were in the
10% no doubt) or Tuskeegee or enough support of operation northwood to even
get it as far as the president shows that if we assume that reason and
decency from organizations we will often be sorely mistaken.



> There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event.
>>
>
> Ed and I disagree, for the reasons already stated. Let's agree to
> disagree, and drop the subject.
>

I will agree to that wrt 9/11, but I will have to disagree to agreeing to
disagree on the subject of dropping it.

Of course it takes 2 to tango.

John

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people
>> at places like Wikipedia
>>
>>
> In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status
> more than authority structure.
>

I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you
see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators
such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect
for other species.)



> So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with
> national security than peer pressure?
>

I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are.
I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I
get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are
opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which
was a long time ago. But I could be wrong.

I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion
funding cancelled.

It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money
or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of money
and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please with
it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make far
better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in doing
things the older people think are impossible, because the young people have
not yet learned where the boundary between possible and impossible likes.
Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical boundary -- a
state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible and what
isn't. No one can even imagine.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:


> It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a
>> sense of proportion!
>>
>
> In many ways it is worse.
> No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war
> or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of
> peace.
>

I was thinking more of an accidental explosion of a modern bomb, or a
terrorist attack with one. This would be worse than the WWII bombs, because
they are so much more powerful now. People don't realize that. Actually,
thanks to the U.S. and Russia arms negotiations, the megaton bombs have
been scrapped, but the ones remaining are still in the hundreds of kilotons
I believe.

Anyway, I disagree. Even granting that it contributed to peace (an issue
beyond the scope of the discussion), a bomb is incomparably more horrific
and inhuman than the worst human experimentation even conducted by the U.S.
Just measured by cold-blooded standards of the number of people hurt and
killed and the immensity of the damage and pain, it was far worse. Books
such as J. Hersey's "Hiroshima" and the museum at Hiroshima can only give a
slight impression of what happened. The totality was beyond human
comprehension.

I am not suggesting this was unique. Many other events in history, such as
other wars or the Black Plague, were as bad. What I just wrote is similar
to what the nuns in Emmitsburg Maryland wrote a few weeks after the battle
of Gettysburg, as they struggled to cope with the casualties. They said 'no
one can begin to imagine the suffering,' and they were right.



> There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event.
>

Ed and I disagree, for the reasons already stated. Let's agree to disagree,
and drop the subject.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

[John Berry]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to.
>> The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific.
>>
>
> It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a
> sense of proportion!
>

In many ways it is worse.
No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war
or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of
peace.


>
>
And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy
>> theories.
>>
>
> No, they are not. When real things like this happen, people believe it. We
> don't believe imaginary things which have no evidence.
>

There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event.

Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:

Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to.
> The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific.
>

It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a
sense of proportion!



> But at the time it would have been considered an unreasonable conspiracy
> theory.
>

Not at all. When these things (human experimentation) were revealed, no one
doubted they happened. No one claimed this was all an imaginary conspiracy
theory.



> And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy
> theories.
>

No, they are not. When real things like this happen, people believe it. We
don't believe imaginary things which have no evidence.


Later they will be old news.
>

Wrong again. You need to read history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[James Bowery]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the
>> proper development and deployment of LENR.  It is "intelligent" in that
>> sense and it has no incentive to become "enlightened" about its
>> self-interest.
>>
>> There are therefore two questions in modeling this "intelligence":
>>
>> 1) What is the actual authority structure?
>> 2) What is the actual incentive structure?
>>
>
>
> The only people standing in the way of cold fusion today are a small
> number of academic scientists, at places like MIT, the DoE, Nature magazine
> and the Jasons. Unfortunately, they have a great deal of influence. They
> are opposed to it on theoretical grounds, and because they can't imagine
> they might be mistaken, so they are not cautious. (That thought never
> crosses their minds.) Not because they are invested in oil.
>
> There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people
> at places like Wikipedia
>
>
In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status
more than authority structure.  The key incentive here is to avoid
embarrassment in the eyes of the others in the milieu but even her
influence flows from the top down (MIT, DoE, Nature, Jasons, etc. ->
Wikpedia zombies, etc.).  Clearly "MIT" can't be considered a unified
entity as exemplified by Hagelstein.  Indeed, Hagelstein's presence at MIT
pretty much neutralizes it as a point of leverage from the social status
angle since, as an institution, MIT can point to Hagelstein as the exemplar
of their properly neutral institutional role.  So forget "MIT".  The DoE
has only partially covered its *ss with the Ramsey verbiage in the preamble
to the DoE panel's report (and its reiteration in the 2009 report).  This
might be a weak spot -- especially given the hostility some Republicans
have toward the Obama administration.  Nature magazine stands much to lose,
but the British foundation of that journal was protected to some degree by
delegating authority over the rejection of Oriani's paper to the US
editors.  They can point their finger across the pond and simply say they
should not have been so lax with the colonists.  The Jasons, on the other
hand the Jasons their raison d'être is precisely to discover
game-changing physics potentials and not for any namby-pamby concerns like
economic competitiveness or academic integrity.

The Jasons are supposed to be "above" Nature magazine and the academics at
the DoE and MIT, etc.

Moreover, you don't have to get them all in agreement.  All you need is one
of them to break ranks.

So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with
national security than peer pressure?

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[Alain Sepeda]

By the way trying to get biographical data on Rossi, I found that
newenergytimes is cited many times against rossi...

it seems Fringe site have a different meaning when it attack rossi...

LENR-CANR is never cited, while there is no comparison about which is the
most Fringe.

so much lack of honesty from defender of the true truth, make me ... (sorry
i cannot find the english word - mix pain, rage, hate, deception, despair)


2013/9/23 Jed Rothwell 

> Years ago some Americans opposed to cold fusion tried to change this
> article, and they tried to ban LENR-CANR.org. A Japanese moderator asked
> them not to.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

[Alain Sepeda]

I agree.
You make choices from the one available, from your data...

and what you can do beyond you own person, of often null...

the question is how much evil can do motivated people defending a Cause...
Some says that since people are more dangerous than bandits.
Milgram experiment show that clearly.

on a scientist blog  (she is a pro, a mainstream one, but now dissenter -
guess who ) I have read an article about the opposition of micro-ethics,
and macro-ethics.

micro-ethics is for a scientist to be honest, to raise alarm when there
are, to note problems, uncertainties, mismatch, errors, whatever are the
consequence on his career, his project, on his college career, on his
political/religious vision

Macro-ethics is protecting the interest of the values, the communities, you
estimate and want to defend.

In real life there is an opposition between the two.

Most mainstream scientists decide to hide uncertainties, if it is
endangering their moral desire to make things change in the good direction.
If it endanger the credibility of their scientific domain, of their
scientific community, in which they believe to make the world better, to
save the planet from evil they are sure do exist.
They know/imagine they are under attack by "knowledge terrorists", the
salesmen of doubt, the mercenaries of Great Evil. The "circle the wagon",
the start to bend the facts, to hide problems, to manipulate peer-review,
to terrorize the scientific journals, the academy who disagree...
because they hold the Good, the Truth. Many people know they exaggerate,
they are wrong, but it is for the Good... nobody can be against Good...
They became salesmen of certainty... they know it is for the good. they ask
for legal protection against denialists of their truth. the ask for ban,
for ostracization... the behave like what they fear the most, like
"knowledge occupation army"... the torture the facts, kills the dissenters,
bomb the fringe labs...
They do it because it is for the Good...

one day there is a Manning, a Snowden, a Farewell, a FXXX (?) ...who simply
cannot accept to burry his micro-ethic, the ideals he was born in, in the
name of his macro-ethics, which he feel are corrupted now... who have an
irrational ego to think he can change the things, that he will be
recognized for so. They are not nice people, they are... required.
data are leaked... and the house of cards is shaked...
It hold for few years but more an more people lose faith in the
macroethics...
most continue by selfish interests, by laziness, or simply escape in
silent...

meanwhile the preachers of Truth get more and more radical, increase the
level of their claims, as fast as the others lose interest...

and it collapse like Berlin Wall. first in silence where nobody looks, then
is a visible absurdity.

and people forgets it ever existed.
so it can happen again.



2013/9/23 Edmund Storms 

> I agree with your description when applied to the details, Alain. However,
> the system is influenced by certain people based on their self interest and
> wisdom, or lack thereof. We see this situation play out throughout
> histoery. Some people use their power to improve while others use it to
> destroy. The rest of us are simply bystanders and collateral damage. Either
> we do nothing and get slaughtered or we move out of the way. The choice is
> based on knowledge. For example, some people left Germany when Hitler came
> to power and others stayed and died in the gas chambers. Their personal
> choice determined their fate. This choice was based on what they thought
> Hitler would do. Everyone has that same choice today when they react to
> events. Yes, there may be no vision in the system itself, but personal fate
> still can be influenced by a choice based on knowledge.  If enough people
> make the proper choice, the fate of everyone can change.  Right now poor
> choices are being made by most people in the West.
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> my sad vision is there is no vision...
>
> some people think they are right, using bad heuristics.
> some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to earn
> their life
> some follow just because they feel right when they follow
> some get convinced because they have no culture
> some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family
> some see but nobody hear them
>
> media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the opposite,
> to save their image
> population follow the media to be cool
> politician follow the population to be elected
> scientists follow the money thus the politicians
> politicians follow the scientists
> media follos the scientists
> population follow the media...
>
> system is locked, and the dissenters are fired.
> The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion, based on
> the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause trouble, then
> you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD situation.
>
>
>