Re: challenging papers
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:25:14 +1100: Hi, [snip] Thanks Ed the Students guide is my main resource and I've read it. I was just being thorough and careful before diving in to a room full of politicians, scientists and others. Better me than you hey. I have this vision of John Huizinga or someone stubbornly driving to the mall in the worlds last internal combustion powered car and facing a car park filled with fusion cars. [snip] ...or pushing his car (now with empty gas tank) along the freeway, looking for the last gas station. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: challenging papers
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:25:14 +1100: Hi, [snip] Thanks Ed the Students guide is my main resource and I've read it. I was just being thorough and careful before diving in to a room full of politicians, scientists and others. Better me than you hey. I have this vision of John Huizinga or someone stubbornly driving to the mall in the worlds last internal combustion powered car and facing a car park filled with fusion cars. [snip] ...or pushing his car (now with empty gas tank) along the freeway, looking for the last gas station. ;) No My dad has a bullnose Morris vintage car so when I'm rich and famous I'll have to put together a mail order petrol service for his vintage car club. If I don't dad will kill me. :-D Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
I'm afraid this news is just the tip of the iceberg. Sources say that the boasting by the Saudis that they have plenty of oil is a ruse. You see, in the 70s they almost destroyed themselves with the oil embargo. Suddenly people became aware that we were vulnerable. The people began to conserve. This had a major impact on the income of OPEC. Now, they are fighting the truth of a real shortage. Look at how far the Kuwaitis backed off production in Burgan. They have damaged their field trying to push production. The damage is greater in Arabia. There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:53:24 -0800 Subject: Re: challenging papers snip Now, as for what' s real at the present moment: The Burgan field situation, though seemingly unfit for the NYT, is monumental. http://newenergytimes.com/Newsmedia/2005/KuwaitsBiggestField.htm Smart people are watching news like this and their ears are perked up. The battle is no longer with opposition, it is with ignorance. And intelligent people are starting to get curious. They are starting to consider CF. Watch for this. Help them when the time is right. Steve ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. This is exactly right. See K. Deffey's new book, Beyond Oil. No new refineries, supertankers or pipelines are on order because the oil companies know they will have no use for them. One of the reasons OPEC members overstated their reserves is because their quota was based on their reserves, not their actual production at the moment. - Jed
RE: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers)
It's hard for me to ignore these assumptions. Refineries don't get built because of NIMBYism and , to some extent, regulatory expense. Arianna Huffington even pointed out that some oil companies have pushed to get each others refineries shut down by regulators, to keep the price of refined products high. There's also a high degree of NIMBYism and regulatory obstruction in pipelines and supertankers as well. I HAVE invested in refinery and tanker stocks - and I can affirm that they can be extremely volatile, with long periods in which valuations sit at the bottom of the market. Pipelines and tankers still would be needed if synthetic/alternative fuels are developed - and there's lots of possibility in that field. The Wall Street Journal has pointed out more than once that disinvestment in the oil industry and alternative energy is because of the Saudis, dominately. No business wants to invest in anything that could be wiped out over night by sheiks who could simply turn a spigot and pump oil for the cost of running the machinery. You have to be very motivated or crazy to invest in such an atmosphere. This fact is also why oil has remained relatively cheap in real dollars until recently - the Saudis aren't complete fools and have maintained prices that inhibit alternative development. With China and India in the mix, we now may be able to get beyond the Saudi economic veto that has afflicted alternatives. There also may be a long gap in oil well development, after so many years of neglect, based on volatile prices that inhibited the process. In upstate NY, Fortuna is on a well drilling binge BECAUSE of the price of natural gas. Since such is the case in an area as unlikely as upstate NY, I can safely assume that the rest of the world will see a similar explosion of development. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:58 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Peaked Oil (was: challenging papers) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a good reason why noone is building new refineries. This is exactly right. See K. Deffey's new book, Beyond Oil. No new refineries, supertankers or pipelines are on order because the oil companies know they will have no use for them. One of the reasons OPEC members overstated their reserves is because their quota was based on their reserves, not their actual production at the moment. - Jed
Re: challenging papers
Wesley, read the Student's Guide to Cold Fusion. Most of the major papers are listed there and their importance is described. A simple list of papers would not do much good because it is the relationship between the various observations that is important. An untrained or uninformed person can not see this relationship very easily, thus the need for such reviews. As for the skeptics, no amount of reading will change their minds, so using this method to change minds is a waste of time. Regards, Ed Wesley Bruce wrote: I've said to a friend that most critics of cold fusion can't quote or cite a single paper critical of cold fusion. It's certainly correct in Australia. but is it correct in all cases. What are the papers critical of cold fusion and have we debunked them all in turn? We need a list and counter list on Jeds web site or ISCMNS or some where.
Re: challenging papers
Wesley, At 04:01 PM 11/20/2005, you wrote: I've said to a friend that most critics of cold fusion can't quote or cite a single paper critical of cold fusion. It's certainly correct in Australia. but is it correct in all cases. What are the papers critical of cold fusion and have we debunked them all in turn? We need a list and counter list on Jeds web site or ISCMNS or some where. AFAIK, there are none in the last decade. The feeling I get about former critics is a) that some of them don't want to give it any attention and hope that maybe it will go away. b) that some of them would endorse it if their colleagues would endorse it ...chicken and egg thing... stigma problem. Also, there really seem to be very few critics willing to stick their necks out now and take a strong position against it. Really, no kidding. I watch every word that comes out of their mouths and into print or is heard on the radio. Park is changing his tune. Bard's comments are teetering on lunacy. Huizenga and Happer, I think are the only people in recent years who've been willing to say anything strong against cold fusion, and their comments too, are clearly filled with more invective than substance. You just wait. Another few years and you'll not see anything in print from Huizenga and Happer. Now, as for what' s real at the present moment: The Burgan field situation, though seemingly unfit for the NYT, is monumental. http://newenergytimes.com/Newsmedia/2005/KuwaitsBiggestField.htm Smart people are watching news like this and their ears are perked up. The battle is no longer with opposition, it is with ignorance. And intelligent people are starting to get curious. They are starting to consider CF. Watch for this. Help them when the time is right. Steve
challenging papers
I've said to a friend that most critics of cold fusion can't quote or cite a single paper critical of cold fusion. It's certainly correct in Australia. but is it correct in all cases. What are the papers critical of cold fusion and have we debunked them all in turn? We need a list and counter list on Jeds web site or ISCMNS or some where.
