[Vo]:The History of the Internet, 1 minute video, Toni at WhoIsHostingThis: Rich Murray 2015.08.13

[Rich Murray]

The History of the Internet. 1 minute video, Toni at WhoIsHostingThis: Rich
Murray 2015.08.13
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-history-of-internet-1-minute-video.html


t...@wiht-email.com
9:31 PM  PDT (1 hour ago) Thursday 2015.08.13

Hi Rich,

The reason for my email today is to share with you a video presentation
that we’ve put together which documents the history of the internet.
You can watch the video here -- http://wiht.link/internethistoryvideo

http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/internet-history-video/

[ Publishing 6791 user reviews of 335 web hosting companies since 2007

The Internet: Then & Now

In 1969, when the internet was nothing more than an intriguing military
communication network, few could have imagined the far reaching impact of
the then-budding technology.
You don't need me to tell you how deeply integrated the internet is in our
daily lives today.
It is a communication and information highway.
It is a way to distribute entertainment, and consumes more of our leisure
time than we may want to admit.
It gives voice to the marginalized and forgotten.
It is the incubator of innovation.

So how much has changed since the dawn of the internet age?
Just about everything.
We've pulled together a quick video that runs through some of the most
staggering statistics available to describe the meteoric growth of the
internet. Take a look: ]


I can see you’ve covered the topic of internet history in the past so I
think you might find this interesting and worth sharing with your visitors.

Would you consider including a link to it on this page? --
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2013-February/019082.html

I’d welcome your thoughts on the piece and do let me know if you have any
questions.

If I have reached you in error, please accept my apologies, just let me
know and I’ll make sure I don’t email you again.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Toni 


[ http://www.whoishostingthis.com/meet-the-team/

Toni

Toni goes under the omniscient title of 'webmaster'.
That means she takes care of everything from modding the forum & hosting
reviews to writing content to beta testing to... you name it, Toni has done
it to help us out!

Based near Vancouver, Toni is a keen hiker, climber and outdoors explorer.
In other words, she's living the dream.
(PS. I just spent 20 minutes lost inside the wonders of her site -- check
it

Blifaloo.com ).

Latest Additions & Ramblings: (also see BlifalooD.com -- our boredom relief
blog & forum)   i...@blifaloo.com  ]



Rich Murray 
10:40 PM (15 minutes ago)

Hi Toni,

Well, I'm 73... so would love a transcript with charts...  I watched it
twice, but it's about ten times too fast for me to take in.

Also, who are you? Do you know me from 2008 to 2011 in Santa Fe FRIAM group
and Santa Fe Complex?

I did my 120-page senior thesis in 1964 for my BS in physics and history,
about the exponential change from 1948 to 1964, moving from vacuum tubes to
transistors to the first integrated circuits.

I figured the arms race would burn us all -- a close thing, but here we
are, sharing a remarkably positive probable stream of history.

The fundamental key factor is God, as awareness expansion has also gone
exponential, my actual focus since 1965.

Google "nonduality"...

Or phone or video Skype me, if you want to go through amazing changes
quickly and easily, no fees.

Today my partner Sondra and I shared over an hour of expanded awareness
play on Google Plus Hangouts, for free, with a man in Hawaii and a lady in
Cape Cod, from our little house in Imperial Beach, 10 miles south of San
Diego -- the best of our 20 years together, as this is now our daily
adventure:

finderscourse.comramaji.org   circleofa.org

I daily check out the 20 articles from Phys.org site about critical
innovations -- quantum computing with photons in integrated circuits made a
huge jump today, a device that can do hundreds of original explorations
into the subleties daily...


doubling speed every 2 years for decades more, Intel silicon photonics now
revolutionizing data centers, Michael Kassner: Rich Murray 2015.01.26
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/01/doubling-speed-every-2-years-for.html


[ See also:

exponential information technology 1890-2014 10exp17 more MIPS per constant
2004 dollar in 124 years, Luke Muehlhauser, Machine Intelligence Research
Institute 2014.05.12: Rich Murray 2014.12.27
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2014/12/exponential-information-technology-1890.html


since 1890, increase by 10 times every 7.3 years --

since 1950 -- 2014 = 64 years, with about 10exp13  times more =
10,000,000,000,000 times more per device, from vacuum tubes to multicore
processors -- increase by 10 times every 5 years per constant 2004 dollar.


CSICON -- Murray's Law -- Eternal Exponential Expansion of Science: Rich
Murray 1997.04.05, 2001.06.22, 2011.01.03
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011/01/csicon-murrays-law-eternal-exponential.html
http://g

[Vo]:ER=EPR and AMPS

[Axil Axil]

Physics beleives that it is impossible to experimentally demonstrate the
resolution of the AMPS paradox. But this wormhole principle is demonstrated
all the time in LENR. It is too bad that physics does not take LENR
seriously.

See

"ER = EPR", or "What's Behind the Horizons of Black Holes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw

Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Axil Axil]

See this reference about vacuum energy

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is
> timed by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is
> energized so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W-
> will not appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down
> time.  A excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone
> of negative vacuum energy is present.
>
> That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP.  Negative
> vacuum energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why
> radioactive isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost
> instantaneously. That is because the ash from a fusion event is entangled
> with the inside of the SPP in which all the energy of the fusion event is
> delivered.
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Jones, Eric and Axil--
>>
>> I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am
>> still in the dark.
>>
>> The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any
>> constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including
>> neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred.
>> The standard words  explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction,
>> however an interaction with what?—it’s not said.   And what happens to a
>> muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact?
>>
>> It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge)  bosons, the carriers of the weak
>> force, are involved, but do they appear  at random from the vacuum to
>> disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay?  And why is the half life of a
>> free muon so short?  If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to
>> the boson?  Does it disappear back to the vacuum?  The bosons are said to
>> be very short lived--10^-18 sec.
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF
>>
>> There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by
>> Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg
>> matter is exposed to light.
>>
>> As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows:
>>
>> " The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and
>> days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase
>> the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes
>> even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short
>> time."
>>
>> But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not
>> open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If
>> the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open
>> ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since
>> cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. .
>>
>> I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the
>> coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter.
>>
>> Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about
>> 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid
>> in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were
>> produced locally by Rydberg matter.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility
>>> of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the
>>> lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing).
>>>
>>> I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic 
>>> particle
>>> like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural
>>> source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either
>>> case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with
>>> protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is
>>> subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of
>>> energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized.
>>>
>>> In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something
>>> other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense
>>> hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No?
>>>
>>> This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the
>>> thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves 
>>> muons
>>> interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be
>>> either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following
>>> the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does
>>> not involved gamma radiation.
>>>
>>> This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal

Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Axil Axil]

The muon decays when a W- appears from the vacuum. This appearance is timed
by the probability of the decay of the muon. But if the vacuum is energized
so that it has an excess of positive vacuum energy. then the W- will not
appear on time, it will be delayed.Excess vacuum energy slows down time.  A
excess of positive vacuum energy appears if a corresponding zone of
negative vacuum energy is present.

That zone of negative vacuum energy exists inside the SPP.  Negative vacuum
energy speeds up time a lot. This acceleration of time is why radioactive
isotopes produced by fusion in LENR decay almost instantaneously. That is
because the ash from a fusion event is entangled with the inside of the SPP
in which all the energy of the fusion event is delivered.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Jones, Eric and Axil--
>
> I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still
> in the dark.
>
> The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any
> constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including
> neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred.
> The standard words  explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction,
> however an interaction with what?—it’s not said.   And what happens to a
> muon, if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact?
>
> It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge)  bosons, the carriers of the weak
> force, are involved, but do they appear  at random from the vacuum to
> disrupt a free muon, causing it to decay?  And why is the half life of a
> free muon so short?  If a massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to
> the boson?  Does it disappear back to the vacuum?  The bosons are said to
> be very short lived--10^-18 sec.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF
>
> There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by
> Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg
> matter is exposed to light.
>
> As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows:
>
> " The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and
> days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase
> the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes
> even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short
> time."
>
> But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not
> open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If
> the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open
> ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since
> cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. .
>
> I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the
> coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter.
>
> Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4
> GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in
> his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were
> produced locally by Rydberg matter.
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of
>> a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime
>> of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing).
>>
>> I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic 
>> particle
>> like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural
>> source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either
>> case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons
>> would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to
>> QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no
>> mystery. Proton mass is not quantized.
>>
>> In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something
>> other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense
>> hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No?
>>
>> This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the
>> thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves 
>> muons
>> interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be
>> either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following
>> the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does
>> not involved gamma radiation.
>>
>> This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal
>> anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse
>> to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. 
>> Another
>> possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is
>> unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with

[Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Bob Cook]

It may be that the intense magnetic field keeps the mediation bosons at bay so 
that the weak force interaction doesn’t work as fast.

Also muomic atoms occur—a +muon and an electron.  Such an item may act like a 
light neutron and bring electrons into the vicinity of a nucleus and allow the 
generation of real neutrons from protons within the nucleus and then expel the 
original +muon to form more muonic atoms.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net 

 

Ø  …the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater…

 

This brings up the subject of “muonic hydrogen”. Since the muon is like a heavy 
electron, it can orbit the proton like an electron. This is fairly well 
studied. What is needed for LENR, in addition, is a way to significantly 
increase the lifetime of such an arrangement. In the literature, there is no 
mention of a decrease in the decay rate of muons - due to orbital capture by a 
proton. 

 

However, the muon is about 200 times heavier than the electron, and muonic 
hydrogen is the same 200 times smaller in diameter than ordinary hydrogen. In a 
magnetic field - where the muonic hydrogen is polarized - assuming 
“inverse-square” applies (and why wouldn’t it?) this situation would seem to 
create a magnetic near-field which is 40,000 times greater than the normal 12.5 
T field. 

 

Thus … with a nickel substrate, notably ferromagnetic, or with Holmlid’s iron 
oxide, also ferromagnetic - perhaps there is a previously unknown phenomenon 
which is occurring to alter the decay rate of muonic hydrogen and do it via 
magnetism ?

 

SPP also have a large effective magnetic field. We could be talking megatesla 
(1,000,000 Tesla field strength) in combination. Of course, near fields are 
always much stronger, but this is the magnetic field equivalent of a neutron 
star.

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed.
I am just imagine things then. I am 100 % sure there were less laws and
regulations in the US when I came here almost 30 years ago. My experience
is that it is true in Europe also. I only can build that opinion on hearsay
but . .
I have not read all the boring stuff you read. I have experienced first
hand how much more everything need to be as molded in to the form. We allow
less personal freedom. Sure there were many laws in old time we cam laugh
about today. Good we managed to stop protecting hotels from robbers. The
monopolies are all because the banks saw that it was possible to monopolies
certain industries under the philosophy that it would be a waste f
resources to build competing telephone lines. such a large infrastructure
that only the banks could handle.
Regarding the law about German beer. That has changed in my lifetime so it
is at least different than it was 1487. I also know for sure that it ws not
a German law as there was no Germany at that time. Probably a Pilsen (today
no longer in Germany) idea. On the other hand - yes there were many laws
that kept people from moving 'up' in the ranks. Not defending that. It did
not take so many laws when you had a dictator who could change the law as
he found best, when he so  wanted. Not my idea about freedom. I am not
comparing with the history I am looking for a solution for the future.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
>> world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
>> which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
>> demonstrated how the latter can replace the former.
>
>
> I disagree. All real world economies are a combination of the two.
> Hybrids, that is. With some freedom to trade, and some restrictions. For
> example, few people are allowed to trade in explosive materials, for the
> practical reasons demonstrated in Tianjin, China, yesterday.
>
> There has never been a time in history when trade and commerce were
> unrestricted by laws, licensing, inspection and so on. For example, the law
> governing beer purity (Reinheitsgebot) has have been force in Germany since
> 1487, more or less unchanged. (Although Wikipedia says it was rescinded.)
> There were extensive laws governing house and barn construction in
> Pennsylvania in 1750. Builders who did not follow these laws were "run out
> of town on a rail" according to an expert I know. He really is an expert:
> he repairs and rebuilds 18th century structures in Pennsylvania. He knows
> all of the codes from that time, as well as those presently in force.
>
> In U.S. history, over the last 200 years, the number of laws and
> restrictions to trade have been drastically reduced. We are now living in
> the golden age of unrestricted free market competition, unlike like any
> previous era. This is contrary to what conservatives believe, but it is
> true. You have to read a lot of original source history about boring
> subjects to understand this. For example, in 1800 all along the east coast,
> hotels were regulated to an extent that would be unthinkable today. The
> amount of money they could charge every night, the size of the room, and
> the exact menu of food they had to offer was set out in detail in the laws.
> In examples, up until the 1960s, lawyers and doctors were not allowed to
> advertise their services or post their rates; advertisements were not
> allowed to name their competing products (so they called them "brand X");
> rates for trucks, airplanes and taxis were set by law; and established
> companies has trade groups that more or less banned the entry of
> competition. Also, the telephone and electric power industry did not allow
> competition.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Bob Cook]

Jones, Eric and Axil--

I have been trying to understand the mechanism of muon decay, but am still in 
the dark. 

The muon is said to be a lepton—a primary particle not made of any 
constitutents—yet it frequently decays into three particles, including 
neutrinos that are normally not observed but inferred.
The standard words  explain that muon decays by a weak force interaction, 
however an interaction with what?—it’s not said.   And what happens to a muon, 
if it is in empty space with nothing with which to interact?

It seems W+, W- and Z^0 (0 charge)  bosons, the carriers of the weak force, are 
involved, but do they appear  at random from the vacuum to disrupt a free muon, 
causing it to decay?  And why is the half life of a free muon so short?  If a 
massive boson mediates the decay, what happens to the boson?  Does it disappear 
back to the vacuum?  The bosons are said to be very short lived--10^-18 sec.

Bob Cook






.  





From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:09 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg 
matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is 
exposed to light. 

As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows:

" The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days 
after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon 
production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by 
turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time."

But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open 
ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability 
for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of 
detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a 
relitivly constant rate. .

I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent 
superconductive nature of Rydberg matter.

Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. 
Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his 
experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced 
locally by Rydberg matter.


On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a 
spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons 
(as opposed to creating them from nothing).


  I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic 
particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural 
source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a 
higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen 
within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently 
giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not 
quantized.

  In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other 
than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, 
he should be given benefit of the doubt. No?

  This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal 
anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons 
interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either 
created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the 
reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved 
gamma radiation.

  This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly 
– one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, 
despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility 
is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP 
are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and 
based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction 
happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy 
derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during 
the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting 
to two protons and a renewed muon. 

  Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in 
which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other.


  From: Bob Cook 

  Eric--



  Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions.



  Bob



  From: Eric Walker 



  Jones Beene  wrote:

  D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma)

  … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and 
then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it 
catalyzes. 

  The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, b

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
> world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
> which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
> demonstrated how the latter can replace the former.


I disagree. All real world economies are a combination of the two. Hybrids,
that is. With some freedom to trade, and some restrictions. For example,
few people are allowed to trade in explosive materials, for the practical
reasons demonstrated in Tianjin, China, yesterday.

There has never been a time in history when trade and commerce were
unrestricted by laws, licensing, inspection and so on. For example, the law
governing beer purity (Reinheitsgebot) has have been force in Germany since
1487, more or less unchanged. (Although Wikipedia says it was rescinded.)
There were extensive laws governing house and barn construction in
Pennsylvania in 1750. Builders who did not follow these laws were "run out
of town on a rail" according to an expert I know. He really is an expert:
he repairs and rebuilds 18th century structures in Pennsylvania. He knows
all of the codes from that time, as well as those presently in force.

In U.S. history, over the last 200 years, the number of laws and
restrictions to trade have been drastically reduced. We are now living in
the golden age of unrestricted free market competition, unlike like any
previous era. This is contrary to what conservatives believe, but it is
true. You have to read a lot of original source history about boring
subjects to understand this. For example, in 1800 all along the east coast,
hotels were regulated to an extent that would be unthinkable today. The
amount of money they could charge every night, the size of the room, and
the exact menu of food they had to offer was set out in detail in the laws.
In examples, up until the 1960s, lawyers and doctors were not allowed to
advertise their services or post their rates; advertisements were not
allowed to name their competing products (so they called them "brand X");
rates for trucks, airplanes and taxis were set by law; and established
companies has trade groups that more or less banned the entry of
competition. Also, the telephone and electric power industry did not allow
competition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Ron Wormus]

Lennart,
I guess we will just have to disagree.

As an example just compare countries (or states) with strong code 
enforcement to those with little on none. You will find the former much 
nicer. Corners will always be cut if it's possible.

Ron

--On Thursday, August 13, 2015 12:32 PM -0800 Lennart Thornros 
 wrote:





Ron, I understand your view. I might just be too radical. However, my
experience is that starting with a clean plate - taking in a minimum of
the regulations and try to catch the regulation with as generic
statements as possible is a good starting poin. The other way to
eliminate what is not required is just not going to eliminate anything -
it actually will add more stuff. My thinking is that any law that is not
easy enforceable is useless and laws that does not make sense or
violates general moral (did not find a better word) should not be
allowed. 
I do know very little about building roads. However, I think the
industry knows what is required. I see no reason that the government
should be involved in determine how. The competition would easily force
a set of standards to be 'typical' and then the buyer could buy what
standard he wants. I know that someone is saying that would be people
taking short cuts. That is just as it is today also. It is still very
costly and in-effective to litigate based on details. The method I
suggest (to delegate the standardization would bring new methods in
quicker as it could create competitive advantages to the implementer.
Now we are doing things as we always done and hope for a better result
and you know what that means.:) Just stick with what always was and then
no risk for the behind and no difficult new stuff to have to learn
about. This goes for most of our regulation. 




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648


"Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort."
PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

Lennart,
I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a
more equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening
without gov intervention & regulation.

I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in
government regulation as most institutions are very CYA & risk averse (I
work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and
standards are essentially good for industry & society even if
implementation can always be improved.
Ron



--On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros
 wrote:




Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was
originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its
production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons.
Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to
the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and
to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to
what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my
believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in
this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing
is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created
as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down
there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the
regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk
and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and
I could not start businesses with this type of products. 
If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple
system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian
showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is
exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required
and that technology  can replace the many outdated laws we have.
Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see
that we change the current format to a working modern system. The
alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so
obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I
think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The
real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return,
by constantly 'improving' the existing system. 
Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and
uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work
better - implement that plan - evaluate  . . .  .




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648


"Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focu

RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Jones Beene]

From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net 

 

Ø  …the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater…

 

This brings up the subject of “muonic hydrogen”. Since the muon is like a heavy 
electron, it can orbit the proton like an electron. This is fairly well 
studied. What is needed for LENR, in addition, is a way to significantly 
increase the lifetime of such an arrangement. In the literature, there is no 
mention of a decrease in the decay rate of muons - due to orbital capture by a 
proton. 

 

However, the muon is about 200 times heavier than the electron, and muonic 
hydrogen is the same 200 times smaller in diameter than ordinary hydrogen. In a 
magnetic field - where the muonic hydrogen is polarized - assuming 
“inverse-square” applies (and why wouldn’t it?) this situation would seem to 
create a magnetic near-field which is 40,000 times greater than the normal 12.5 
T field. 

 

Thus … with a nickel substrate, notably ferromagnetic, or with Holmlid’s iron 
oxide, also ferromagnetic - perhaps there is a previously unknown phenomenon 
which is occurring to alter the decay rate of muonic hydrogen and do it via 
magnetism ?

 

SPP also have a large effective magnetic field. We could be talking megatesla 
(1,000,000 Tesla field strength) in combination. Of course, near fields are 
always much stronger, but this is the magnetic field equivalent of a neutron 
star.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:36 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that 
>Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most 
>sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which 
>then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made.
>
>In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying.
>
>Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ?

Unfortunately, the lifetime of the muon is not the only problem. They tend to
get "stuck" orbiting heavier nuclei, and are thus removed from the fusion chain.
So even if their lifetime were severely extended, they probably wouldn't
catalyze all that many reactions each anyway.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Lennart Thornros]

Ron, I understand your view. I might just be too radical. However, my
experience is that starting with a clean plate - taking in a minimum of the
regulations and try to catch the regulation with as generic statements as
possible is a good starting poin. The other way to eliminate what is not
required is just not going to eliminate anything - it actually will add
more stuff. My thinking is that any law that is not easy enforceable is
useless and laws that does not make sense or violates general moral (did
not find a better word) should not be allowed.
I do know very little about building roads. However, I think the industry
knows what is required. I see no reason that the government should be
involved in determine how. The competition would easily force a set of
standards to be 'typical' and then the buyer could buy what standard he
wants. I know that someone is saying that would be people taking short
cuts. That is just as it is today also. It is still very costly and
in-effective to litigate based on details. The method I suggest (to
delegate the standardization would bring new methods in quicker as it could
create competitive advantages to the implementer. Now we are doing things
as we always done and hope for a better result and you know what that
means.:) Just stick with what always was and then no risk for the behind
and no difficult new stuff to have to learn about. This goes for most of
our regulation.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

> Lennart,
> I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more
> equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without gov
> intervention & regulation.
>
> I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in
> government regulation as most institutions are very CYA & risk averse (I
> work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and
> standards are essentially good for industry & society even if
> implementation can always be improved.
> Ron
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros <
> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was
>> originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its
>> production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons.
>> Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to
>> the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and
>> to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to
>> what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my
>> believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in
>> this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing
>> is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created
>> as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down
>> there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the
>> regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk
>> and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and
>> I could not start businesses with this type of products.
>> If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple
>> system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian
>> showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is
>> exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required
>> and that technology  can replace the many outdated laws we have.
>> Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see
>> that we change the current format to a working modern system. The
>> alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so
>> obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I
>> think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The
>> real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return,
>> by constantly 'improving' the existing system.
>> Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and
>> uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work
>> better - implement that plan - evaluate  . . .  .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899
>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
>>
>>
>> "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort."
>> PJM
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:
>>
>>> Hi a

Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[torulf.greek]

May the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the
Rydberg mater, 

not from the Rydberg mater it selves. Its may be a kind
of HAD. 

On source for muons may be pion-decay. Pion-exchange is a part
in nuclear reactions and 

have been suggested by Takahashi. (side 574)


_http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedl.pdf_ 

But the
Pions in nuclear reactions are virtual particles. I know if a virtual
particle can be real. 

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:09:56 -0400, Axil Axil 
wrote:  
There are indications that Muons are extended in there
lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days
after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. 

As referenced from the
HolMlid paper as follows: 

" The sources give a slowly decaying muon
signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0).
They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser
irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the
fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time." 

 But in the
experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open
ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the
ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open
ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since
cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . 

I believe that
this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent
superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. 

Furthermore, the mean energy
of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy
level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This
implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by
Rydberg matter.  

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene 
wrote:

 To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little
possibility of a spin problem, when it is  proposed  that the SPP can
extend the lifetime of muon s  (as opposed to creating them from
nothing) . 

I think that we all agree that  "extending the lifetime" of
a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming
from the natural source - is functionally identical to "making" them
anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any
interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong
force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so
the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. 

In
the end, until Holmlid's experiment is better explained as something
other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on
dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? 

This
would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal
anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons
interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be
either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal,
following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly
which does not involved gamma radiation. 

This M.O. leaves open three
possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly - one which is covered
by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin
problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that
SPP formation is inherently energetic - but this is unlikely since SPP
are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is
simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed
fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli
exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton
mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as
a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. 


Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing
debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the
other. 

FROM: Bob Cook   

Eric-- 

Note my comment to Jones before I
read your questions. 

Bob 

FROM: Eric Walker [2]   

Jones Beene
wrote: 

 D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) 

… where the
fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be
rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it
catalyzes.  

The muon is a "heavy electron" with a short life, but now
we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of
the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero,
but how large? … "Maybe it's pretty high" says Byrnes. Can it explain
the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this
rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. 

A
muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would
otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how
do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? 

Eric


 

Links:
--
[1] mailto:jone..

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Ron Wormus]

Lennart,
I agree that a change in the system is desperately needed. we need a more 
equitable distribution of wealth but I don't see this happening without 
gov intervention & regulation.


I certainly agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in 
government regulation as most institutions are very CYA & risk averse (I 
work with highway dept. projects all the time), but that said, codes and 
standards are essentially good for industry & society even if 
implementation can always be improved.

Ron

--On Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:04 AM -0800 Lennart Thornros 
 wrote:





Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was
originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its
production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons.
Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to
the US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and
to get the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to
what I believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my
believe but I do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in
this regards. You say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing
is 'unregulated'. No, not at all. That is products / functions created
as a pay back to the regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down
there are two parties to take responsibilities and that is the
regulators, which was well aware but wanted Wall street to get this perk
and than the greedy Wall street itself. It is not unregulated - you and
I could not start businesses with this type of products. 
If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple
system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian
showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is
exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required
and that technology  can replace the many outdated laws we have.
Everything changes except for the political system. I would rather see
that we change the current format to a working modern system. The
alternative is some kind of revolution, when the system becomes so
obsolete that it implodes. I think that type of change is negative and I
think that to search for improvement in a moderate pace is better. The
real problem is that we are moving very fast to the point of no return,
by constantly 'improving' the existing system. 
Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and
uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work
better - implement that plan - evaluate  . . .  .




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648


"Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort."
PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:

Hi all

In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-c
apitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us



There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the
video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal
link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance,
wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on
violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such
relationship can be shown to exist.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Lennart Thornros]

Ron - I agree that is as it is. Money is there for manipulation. It was
originally to help the barter. Now it is a system all by itself. Its
production is zilch. It is just working for political reasons.
Maybe I am naive. you know I heard almost 30 years ago when i moved to the
US that leadership and management was control over the workforce and to get
the maximum for minmum pay. Today the theory is coming close to what I
believed already at that time. Companies like Google are my believe but I
do think they grown to big to survive as a forefront in this regards. You
say that all the fancy stuff Wall street are inventing is 'unregulated'.
No, not at all. That is products / functions created as a pay back to the
regulator as a benefit. When the system brakes down there are two parties
to take responsibilities and that is the regulators, which was well aware
but wanted Wall street to get this perk and than the greedy Wall street
itself. It is not unregulated - you and I could not start businesses with
this type of products.
If I believed in laissez faire that would be naive. I believe in simple
system with a minimum of regulations and a minimum of 'products'. Ian
showed the ideas I think are needed. Not that I believe that this is
exactly how it could /should be done. Rather that a change is required and
that technology  can replace the many outdated laws we have. Everything
changes except for the political system. I would rather see that we change
the current format to a working modern system. The alternative is some kind
of revolution, when the system becomes so obsolete that it implodes. I
think that type of change is negative and I think that to search for
improvement in a moderate pace is better. The real problem is that we are
moving very fast to the point of no return, by constantly 'improving' the
existing system.
Change is necessary and if it is a continuous process it is easy and
uneventful. Evaluate the situation - make a plan for what could work better
- implement that plan - evaluate  . . .  .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us
> >
> >
> There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
> world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
> which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
> demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the
> video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal
> link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance,
> wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on
> violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such
> relationship can be shown to exist.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium

[Axil Axil]

>From a previous post except in part as follows:



 I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on
the surface of gold nanoparticles together with combination with light: a
nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6
microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.



 See references:



http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:41 PM
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium
>
>
>
> Yes, I have read the circumstances of his death but that does not answer
> the basic question of whether his technology worked or not.  If it did,
> somebody out there should have been able to replicate at least part of it.
>
>
>
> The only evidence I ever heard of was a very old Sci Am article in which a
> radium coated antenna appeared to generate a stronger reception signal
> (although together with much random noise).  I recall someone named
> Moreland made claims similar to Brown  but few details were published.
>
>
>
> There is an emotional component about random radioactive decay – as
> anything contrary is usually brought up by Creationists. A classic paper by
> Emery (Embry?) is usually quoted as exhaustively showing that absolutely
> nothing can influence the rate of decay.  However, I still wonder about
> thin film layers and HV – also NMR effects.  A physicist at American
> University claimed an influence of 1 x 10 -5 power on Beta decay but I
> never heard further about it.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Axil Axil]

There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg
matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter
is exposed to light.

As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows:

" The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days
after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the
muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even
by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time."

 But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not
open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If
the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open
ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since
cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. .

I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the
coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter.

Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4
GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in
his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were
produced locally by Rydberg matter.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of
> a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime
> of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing).
>
> I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic 
> particle
> like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural
> source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case,
> a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would 
> happen
> within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and
> consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery.
> Proton mass is not quantized.
>
> In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something
> other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense
> hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No?
>
> This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the
> thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons
> interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be
> either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following
> the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not
> involved gamma radiation.
>
> This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal
> anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse
> to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. 
> Another
> possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is
> unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My
> suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the
> catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to
> Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of
> proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton
> exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a
> renewed muon.
>
> Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate
> in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other.
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> Eric--
>
>
>
> Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> *From:* *Eric Walker* 
>
>
>
> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma)
>
> … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction
> and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction
> that it catalyzes.
>
> The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise
> that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis.
> The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? …
> “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as
> well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be
> more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen.
>
> A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would
> otherwise go to a gamma.  But if we're talking about a single muon, how do
> you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:57 +0100, Ian Walker wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us
> 
> 
There are only two types of economies that have been demonstrated in the
world: An economy which allows people to trade freely; and an economy
which commands all production and distribution. To date, no one has
demonstrated how the latter can replace the former. The narrator in the
video, above, equates capitalism with violence, but there is no causal
link between the two. Free trade does not lead to mass surveillance,
wars, and riot squads. He is, rather, equating a philosophy based on
violence with a philosophy based on free trade, where no such
relationship can be shown to exist.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Ron Wormus]

Lennart,
Money is used to facilitate the exchange of good & services; it needn't 
have any intrinsic value. The money supply needs to be balanced & 
distributed to foster it use to balance distribution of these goods & 
services within the economy. Hence the need for regulation.


All those derivatives & fancy wall street products were effectively 
"unregulated money" in a huge shadow economy & when they suddenly went 
away that money had to be replaced which the Fed has been doing; although 
not perfectly as the financial sector has a lot of power & influence in 
our political system.


I believe your faith in a laissez faire solution is naive.
Ron

--On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:25 PM -0800 Lennart Thornros 
 wrote:





Eric and Jed,
Why do we need someone to control the amount of money in circulation?
Why do we need to split it up in pieces? I guess it is good for China
they can now fix their economy by letting others pay for it. This
nationalistic way of solving problems will go away. Just let it go
natural.
I do not think we need a financial nurse checking out for us.
Freedom is a god thing liberalism does stand for that from the beginning
but now it has become to mean socialism. Is that why everybody like to
have more nursing? Cannot distinguish between liberalism and socialism:)
Big difference.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648


"Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort."
PJM

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Eric Walker 
wrote:




On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:





I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on
the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter
lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons:




1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity
and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S.
and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad
thing.


 
This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or
bitcoin.  The urge to take the control of the amount of money in
circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the
danger of deflation.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us

Kind Regards walker

On 13 August 2015 at 17:32, Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> No - Craig I did not write that but I think it is correct in a way.
> Your more in dept series of events is actually supporting the statement as
> I see it.
> More important to me is that you actually give good example to how the
> manipulation for political reasons becomes more important than the
> economical reality.
> No body could get money without paying a high interest, which was
> impossible as it was shortage of income opportunity - so nobody invested so
> nobody bought more than absolute minimum and nobody invested  . .  .
> In the end of the day devaluation took place anyhow. The real irony is of
> course that as the US dollar dictated the value of other currencies it was
> no real devaluation or rather everybody devaluated.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
>
> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>> > deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
>> > work, to look less indepbted.
>>
>> No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
>> to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
>> gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal
>> notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an
>> extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous
>> decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold
>> reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it
>> illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point
>> the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and
>> three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be
>> devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce.
>> The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it
>> went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels,
>> which had not been seen before that period in time.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Lennart Thornros]

No - Craig I did not write that but I think it is correct in a way.
Your more in dept series of events is actually supporting the statement as
I see it.
More important to me is that you actually give good example to how the
manipulation for political reasons becomes more important than the
economical reality.
No body could get money without paying a high interest, which was
impossible as it was shortage of income opportunity - so nobody invested so
nobody bought more than absolute minimum and nobody invested  . .  .
In the end of the day devaluation took place anyhow. The real irony is of
course that as the US dollar dictated the value of other currencies it was
no real devaluation or rather everybody devaluated.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
> > deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
> > work, to look less indepbted.
>
> No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
> to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
> gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal
> notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an
> extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous
> decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold
> reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it
> illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point
> the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and
> three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be
> devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce.
> The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it
> went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels,
> which had not been seen before that period in time.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium

[Chris Zell]

From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:41 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium

Yes, I have read the circumstances of his death but that does not answer the 
basic question of whether his technology worked or not.  If it did, somebody 
out there should have been able to replicate at least part of it.

The only evidence I ever heard of was a very old Sci Am article in which a 
radium coated antenna appeared to generate a stronger reception signal 
(although together with much random noise).  I recall someone named Moreland 
made claims similar to Brown  but few details were published.

There is an emotional component about random radioactive decay – as anything 
contrary is usually brought up by Creationists. A classic paper by Emery 
(Embry?) is usually quoted as exhaustively showing that absolutely nothing can 
influence the rate of decay.  However, I still wonder about thin film layers 
and HV – also NMR effects.  A physicist at American University claimed an 
influence of 1 x 10 -5 power on Beta decay but I never heard further about it.

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 09:48 -0500, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
wrote:
> The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold has some kind of
> mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God.

Opinions and desires can't be universalized, but I believe that most of
the people who want to see gold as money do so because they believe in a
decentralized, universal, stable, currency, something no central bank
can achieve.

Craig

[Vo]:LENR in molten Ni, LENR in energy plan, Info

[Peter Gluck]

For today:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/just-bit-more-than-lenr-info-for-aug-13.html

I hope tomorrow we will know more.

Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
> deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
> work, to look less indepbted.

No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal
notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an
extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous
decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold
reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it
illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point
the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and
three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be
devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce.
The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it
went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels,
which had not been seen before that period in time.

Craig

RE: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Eric

 

> This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin.  

> The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out 

> of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation.

 

I'm baffled that there still exist politicians who want us to go back to the 
gold standard, believing that doing so would ensure the safety of U.S. 
currency. I think not. The appeal for gold is based on an illusion that gold 
has some kind of mystical value of its own, as if the it was ordained by God. I 
doubt God cares. Neither is paving the streets of heaven with pure gold (as 
Thomas Malloy, once envisioned) recommended due to its soft pliability. In no 
time there would be scuff marks and ruts. I wonder if there exist road repair 
jobs in heaven. 

 

Going back to a gold standard is insane.  FDR got rid of it back in 1933. 
Later, Nixon and G. Ford fiddled with how much gold U.S. citizens could 
purchase. I believe part of the problem was due to the fact that U.S. gold 
reserves held in Fort Knox was in the process of being decimated as other 
nations tried to convert their national currency reserves into gold. By 1971 
the U.S. went completely off the gold standard, allowing the price of the 
precious metal to float from a fixed $35.00 price to current market value. The 
price is currently hovering over $1,100. Gold was much higher not all that long 
ago. The more perceived angst there is in the world, the pricey gold gets, and 
vice versa. 

 

Given the topic of bitcoin currency being raised in this discussion I suspect 
inflation might be more likely of some concern rather than the ravages of 
deflation.

 

Speaking of inflation, it's really another form of taxing the entire nation. 
When the effects of inflation end up costing you more to purchase a product or 
service, it is no different than having to pay a tax on the same item when you 
are living on a fixed income. When a nation experiences moderate inflation, 
wealth is being reallocated. Not surprisingly the wealthy tend to weather 
"taxation" by inflation far better than who are typically living on limited 
fixed incomes.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL & RPF

[Jones Beene]

To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a 
spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons 
(as opposed to creating them from nothing).

I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle 
like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – 
is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher 
population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within 
the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently 
giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not 
quantized.

In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other 
than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, 
he should be given benefit of the doubt. No?

This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal 
anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons 
interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either 
created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the 
reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved 
gamma radiation.

This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – 
one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, 
despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility 
is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP 
are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and 
based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction 
happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy 
derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during 
the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting 
to two protons and a renewed muon. 

Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in 
which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other.

From: Bob Cook 

Eric--
 
Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions.
 
Bob
 
From: Eric Walker   
 
Jones Beene  wrote:
D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma)
… where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and 
then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it 
catalyzes. 
The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that 
it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The 
probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s 
pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. 
But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP 
and fractional hydrogen.
A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would 
otherwise go to a gamma.  But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you 
propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved?
 
Eric
 

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Lennart Thornros]

You are a good teacher Alain - well said.
My personal opinion is that we cannot give this kind of power to large
institutions. There will always be misuse and the cronies as you say will
always be the beneficiary as they can 'scratch' the back of the central
banks.
Unfortunately we do accept the status quo. With modern technology we could
have other means to regulate our barters. As you say the whole thing hangs
on the speed. The only reason to not use direct barter is that it takes
very long time to find business opportunities. Money supposedly solves that
problem. However, we have now let this instrument have its own life.
Manipulation is now the name of the game to achieve political, financial
and military goals (see surge in US dollars). Because the manipulation is
on a national basis, we have introduced another political/ military weapon.
Currency fluctuations - not because of different prices but because of
political reasons will of course screw up the barters (I say that because
it all should be about barter and that is it.)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> I would add also that currently central bank are desperately injecting
> keyneisian money to stop depression, and deflation, but all it does is
> inflating assets values, not prices.
>
> this is benefiting finance and crony capitalism, not real economy which
> suffer from bad investment decisions.
>
> people asking for gold (I find it stupid) or electronic curencies where
> central bank cannot manipulate the primary monetary mass do to prevent
> cehtral bak to promoting crony practices like today.
>
> my feeling is that it cannot work, because M3 money is not printed or even
> mined.
>
> someone explained how you can create money in a sane economy (and I
> understood why there is no inflation despite tons of paper printed).
>
> imagine that you are in a world with real great opportunities, like
> farming rice with neolithic technology.
>
> the idea is that as soon as you have money, even if the mass is small, you
> pay someone to work, and this man have money, that he can consume, or
> invest.
> this gives money to people who can buy or consume...
> if people have many thing to buy or to invest and always work to do that
> is productive, the money wil circulate very quickly.
>
> deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to
> look less indepbted.
> hyperinflation in germany was on the opposite becaus epeopel lose trust in
> deutchmark and immediatemy bought goods with money, to people who do the
> same ASAP.
>
> monetary mass is not the key factor... key is the speed, and the
> opportunities or fears.
>
> if there is opportunities to create value, money will flow, and be reused
> hundred of time a month.
> if people are depressed  they will keep it dying on an account. only hope
> is the bank reusing it (where fractional banking is useful), but if people
> invest them in dead value (bonds on dayly state expenses) it will not flow
> anymore.
> if people are terrorised on the opposite money will flow frantically like
> false notes.
>
> today we have strandes asses that are exchanged frantically creating asset
> bubles.
> on the opposite there is depressed economy which make real economy deflate
> because nothing real seems productive.
>
> central bank don't solve, but feed, those problems.
>
> 2015-08-13 10:25 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda :
>
>> it seems there is an irrational fear of "good deflation".
>>
>> what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but
>> before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil.
>>
>> currently the "Airbnb deflation" is giving value to the people by
>> reducing prices of goods and service...
>> the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and
>> rates, in contracts, compared to price.
>>
>> inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates
>>
>> deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of
>> productivity.
>> This is a good way to increase wages.
>>
>> one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation
>> is on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd.
>> deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of
>> rent, of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem.
>>
>> 2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on
 the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter
 lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons:

 1. The mo

Re: [Vo]:MIT designs small, modular, efficient fusion power plant

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Mats,

Hot Fusion has an effect to make decades very fertile and then start to
multply fast. I bet that this will not go commercial in 2o26.
Peter

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Mats Lewan  wrote:

> ” Advances in magnet technology have enabled researchers at MIT to propose
> a new design for a practical compact tokamak fusion reactor — and it’s one
> that might be realized in as little as a decade, they say. The era of
> practical fusion power, which could offer a nearly inexhaustible energy
> resource, may be coming near.”
>
>
>
> https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810
>
>
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/mit-designs-small-modular-efficient-fusion-power-plant
>
>
>
>
>
> Mats
>
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>
>



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

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Alain Sepeda]

I would add also that currently central bank are desperately injecting
keyneisian money to stop depression, and deflation, but all it does is
inflating assets values, not prices.

this is benefiting finance and crony capitalism, not real economy which
suffer from bad investment decisions.

people asking for gold (I find it stupid) or electronic curencies where
central bank cannot manipulate the primary monetary mass do to prevent
cehtral bak to promoting crony practices like today.

my feeling is that it cannot work, because M3 money is not printed or even
mined.

someone explained how you can create money in a sane economy (and I
understood why there is no inflation despite tons of paper printed).

imagine that you are in a world with real great opportunities, like farming
rice with neolithic technology.

the idea is that as soon as you have money, even if the mass is small, you
pay someone to work, and this man have money, that he can consume, or
invest.
this gives money to people who can buy or consume...
if people have many thing to buy or to invest and always work to do that is
productive, the money wil circulate very quickly.

deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying work, to
look less indepbted.
hyperinflation in germany was on the opposite becaus epeopel lose trust in
deutchmark and immediatemy bought goods with money, to people who do the
same ASAP.

monetary mass is not the key factor... key is the speed, and the
opportunities or fears.

if there is opportunities to create value, money will flow, and be reused
hundred of time a month.
if people are depressed  they will keep it dying on an account. only hope
is the bank reusing it (where fractional banking is useful), but if people
invest them in dead value (bonds on dayly state expenses) it will not flow
anymore.
if people are terrorised on the opposite money will flow frantically like
false notes.

today we have strandes asses that are exchanged frantically creating asset
bubles.
on the opposite there is depressed economy which make real economy deflate
because nothing real seems productive.

central bank don't solve, but feed, those problems.

2015-08-13 10:25 GMT+02:00 Alain Sepeda :

> it seems there is an irrational fear of "good deflation".
>
> what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but
> before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil.
>
> currently the "Airbnb deflation" is giving value to the people by reducing
> prices of goods and service...
> the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and
> rates, in contracts, compared to price.
>
> inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates
>
> deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of
> productivity.
> This is a good way to increase wages.
>
> one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation is
> on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd.
> deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of
> rent, of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem.
>
> 2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :
>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on
>>> the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter
>>> lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity
>>> and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and
>>> other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing.
>>>
>>
>> This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin.
>> The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of
>> the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:MIT designs small, modular, efficient fusion power plant

[Mats Lewan]

" Advances in magnet technology have enabled researchers at MIT to propose a
new design for a practical compact tokamak fusion reactor - and it's one
that might be realized in as little as a decade, they say. The era of
practical fusion power, which could offer a nearly inexhaustible energy
resource, may be coming near."

 

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810 

http://www.kurzweilai.net/mit-designs-small-modular-efficient-fusion-power-p
lant 

 

 

Mats

  www.animpossibleinvention.com 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Alain Sepeda]

it seems there is an irrational fear of "good deflation".

what people are afraid of is the deflation-depression like in 1929+, but
before 1900 there was regular deflation which was not so evil.

currently the "Airbnb deflation" is giving value to the people by reducing
prices of goods and service...
the problem is not inflation or deflation, but rigidities in prices and
rates, in contracts, compared to price.

inflation is a way to break rigidities in too high wages, too high rates

deflation is natural and sane in economies where there is growth of
productivity.
This is a good way to increase wages.

one fear is that deflation push people not to consume, but if deflation is
on goods that you need immediately and consume, delay is absurd.
deflation in housing may be a problem for investors, but deflation of rent,
of vegetables, meat, even of cars or computers, is not a problem.

2015-08-13 5:01 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on
>> the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter
>> lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons:
>>
>> 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity
>> and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and
>> other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing.
>>
>
> This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin.
> The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of
> the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation.
>
> Eric
>
>