subject:"Wikipedia"

There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that as
a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".

What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
term got hijacked by these drama seekers.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>> end-of-times for these people.
>>
>
> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
> are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
> obvious.
>
>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
>in some cases.
>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>experiments with very specific systems.
>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
>d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
>that it was in that particular case.
>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>
> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

Yeah, I know.  It's like these people's brains are utterly broken.   There
is an implicit conspiracy (by BOTH anti and pro pons/fleischman people) to
narrow define cold fusion as experiments done in the late 80s.   The idea
that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
end-of-times for these people.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Blaze,
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold
>
> > fusion as completely doable.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order
> to reflect this important matter.
>
>
>
> See what happens...
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
> end-of-times for these people.
>

It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
obvious.

   - Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
   - Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
   in some cases.
   - Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
   - Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
   - Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
   - Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
   experiments with very specific systems.
   - Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
   - Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
   d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
   that it was in that particular case.
   - Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
   from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.

People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Jones Beene

Steven,

 

I read the old NYT article just now and yes --- it specifically uses the
term "cold fusion" several times in 1956 . wow. and yes, they are talking
about muon catalyzed fusion at low temperature - the kind with lots of 24
MeV gamma rays as evidence of the reaction. Even though it was initiated
cold, the radiation from the MCF is extremely hot, but does not heat the
reactants. 

 

Steven Jones also claimed the term "cold fusion" for his muon catalyzed
fusion at about the same time as P Clearly either of the two prior
announcements could have precedence, if actual history means anything (it
doesn't). 

 

The problem now is Holmlid - who uses MCF but apparently sees few hot
gammas. If he really is doing what he says, he should see very energetic
gammas.

 

BTW - the article is quoting from Luis Alvarez at Cal. One of the great
Magi.

 

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

 

>From Blaze:

 

>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649
D946792D6CF   

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you,
Blaze. Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of
being someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for
gambling occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

I was reading the entry for cold fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

While I agree with this statement:


*Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction
 that would occur at, or
near, room temperature .
This is compared with the "hot" fusion
 which takes place naturally
within stars , under immense
pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees.*

The following statement is utterly false:

*There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold
fusion to occur.*

For example, both muon and pyro electric fusion will occur at room
temperatures.  We also now have a published statement about laser induced
fusion happening at low temperatures.

I think we're doing a massive disservice to researchers everywhere by
obsessively defining the concept of "cold fusion" as pons/fleischman.
 Normal people care whether fusion can occur  with minimal investment and
low temperatures.

I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold fusion
as completely doable.  There will be increased investment in the area if
people can use the term without having to apologize.  Hopefully people will
stop wasting money on these moronic ITER experiments.

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Blaze,

 

...

 

> I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold 

> fusion as completely doable.  

 

Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order to 
reflect this important matter. 

 

See what happens...

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

2015-09-24 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

>From Blaze:

 

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF
>

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not 
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land 
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you, Blaze. 
Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of being 
someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for gambling 
occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF


Cold Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms; A Fourth Method Pulling Together

1956!!

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that
> as a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
> everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
> low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
> pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".
>
> What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
> term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
> term got hijacked by these drama seekers.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>>> end-of-times for these people.
>>>
>>
>> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.
>> There are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
>> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
>> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
>> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
>> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
>> obvious.
>>
>>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it
>>might in some cases.
>>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>>experiments with very specific systems.
>>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
>>from d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that
>>suggested that it was in that particular case.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>>
>> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
>> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
>> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:FYI: MiHsC theory (Emdrive, dark matter anomaly, MOND...) deletion on Wikipedia

2015-08-17 Thread Alain Sepeda

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/633231917157064704

Michael McCulloch just report that the Wikipedia page on his theory of
Quantized inertia, MiHsC, is currently being deleted by anonymous mindquards

if some can help or gather evidences.

[Vo]:On Wikipedia, politically controversial science topics vulnerable to information sabotage

2015-08-14 Thread Axil Axil

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-wikipedia-politically-controversial-science-topics.html

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-02 Thread Andy Findlay


  
  
Note also, that the first external link on the Mizuno page actually
names the lenr-canr site:

External links

  Nuclear
  Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion - LENR-CANR
  Plasma
  Electrolysis
  Atomic Energy Society of
  Japan
  Japan Society
  of Applied Physics


Regards,
Andy.

On 01/05/14 19:37, Jed Rothwell wrote:


  

  James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  

  Notice that the last 2 external links are
to your website.



Huh. I never noticed. Perhaps no one has clicked on
  them lately. I wasn't looking for links back to Wikipedia.
  Clearly, the blacklist has been lifted.


 


  

  Works
  by or about Richard Oriani in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

  



http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-8826

This one does net work.
  
  
  
- Jed

[Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

I found a download link for papers by Oriani, pointing to this page:

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

Someone deleted it soon after it was made.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-01 Thread James Bowery

Please clarify your statement, Jed.  Why is the deletion of a Wikipedia
page for an improperly capitalized last name for

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

evidence that the vigilance of the Wikipedia editors is anything but
properly applied removal of redundance and misspelling?

Your answer has something to do with a download link for papers by Oriani
but your sentence is confusing.  Where did this download link appear?
 Where did this download link point?  Are you referring to a download link
pointing FROM the deleted page for Richard oriani TO Oriani's papers at
your website?  If so, your comment makes some sense.


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I found a download link for papers by Oriani, pointing to this page:

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

 Someone deleted it soon after it was made.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Please clarify your statement, Jed.  Why is the deletion of a Wikipedia
 page for an improperly capitalized last name for

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


Ah. There is another Wikipedia article. I did not know that. The one I
pointed to was deleted. It must have discussed his cold fusion work. I say
that because the person who deleted it said so, and because it had links to
LENR-CANR.org.

This other article isn't bad. It mentions cold fusion. It has no links to
his papers at LENR-CANR.org.

I was surprised to see any links because when I last checked, years ago,
you could not add links to LENR-CANR.org. Wikipedia automatically rejected
them, with some sort of blacklist.


Your answer has something to do with a download link for papers by Oriani
 but your sentence is confusing.


I mean that this came to my attention because people linked from Wikipedia
to LENR-CANR.org, and that showed up in the log.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

I'll be darned. They have a page for Mizuno, and one for the ICCF
conferences too. The ICCF page was there years ago but someone deleted it.
It is back.

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

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-01 Thread Ian Walker

Hi all

To quote Bob: The Times they are a changing.

Kind Regards walker




On 1 May 2014 18:21, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'll be darned. They have a page for Mizuno, and one for the ICCF
 conferences too. The ICCF page was there years ago but someone deleted it.
 It is back.

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

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

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-01 Thread John Newman

Looks like Wikipedia are fairly rigid.  See their entry for ee cummings

Rusty

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 01 May 2014 18:05
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com  wrote:

Please clarify your statement, Jed.  Why is the deletion of a Wikipedia page 
for an improperly capitalized last name for 

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

Ah. There is another Wikipedia article. I did not know that. The one I pointed 
to was deleted. It must have discussed his cold fusion work. I say that because 
the person who deleted it said so, and because it had links to LENR-CANR.org.

This other article isn't bad. It mentions cold fusion. It has no links to his 
papers at LENR-CANR.org.

I was surprised to see any links because when I last checked, years ago, you 
could not add links to LENR-CANR.org. Wikipedia automatically rejected them, 
with some sort of blacklist.

Your answer has something to do with a download link for papers by Oriani but 
your sentence is confusing.

I mean that this came to my attention because people linked from Wikipedia to 
LENR-CANR.org, and that showed up in the log.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-01 Thread James Bowery

Notice that the last 2 external links are to your website.

External
links[edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Orianiaction=editsection=5editintro=Template:BLP_editintro
]

- Oriani cell
effectshttp://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/188oriani.html
- Works by or about Richard
Orianihttp://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-8826 in
libraries (WorldCat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat catalog)
- Reproducible Evidence For The Generation Of A Nuclear Reaction During
Electrolysis http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAreproducib.pdf
- The Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of Hydrogen in
Metalhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAthephysica.pdf

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Please clarify your statement, Jed. Why is the deletion of a Wikipedia
page for an improperly capitalized last name for

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

Ah. There is another Wikipedia article. I did not know that. The one I
pointed to was deleted. It must have discussed his cold fusion work. I say
that because the person who deleted it said so, and because it had links to
LENR-CANR.org.

This other article isn't bad. It mentions cold fusion. It has no links to
his papers at LENR-CANR.org.

I was surprised to see any links because when I last checked, years ago,
you could not add links to LENR-CANR.org. Wikipedia automatically rejected
them, with some sort of blacklist.

Your answer has something to do with a download link for papers by
Oriani but your sentence is confusing.

I mean that this came to my attention because people linked from Wikipedia
to LENR-CANR.org, and that showed up in the log.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Notice that the last 2 external links are to your website.


Huh. I never noticed. Perhaps no one has clicked on them lately. I wasn't
looking for links back to Wikipedia. Clearly, the blacklist has been lifted.




- Works by or about Richard 
 Orianihttp://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-8826 in
libraries (WorldCat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat catalog)


http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-8826

This one does net work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

2014-05-01 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

I'll be darned. They have a page for Mizuno, and one for the ICCF
 conferences too. The ICCF page was there years ago but someone deleted it.
 It is back.


The ICCF page was put up for deletion a year or so ago.  I voted against
deletion when I found out about it.  The vote was a close one.  There are
people there with strong opinions about what is science and what is not.
 These opinions obscure their objectivity with regard to questions about
what is noteworthy.  I pointed out that the conference is relevant to and
would be known by anyone with more than a passing interest in cold fusion,
even if cold fusion proved to be bunk.  I vaguely recall someone coming
back with a self-satisfied reply.  Over time I've come to learn that a
person's ability to come back with a quick retort has little to do with
their level of objectivity or understanding of a matter.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatans

2014-03-26 Thread Alain Sepeda

as a nasty conservative guy, I won't moan too much on that...
however seeing how is consensus on cold fusion , I realize that no
consensus is desirable.

I just read the aricle by jed on titanic and I extracted the part about
Cold fusion critics Morisson and taubes (Huizenga was not cited, was he
serious ?)
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/183-Jed-Rothwell-makes-a-paralle-between-Cold-fusion-denial-and-Titanic-aftermath/#post362

what I read is incredible.
basic highschool mistakes not spotted by Nobel supporters...

and those toilet paper book are the only one accepted on Wikipravda...

2014-03-26 3:34 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/

Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatansWales
to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: No, you have to be kidding
me.

Ars contacted Sanger about the use of his name in this argument, and he
offered a more nuanced take on the petitioners' request:

Wikipedia's neutrality policy, at least as I originally articulated it,
requires that CAM's practitioners be given an opportunity to explain their
views. At the same time, the policy also requires that *more* space be
given to mainstream views that are *critical* of CAM, precisely because
such critical views are held by most medical health professionals.
...
I am as big a defender of rationality, science, and objective reality as
you are likely to find. But I also think a public resource like Wikipedia
should be fully committed to intellectual tolerance and the free exchange
of ideas. That, together with an interest in providing a way to resolve
disputes, is just what drove me to advocate for and articulate the
Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have confidence that if CAM's advocates
are given an opportunity to air their views fully and sympathetically--not
to say they should be allowed to make Wikipedia *assert* their views--and
skeptics are also given free rein to report their explanation of why they
think CAM is a load of crap, then a rational reader will be given the tools
he or she needs to take a reasonable position about the matter.

Putting all ideas on the table--but giving more space to the mainstream
views and putting less emphasis on the alternative views--might be
problematic in practice. Requiring that Wikipedia sources be based on
third-party, published, and often peer-reviewed work is an easy way to at
least make a passing effort at disseminating high-quality information. But
how would space be doled out to advocates of alternative theories, who are
just as certain about the rightness of their ideas as any scientist, if
that guideline became more flexible? Would they be allowed to present their
views in a set number of paragraphs? Or as a percentage of the number of
words written about mainstream theories? Such a setup might be a slippery
slope to what's been termed false balance, a subject on which Ars has
written at length
beforehttp://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/.
In that scenario, views that have been ignored for a reason are given
undeserved light to create the illusion of an even playing field.

[Vo]:Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatans

2014-03-25 Thread Axil Axil

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/

Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners lunatic charlatansWales
to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: No, you have to be kidding
me.

Ars contacted Sanger about the use of his name in this argument, and he
offered a more nuanced take on the petitioners' request:

[Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

it seems some edition are happening on wold fusion wiki

seems aggressive:
...conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (*ICCF*)
was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees
offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of...

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

This is especially hilarious in view of the ICCF18 conference, where the
second keynote speaker roundly insulted Iwamura and several other leading
researchers, and at my luncheon presentation I described a major experiment
as tuning a piano with a sledgehammer. It turned out that Steve Jones,
the principle researcher, was sitting in the audience there. It was awkward
even by my standards. He was very gracious.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

I put that comment in the Wikipedia talk section. Someone named McSly
deleted it within minutes, saying: (Revert. User is topic banned). Those
people stay on their toes!

Here is what I wrote:

No criticism to papers and
presentations?!?[edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusionaction=editsection=3
]

Someone told me that you recently changed this article to say that at ICCF
conferences Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for
fear of... This is hilarious. At the most recent conference, the second
keynote speaker from the NRL roundly insulted Iwamura and several other
leading researchers. At my luncheon presentation later that day, I
described a major experiment as tuning a piano with a sledgehammer. It
turned out the principle researcher was in the audience. It was awkward
even by my standards. He was very gracious.

Whoever wrote this has no clue what these conferences are like. Like most
academic conferences they feature backbiting, sniping, arguments and way
too much food. The first cold fusion conference was held by the NSF in the
summer of 1989. You can read the entire proceedings and all of the comments
by participants at LENR-CANR.org. You will see that they were not reticent.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org. -- Preceding
unsignedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures comment
added by
99.120.8.235http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.120.8.235

(talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.120.8.235action=editredlink=1)
15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I put the comment back and added:

McSly, whoever you are, kindly refrain from deleting this. It is good to
have some trace of reality in these remarks, rather than mere fantasy.

It should be gone again within minutes, and then I will be once again
banned from Wikipedia.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

I changed that line to : Attendees at some of the early conferences 
were described as offering no criticism to papers and presentations 
for fear of giving ammunition to external critics  ...


The refs about that are to Parks and Hzuigenda (sp)  -- I have an 
early Hzuigenda edition (200 miles away), but not Parks.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Bob Cook

Jed--

What would you expect to happen, if I put the note in talk section of 
Wikipedia?  Would I also be banned to comment on the topic?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

  I put that comment in the Wikipedia talk section. Someone named McSly deleted 
it within minutes, saying: (Revert. User is topic banned). Those people stay 
on their toes!

  Here is what I wrote:

  No criticism to papers and presentations?!?[edit]Someone told me that you 
recently changed this article to say that at ICCF conferences Attendees 
offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of... This is 
hilarious. At the most recent conference, the second keynote speaker from the 
NRL roundly insulted Iwamura and several other leading researchers. At my 
luncheon presentation later that day, I described a major experiment as tuning 
a piano with a sledgehammer. It turned out the principle researcher was in the 
audience. It was awkward even by my standards. He was very gracious.

  Whoever wrote this has no clue what these conferences are like. Like most 
academic conferences they feature backbiting, sniping, arguments and way too 
much food. The first cold fusion conference was held by the NSF in the summer 
of 1989. You can read the entire proceedings and all of the comments by 
participants at LENR-CANR.org. You will see that they were not reticent.

  - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org. - Preceding unsigned comment added 
by 99.120.8.235 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  I put the comment back and added:

  McSly, whoever you are, kindly refrain from deleting this. It is good to have 
some trace of reality in these remarks, rather than mere fantasy.

  It should be gone again within minutes, and then I will be once again banned 
from Wikipedia.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 What would you expect to happen, if I put the note in talk section of
 Wikipedia?  Would I also be banned to comment on the topic?


First they erase your messages. If you keep posting messages, they ban you.

http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/10/31/tis-the-season-to-be-banning-at-wikipedia/

It is a waste of time to get involved with Wikipedia. It is like building a
sandcastle in an incoming tide.

- Jed

[Vo]:Wikipedia French Cold fusion (fusion froide) is slightly edited...

2014-03-10 Thread Alain Sepeda

I just noticed some slight change in wikipedia Fusion froide (french cold
fusion)...
link to ICCF, reformulating, piantelli...
regularly changing ...

I refuse to read the text  logs because I would react and be banned...
but maybe something is happening...
whoever want to check...

[Vo]:OT-MIT Tecnology Review and Wikipedia Editors- Controversial Topics

2014-01-08 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex-L,

I saw this on Wikipedia and controversial  topics for 2013:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522901/best-of-2013-edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/
 Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:OT-MIT Tecnology Review and Wikipedia Editors- Controversial Topics

2014-01-08 Thread Alain Sepeda

funny to see what is religion today.


2014/1/8 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com

 Greetings Vortex-L,

 I saw this on Wikipedia and controversial  topics for 2013:

 http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522901/best-of-2013-edit-wars-reveal-the-10-most-controversial-topics-on-wikipedia/
  Respectfully,
 Ron Kita, Chiralex

[Vo]:The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread Daniel Rocha

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8508

The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia
coverage of academics
Anna Samoilenkohttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Samoilenko_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
, Taha Yasseri http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Yasseri_T/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 31 Oct 2013)

Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with
traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online
images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating
academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We
examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four
scientific fields to test if being featured in the world's largest online
encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability (assessed
through citation counts). We found no statistically significant correlation
between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of
incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the
mentioned researchers and also we did not find any evidence that these
scientists are necessarily more prolific than the averages in each field.
We also examined the coverage of notable scientist sampled from Thomson
Reuters list of highly cited researchers in Wikipedia. In each of the
examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly.
Both findings imply that Wikipedia might produce an inaccurate image of
academics on the front end of science and by shedding light on how public
perception of academic progress is formed, alert that a subjective element
might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic
evaluation


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

[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread JohnMaguire

Interesting find Daniel. Most of the time you can only find critiques of 
Wikipedia bias, etc. on message boards, forums, and so on. Not generally in 
a researched article. I'll be interested to see if more such articles, more 
focused on other shortcomings of Wikipedia (politicking, censorship, etc.), 
will come to light in the future.
 
Regards,
John

[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread jedrothwell

Wikipedia is okay for some subjects. But as an institution, Wikipedia it is 
good at handling controversy. Cold fusion is the longest-running and most 
controversial subject in the history of academic science. (I think by now 
we can say that.) So, the people in this field do not like Wikipedia, and 
Wikipedia does not like us.


Here are some thoughtful articles about the problems at Wikipedia:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/02/20/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/

I think I mentioned this one before. It shows that Britannica is a lot 
better than Wikipedia despite what Nature said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

And here is a hilarious one -- my all-time favorite:

http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670

QUOTE:

*But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.*
*
*

That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: Experts are 
scum. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they 
can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of 
human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away 
by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were 
involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in 
discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated 
into the article without passing judgment.

[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread jedrothwell

I meant it is NOT good at controversy.

Sorry.

(Is there a way to edit these messages?)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread James Bowery

One of my primary motives for suggesting Wikipedia as the corpus for
theHutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human
Knowledgehttp://prize.hutter1.net/
was that Kolmogorov compression will have to involve modeling bias --
perhaps even imputing specific authors as being responsible for specific
passages.  Moreover, it will have to model the specific biases of those
authors which will include modeling their psychology.

Unfortunately, a billionaire who said he was going to underwrite that prize
mysteriously reneged and ceased all communication.  It is still probably
the best investment any philanthropist could make -- simply on the strength
of motivating the advancement of artificial intelligence in the verbal
realm.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM, jedrothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I meant it is NOT good at controversy.

 Sorry.

 (Is there a way to edit these messages?)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread Eric Walker

You can't edit an email once it's been sent out.  ;)

Wikipedia is the site that everyone loves to hate, and that almost all
younger people, including those in the top tier of the journalism industry,
love to consult as a starting point to find out about a new topic.  It's an
unruly democracy/technocracy with an overgrowth of rules, regulations,
guidelines, technicalities and useless dogma.  As an organization of people
collaborating on their own time on a summary of human knowledge, they're
gradually tackling problems on a scale that has not seen before.  It is
quite possible that other collaborative encyclopedia ventures, with a
better collaboration model, will come along in the next few years and
gradually replace them in the way that search engines and Web sites have
come and gone (think Alta Vista, Digg, Yahoo!, AOL, MySpace, etc.).

As long as one keeps in mind the need to ignore a lot of what one reads
there, it's a fantastic site.  I think the researchers who took a look at
the site are just saying in researchese what everyone already kind of
realizes.

Eric



On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM, jedrothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I meant it is NOT good at controversy.

 Sorry.

 (Is there a way to edit these messages?)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics

2013-11-01 Thread Jed Rothwell

Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 It's an unruly democracy/technocracy with an overgrowth of rules,
 regulations, guidelines, technicalities and useless dogma.  As an
 organization of people collaborating on their own time on a summary of
 human knowledge, they're gradually tackling problems on a scale that has
 not seen before.


I hate to admit it, but you are right. It is remarkable, and it has done a
lot of good.



  It is quite possible that other collaborative encyclopedia ventures, with
 a better collaboration model, will come along in the next few years and
 gradually replace them . . .


They should be looking for a better model now, so they can replace
themselves. Otherwise they will Sears and someone else will be Wallmart. It
is surprising how often incumbent organizations sit on their laurels.

- Jed

[Vo]:Dispute between Nature and Britannica over Wikipedia

2013-10-23 Thread Jed Rothwell

Okay, this is inside baseball, meaning it is only of interest only to
aficionados but . . .

Years ago the journal Nature claimed that Wikipedia is nearly as reliable
as Britannica. This article calls that finding into question:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

I do not know how reliable this article is. The article says that the staff
at Britannica objected to the Nature article. Quote:


'Almost everything about the journal's investigation, from the criteria
for identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text
and its headline, was wrong and misleading,' says Britannica.

'Dozens of inaccuracies attributed to the Britannica were not inaccuracies
at all, and a number of the articles Nature examined were not even in the
Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was so poorly carried out and its
findings so error-laden that it was completely without merit.'

In one case, for example. Nature's peer reviewer was sent only the 350 word
introduction to a 6,000 word Britannica article on lipids - which was
criticized for containing omissions.


. . . This sounds like the same Nature we know and love. See, for example,
my paper: How Nature refused to re-examine the 1989 CalTech experiment.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

- Jed

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

2013-09-25 Thread Alain Sepeda

I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real
life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to
me).

about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for
future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they
can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play
the rebels...
In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but
I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and
funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box.
They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a
period when things were different.

they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and
worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the
consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
period where feeling and trends were different.

In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
before.
Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
retirement and death.

Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
They are what the young were before.
If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their
honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values.



2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread James Bowery

The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one
a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is
the proposed change, in this case the age limit.


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real
 life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to
 me).

 about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
 From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

 I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for
 future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they
 can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play
 the rebels...
 In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but
 I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and
 funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box.
 They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a
 period when things were different.

 they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

 Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and
 worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the
 consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
 period where feeling and trends were different.

 In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
 Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
 consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
 Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
 before.
 Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
 micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
 retirement and death.

 Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
 They are what the young were before.
 If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

 However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their
 honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values.



 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread David Roberson


We are discussing a complicated issue.  All old people and young people are not 
the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone.  It has been my observation 
that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their life 
experiences.  An older scientist with a clear open mind has the ability to 
bring a vast amount of experience to the table.  He has already made 
uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster has just 
started finding that he does not understand everything about the universe.

Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can and do 
offer to the discussions.  It is critical to listen to what they have to say 
about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past experiences.  The 
young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which is a good thing as long 
as they continue to learn from these.

It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to speculate 
about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of their ideas 
might be ridiculed.  There is no shame in finding yourself defending your 
beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe.

All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected 
observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers.  
Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find important 
pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should encourage their 
inputs.  One day soon the operation of these devices will be understood and we 
will all look back and see how the evidence was there the entire time.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese


I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life 
is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me).


about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
From decision maybe, but from discussion no.


I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for 
future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can 
have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the 
rebels...
In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm 
afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, 
that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box.
They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a 
period when things were different.


they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who


Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst 
(I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based 
on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and 
trends were different.


In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, 
washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before.
Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their 
micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement 
and death.



Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
They are what the young were before.
If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.


However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their 
honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values.






2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-09-25 Thread Edmund Storms

Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of  
this issue.


Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much  
imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self- 
centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person  
who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase  
the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from  
either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the  
willingness to learn and at the degree of imagination. Consequently,  
this discussion is focusing on the wrong variable.


On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two  
groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where  
the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit.



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda  
alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in  
real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary  
explained to me).


about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

I see that older people often, because they can have no huge  
ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel  
safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those  
fearless people, can play the rebels...
In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had  
to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent  
on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out  
of the funding box.
They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can  
remind of a period when things were different.


they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best  
and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against  
the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their  
memory of a period where feeling and trends were different.


In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable  
society.
Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated  
consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the  
young before.
Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend  
their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned  
story... retirement and death.


Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the  
story.

They are what the young were before.
If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending  
their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender  
of old values.




2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread Lennart Thornros

 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread Axil Axil

 knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
 period where feeling and trends were different.

 In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
 Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
 consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
 Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
 before.
 Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
 micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
 retirement and death.

 Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
 They are what the young were before.
 If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

 However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending
 their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old
 values.



 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread James Bowery

I think you may be misunderstanding Jed's point, Dave.

Jed is far from implying that among LENR researchers the young are better
represented than the old.  Indeed, it is manifestly obvious that LENR
research is kept alive almost entirely by the freedom older scientists
enjoy either under tenure or retirement -- and there is a serious problem
attracting younger researchers to the field because they dare not do a
thesis on LENR.

This might seem to be a paradox:  If the younger researchers are pursuing
their thesis under the direction of older researchers, and LENR research is
largely the domain of older if not elderly researchers, then there should
be an explosion of young researchers being directed toward LENR for their
thesis work.

But that is a logical fallacy.




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 We are discussing a complicated issue.  All old people and young people
 are not the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone.  It has been my
 observation that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their
 life experiences.  An older scientist with a clear open mind has the
 ability to bring a vast amount of experience to the table.  He has already
 made uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster
 has just started finding that he does not understand everything about the
 universe.

 Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can
 and do offer to the discussions.  It is critical to listen to what they
 have to say about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past
 experiences.  The young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which
 is a good thing as long as they continue to learn from these.

 It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to speculate
 about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of their
 ideas might be ridiculed.  There is no shame in finding yourself defending
 your beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe.

 All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected
 observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers.
 Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find
 important pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should
 encourage their inputs.  One day soon the operation of these devices will
 be understood and we will all look back and see how the evidence was there
 the entire time.

 Dave
  -Original Message-
 From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
 To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

  I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real
 life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to
 me).

  about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
 From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

  I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition
 for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because
 they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can
 play the rebels...
 In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but
 I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and
 funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box.
 They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a
 period when things were different.

  they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

  Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and
 worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the
 consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
 period where feeling and trends were different.

  In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
 Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
 consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
 Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
 before.
 Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
 micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
 retirement and death.

  Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
 They are what the young were before.
 If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

  However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending
 their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old
 values.



 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-09-25 Thread Alain Sepeda

 and
 at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on
 the wrong variable.

 On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

 The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups,
 one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment
 is the proposed change, in this case the age limit.


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real
 life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to
 me).

 about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
 From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

 I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition
 for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because
 they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can
 play the rebels...
 In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to,
 but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career
 and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box.
 They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of
 a period when things were different.

 they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

 Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and
 worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the
 consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
 period where feeling and trends were different.

 In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
 Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
 consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
 Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
 before.
 Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
 micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
 retirement and death.

 Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story.
 They are what the young were before.
 If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

 However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending
 their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old
 values.



 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-25 Thread Axil Axil

 hang behind the load
 and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead
 the horse.
 It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur
 with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is.



 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650

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


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this
 issue.

 Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much
 imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant,
 self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person
 who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the
 incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the
 young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and
 at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on
 the wrong variable.

 On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

 The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups,
 one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment
 is the proposed change, in this case the age limit.


 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda 
 alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in
 real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained
 to me).

 about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
 From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

 I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition
 for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because
 they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can
 play the rebels...
 In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to,
 but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career
 and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding 
 box.
 They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind
 of a period when things were different.

 they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who

 Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best
 and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the
 consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a
 period where feeling and trends were different.

 In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society.
 Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated
 consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus.
 Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young
 before.
 Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their
 micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story...
 retirement and death.

 Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the
 story.
 They are what the young were before.
 If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business.

 However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending
 their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old
 values.



 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-09-25 Thread Alain Sepeda

It remind me one of the old rebel, who beside shaking the scientific
community, being insulted by journalist and holder of The True Truth, do
babysitting after the conferences...

This fearless and hopeless scientist, with a huge carreer in his domain,
said that he was forced to do the job alone or with few old apes, because
if he employed some young student for a thesis it would ruin their career
and close them the doors of all research centers.

the worst is that the defender of the truth says that the dissenters are
funded by billions... fact is that the lobbyists are on of True Truth
side... another problems... off topic.

It make me laugh when I see those holder of true truth talk in detail of
how to identify conspiracy theories.
(see
http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=autotl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Ffavisonlus.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F09%2F24%2Fbufale-scientifiche-mietono-vittime-ma-e-piu-facile-smascherarle%2F
)

this make me however cautious today when I am sure of something... good
lesson.

I've noticed also that many member of the militia of True Truth are often
quite young... Maybe stockholm syndrome, Mutual Assured Delusion, because
they are too dependent on the system. maybe also they have too few
experience, seen too few generation and places, too few delusions, crisis...
I started to understand the collective delusion after participating two
bubbles/crash.

as I said, older people are sometime the required alien from another
time, facing a system which is too modern, where young people unlike before
bring no new vision, because all is their own vision.

we need free people, we need alien, from another time (past or future)
another place, another domaine, another approach, another sex, another
social milieu... we need unexpected!
young or old... but unexpected, alien and free.

2013/9/25 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com

I think you may be misunderstanding Jed's point, Dave.

Jed is far from implying that among LENR researchers the young are better
represented than the old. Indeed, it is manifestly obvious that LENR
research is kept alive almost entirely by the freedom older scientists
enjoy either under tenure or retirement -- and there is a serious problem
attracting younger researchers to the field because they dare not do a
thesis on LENR.

This might seem to be a paradox: If the younger researchers are pursuing
their thesis under the direction of older researchers, and LENR research is
largely the domain of older if not elderly researchers, then there should
be an explosion of young researchers being directed toward LENR for their
thesis work.

But that is a logical fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

We are discussing a complicated issue. All old people and young people
are not the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone. It has been my
observation that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their
life experiences. An older scientist with a clear open mind has the
ability to bring a vast amount of experience to the table. He has already
made uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster
has just started finding that he does not understand everything about the
universe.

Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can
and do offer to the discussions. It is critical to listen to what they
have to say about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past
experiences. The young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which
is a good thing as long as they continue to learn from these.

It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to
speculate about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of
their ideas might be ridiculed. There is no shame in finding yourself
defending your beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe.

All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected
observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers.
Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find
important pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should
encourage their inputs. One day soon the operation of these devices will
be understood and we will all look back and see how the evidence was there
the entire time.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in
real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained
to me).

about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too.
From decision maybe, but from discussion no.

I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition
for future, because they can have enough

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

2013-09-25 Thread Jed Rothwell

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

Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this
 issue.

 Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much
 imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant,
 self-centered, and without imagination. . . .


True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and
technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young
person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people.

There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous
contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who
made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or
Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work.
(People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the
1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers.
So did I, if I do say say so myself.)

In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas
when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of
work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion.

Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic
arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few
years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike
anything anyone painted before.

Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science,
biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend
on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new
perspective unencumbered with older ideas.

In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress
occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of
old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role
reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf

- Jed

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

2013-09-25 Thread torulf.greek



I think this is inverted in the LENR community. 

TG 

On Wed, 25 Sep
2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell  wrote:  
Edmund Storms  wrote:


Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of
this issue. 

Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without
much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant,
self-centered, and without imagination. . . .   

True. But the fact is,
nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done
by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game.
Most innovations in programming are by young people. 

There are
exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous
contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers
who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates,
Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their
best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software
back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early
personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) 

In the case
of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he
was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work
in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. 

Older people make
important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts,
especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years
before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike
anything anyone painted before. 

Older people sometimes make important
contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences,
and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and
experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with
older ideas. 

In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant
holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion,
the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate
generational role reversal, because of social and economic
circumstances. See:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf [2] 

- Jed 

   

Links:
--
[1] mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com
[2]
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf

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

2013-09-25 Thread torulf.greek

Ooh! That was an anser to Jeds post. Not to Storms post.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:27:04 +0200, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote:

I think this is inverted in the LENR community.
TG
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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

Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue.
Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . .

True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people.
There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.)
In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion.
Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before.
Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas.
In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf
- Jed

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

2013-09-25 Thread a.ashfield

Obviously originality in physics is age related, but that is just a side 
effect when it comes to the gate keepers being tiresomely set in their ways.


The reason for that is explained by Jerry Pournelle's iron law.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic 
organization there will be two kinds of people:


First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the 
organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an 
educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians 
and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors 
in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.


Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. 
Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many 
professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA 
headquarters staff, etc.


The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and 
keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control 
promotions within the organization.


So over time you will end up with people blocking new ideas and yes they 
will be old, but only because it has taken time for them to reach that 
position of power as a gatekeeper.It doesn't follow that old people in 
general will be that way.I will be eighty in a few months and was an 
early supporter of LENR and tireless advocate -- mainly to people who 
won't listen.It is most unlikely I will come up with the theory that 
explains LENR although I might have if I were still in my 20s when I was 
inventive by nature.

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

2013-09-25 Thread James Bowery

To get back on track:

Yes the Jasons started out as a way for young men to breakthrough the
bureaucratic types and yes the Jasons has now been occupied by the likes of
Nate Lewis, who was listed as third author of the Jasons report:   Reducing
DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependencehttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf
.

Nevertheless there are a number of other Jasons who are listed as
contributors, as well as being listed as first and second authors of that
report.

All it takes is one to break ranks and others may follow.



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:21 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote:

  Obviously originality in physics is age related, but that is just a side
 effect when it comes to the gate keepers being tiresomely set in their ways.


 The reason for that is explained by Jerry Pournelle’s iron law.

 Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
 organization there will be two kinds of people:

 “First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the
 organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational
 bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at
 NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet
 Union collective farming administration.

 Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.
 Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many
 professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA
 headquarters staff, etc.

 The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep
 control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control
 promotions within the organization.”

 ** **

 So over time you will end up with people blocking new ideas and yes they
 will be old, but only because it has taken time for them to reach that
 position of power as a gatekeeper.  It doesn’t follow that old people in
 general will be that way.  I will be eighty in a few months and was an
 early supporter of LENR and tireless advocate – mainly to people who won’t
 listen.   It is most unlikely I will come up with the theory that
 explains LENR although I might have if I were still in my 20s when I was
 inventive by nature.

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

2013-09-24 Thread Alain Sepeda

 people aware of material science which simply
 know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence...
 no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a
 colony. no plan...
 at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes accused of
 fighting against The True Truth... Defending the consensus like one defend
 a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum.
 No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation.

 all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a
 kindergarten fight.
 It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those
 battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or science
 from pseudoscience.

 with planet consequence.



 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

 I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
 benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
 apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The
 West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many
 parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add
 something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of
 oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible
 outcome.  For example, although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the
 cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit
 goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid,
 resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad
 debt.

  Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators
 and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think
 what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling
 to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and
 a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless
 the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the
 West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort
 will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how
 the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.

 Ed

 On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

  Dear Jed,

 On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
 world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
 since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
 import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
 tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
 power plants.


 You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
 lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
 However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
 I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
 perception of how the world is managed.

 Kind regards,

 Rob

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

2013-09-24 Thread 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 jedrothw...@gmail.com

 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

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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

2013-09-24 Thread Jed Rothwell

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com 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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

Ironically:

*JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
States 
governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
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
Alamoshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory
and
MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 jedrothw...@gmail.com 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

Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia
articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
:

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
Congressmanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
 Rush Holt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt,_Jr. of New Jersey
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-3—funding
was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy,
the office of the Director, Defense Research 
Engineeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Defense_Research_and_Engineering,
name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research  Engineering)
(ASD (RE)) in 2011.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-4




On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ironically:

 *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
 States 
 governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory and
 MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

  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

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 Dependencehttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf.
 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 jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia 
 articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
 :

 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
 Congressmanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
  Rush Holt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt,_Jr. of New Jersey
 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-3—funding
 was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy,
 the office of the Director, Defense Research  
 Engineeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Defense_Research_and_Engineering,
 name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research  Engineering)
 (ASD (RE)) in 2011.[4]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-4




 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ironically:

 *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United
 States 
 governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory and
 MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

  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]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88


http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

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

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in
charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are
fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to
accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent
approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No,
they will have to accept the working generators built in and
controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not
only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the
process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of
atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98
translated:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to protect
economic rent for few against the western population...

Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame it on
individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self delusion,
submission to easy) sewed to make a fabric of stupidity... with a few
strong cables , like gary taubes and other leader in closed mindedness,
lack of culture, and ego, who give the skeleton, the frame, to that tent of
absurdity...

maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot reach
Japan and China...
Maybe a language barrier...

sure most EU is under that tent...
why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium provider!)

interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of stupidity of
the majority?

2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence
that is all-too-frequently attributed to conspiracy. This is complicated
by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved. It
is further complicated by the vague definition of conspiracy as the word
is used in rhetorical conflict. I find it helpful to think of these
homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human
intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this respect
it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic
mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems
such as immune response.

If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of
these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress
can proceed.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in
Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

I agree, stupidly is certainly at the core of the problem. I think
the atom bomb provides a useful example of the situation. Early
during WWII, scientists understood that Germany was working on the
atom bomb and if they were successful, the power structure of the
world would change. Only a determined effort by Einstein and a few
scientists in the US were able to pursued a reluctant US government to
pay any attention to the threat. The difference now is that we do not
have an Einstein or a Roosevelt in charge to make wise decisions. The
US government is in chaos and unable to respond to even obvious
threats. On the other hand, Japan and China, although equally stupid
in many ways, have a self-interest to develop the technology that is
lacking in the West. Of course, the normal herd of skeptics and
people who follow the media carry the message that CF is not real.
These people would be ignored if the government really wanted CF to be
developed. The selling of the Iraq war shows just how effective the
government can be in getting what it wants.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to
protect economic rent for few against the western population...

Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame
it on individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self
delusion, submission to easy) sewed to make a fabric of
stupidity... with a few strong cables , like gary taubes and other
leader in closed mindedness, lack of culture, and ego, who give the
skeleton, the frame, to that tent of absurdity...

maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot
reach Japan and China...

Maybe a language barrier...

sure most EU is under that tent...
why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium
provider!)

interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of
stupidity of the majority?

2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people
in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they
are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be
forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an
intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the
technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators
built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it
will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just
as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun
intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to
some industries and social structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is
involved or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is
obvious to anyone who understands economics. This is reality, not some
proposed crazy idea.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of
intelligence that is all-too-frequently attributed to conspiracy.
This is complicated by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior
is sometimes involved. It is further complicated by the vague
definition of conspiracy as the word is used in rhetorical
conflict. I find it helpful to think of these homeostatic
mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human
intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this
respect it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the
homeostatic mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly
sophisticated systems such as immune response.

If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure
of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so
that progress can proceed.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the
energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the
Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people
in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they
are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be
forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an
intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the
technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators
built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it
will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just
as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun
intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to
some industries and social structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced
way in Chinese and japanese .

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many
positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

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

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound
 danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
 industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
 including China and India, great advantage.


That is incorrect. The economics of the energy industry play only a small
role in most first world countries, such as the U.S., France or Japan. The
number of people employed in the energy business has fallen drastically in
the last several decades. The percent of the GDP devoted to energy has
fallen. GDP and productivity per joule of energy has soared, because of
improved efficiency in things like lighting, heating, power generation,
computers and automobile gas mileage. These improvements have been drastic
in some cases. LED lighting takes only about one-fifth of the electricity
of incandescent lights.

Energy plays a large role in the economics of Russia, Venezuela and Middle
Eastern oil exporting countries.

Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world
economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we
have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import
more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
power plants.



 The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but
 they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents.


I do not think so. Not the ones I have heard from. Not the ones in the
Japanese government that Mizuno and others have spoken with, or in the Navy.

- Jed

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

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

Sorry, Ed, I should have clarified that I wasn't referring to you as having
posited a conspiracy theory. My abstractions may have been a bit too for
the present conversation...

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is involved
or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is obvious to anyone
who understands economics. This is reality, not some proposed crazy idea.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote:

If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of
these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress
can proceed.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and
profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy
industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world,
including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the
West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the
danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology
eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and
take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working
generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as
Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will,
in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery
of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to
scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social
structures.

On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way
in Chinese and japanese .

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88
translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

translated:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98

lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions.

what does it inspire you?

is LENR denial a western problem?

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

I wrote:


 These improvements have been drastic in some cases. LED lighting takes
 only about one-fifth of the electricity of incandescent lights.


Illumination is a large fraction of total energy use. See:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99t=3

QUOTE:

How much electricity is used for lighting in the United States?

EIA estimates that in 2011, about 461 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial
sectors. This was equal to about 17% of the total electricity consumed by
both of these sectors and about 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption.

Residential lighting consumption was about 186 billion kWh or 13% of all
residential electricity consumption.

The commercial sector, which includes commercial and institutional
buildings and public street and highway lighting, consumed about 275
billion kWh for lighting or 21% of commercial sector electricity
consumption in 2011.

EIA does not have an estimate for only public street and highway lighting.
. . .


(Note that high efficiency lighting also improved vehicle gas mileage,
since cars and trucks often drive with their lights on.)

- Jed

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

I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's  
benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and  
apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess.  
The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure  
and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious  
insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening  
to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect  
the worst possible outcome.  For example, although  the US is self- 
sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If  
the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the  
infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The  
system is already saturated with such bad debt.


 Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy  
generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us  
now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future,  
she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford,  
resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I  
raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to  
respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless  
the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a  
solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts.  
Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.


Ed
On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:


Dear Jed,

On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve  
first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries  
or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow  
the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do.  
Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because  
they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants.


You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on  
lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL  
people.

However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter  
Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed.


Kind regards,

Rob

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

2013-09-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

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.


the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which simply
know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence...
no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a colony.
no plan...
at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes accused of
fighting against The True Truth... Defending the consensus like one defend
a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum.
No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation.

all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a
kindergarten fight.
It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those
battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or science
from pseudoscience.

with planet consequence.



2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com

 I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
 benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
 apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The
 West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many
 parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add
 something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of
 oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible
 outcome.  For example, although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the
 cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit
 goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid,
 resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad
 debt.

  Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators
 and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think
 what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling
 to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and
 a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless
 the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the
 West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort
 will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how
 the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.

 Ed

 On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

  Dear Jed,

 On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
 world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
 since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
 import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
 tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
 power plants.


 You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
 lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
 However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
 I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
 perception of how the world is managed.

 Kind regards,

 Rob

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

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

For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is
controlled by the world market.

The U.S. is not self-sufficient in energy. We consume 97 quads. We import
24 quads (mainly oil) and export 10 quads (oil and coal). See:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm

If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the
infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default.

That would depend on how far down the costs go, how quickly. Energy costs
have dropped throughout history. The cost of electricity in particular has
fallen in real dollars. Granted, cold fusion is likely to cause a
catastrophic drop in prices which would strand much of the industry, but
the default would not be massive. Oil, gas, coal and electric companies do
not have much debt. They are not a major part of the U.S. economy. There
would be stranded infrastructure, but it would be stranded because we don't
need it. It will not serve any purpose, and no one will miss it, any more
than we miss having the use of abandoned railroad lines.

It will take a long time to close down the electric power industry. 20 or
30 years at least, and probably longer. That is plenty of time to pay off
bonds. They will not have to buy any new equipment or generators during
that time, since the market will be contracting. They can just use up and
then throw away their old equipment. That is what U.S. railroads did from
1945 to 1965, as passenger traffic vanished. Even today, most of the
remaining rolling stock is decades old, and it is a tiny fraction of what
we had in 1945.

The global energy market is $6 trillion, but most of that money goes to the
oil producing countries, mainly in the Middle East and Russia. Their
economies will be destroyed. Not ours, and not Europe or Japan.

Look at the Fortune 500:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/index.html?iid=F500_sp_full

It is true that #2, 3, 4 and 9 are in the energy business, with a total of
$992 billion, but the others are nowhere to be seen. Other companies in
other business make far more in the aggregate, and many of these companies
such as GM and Ford may benefit from cold fusion, or profit from it
directly, such as GE (assuming they make cold fusion generators). Every
dollar not earned by Exxon is likely to be spent elsewhere. Every dollar
not sent to Saudi Arabia will be spent here instead.

- Jed

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

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.



the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which  
simply know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence...
no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a  
colony. no plan...
at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes  
accused of fighting against The True Truth... Defending the  
consensus like one defend a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum.

No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation.

all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a  
kindergarten fight.
It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those  
battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or  
science from pseudoscience.


with planet consequence.



2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase  
everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future  
while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world  
is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable  
economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened  
by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled,  
and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is  
LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome.  For example,  
although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is  
controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit  
goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be  
paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated  
with such bad debt.


 Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy  
generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us  
now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the  
future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not  
afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the  
West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an  
intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be  
in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will  
be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of  
how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a  
solution.


Ed

On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

Dear Jed,

On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve  
first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries  
or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow  
the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do.  
Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they  
are closing down all of the nuclear power plants.


You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on  
lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL

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

2013-09-23 Thread James Bowery

Good... perhaps I can try my approach from the angle opened up by the
problem of writing off capital investments in a debt saturated western
economy:

The bailout of the large financial institutions was an example of the kind
of 'panic' that results when a massive write-off of capital investments
occurs.  In that instance, there was a choice as to whether to bailout the
debt-loaded population so they could service their debts, or whether to
bail out the financial institutions so they could, for example, foreclose
and evict the population from their homes and let those homes be overtaken
by squatters, weeds, mildew algae growing in their swimming pools.  The
system made a decision:  Evict the population and centralize assets in the
hands of the financial institutions.  If you recall during this period
there were serious proposals in the major financial press for the
government to mobilize the physical destruction of excess housing
resulting from the centralization of real wealth.

This was an intelligent decision from some interests' perspectives and it
was a stupid decision from others' perspective.   Of course, the
new-homeless didn't care whether it was intelligent or stupid --
conspiratorial or accidental -- it was just downright evil from their
perspective.

Viewing the system that made this decision as exhibiting unenlightened
self-interest, we can invoke my saying Never attribute to sheer stupidity
that which can be explained by unenlightened self-interest.   In other
words, the system was acting intelligently here but only from some
perspectives.

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?

Analyze those two structures and something might be done.


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's
 benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and
 apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The
 West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many
 parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add
 something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of
 oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible
 outcome.  For example, although  the US is self-sufficient in energy, the
 cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit
 goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid,
 resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad
 debt.

  Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators
 and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think
 what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling
 to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and
 a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless
 the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the
 West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort
 will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how
 the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution.

 Ed

 On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:

  Dear Jed,

 On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
 world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
 since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
 import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
 tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
 power plants.


 You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
 lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
 However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.
 I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
 perception of how the world is managed.

 Kind regards,

 Rob

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

Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:

Dear Jed,


 On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first
 world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China,
 since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we
 import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a
 tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear
 power plants.




 You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on
 lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people.
 However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is.


Intentions play no role in economics. No one is in charge. Many people
think they are in charge, but as we saw in the 2008 economic collapse,
those people actually have no power and no control over anything. If it
becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it can save every
American ~$2,000 per year, no force on earth could stop the development --
or slow it down. Money has power over society than anything else. Even if
both political parties and every member of the 1% elite opposed cold fusion
there is nothing they could do to stop it from being developed. The demand
will be too strong. The profit motive too strong.

In fact, many large industries and many members of the elite will want cold
fusion, because they will make money with it. Exxon will surely go bankrupt
soon. That's $450 billion per year lost. Others will make that money
instead. It isn't going to fall down a black hole. It won't be going to
Saudi Arabia any more. People who stop buying gas will spend the money
elsewhere.



 I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's)
 perception of how the world is managed.


The world is never managed. It is chaos and happenstance. No one is in
charge, because no one can predict the future. The people who think they
are in charge, such as Alan Greenspan, usually turn out to be witless.

People did not even anticipate the rise of natural gas electric power
generation, which is rapidly overtaking coal. That is a conventional source
of energy. It is a minor, incremental change in the technology. It is
blowing the coal companies out of the water. No one cares about that except
people who own stock in coal companies, and coal miners. There are more
people building wind turbines than there are miners, so it makes little
difference to the overall economy. See:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7090

- Jed

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